• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Ghostbusters 3 back in development hell?

^ I realize this. I'm just saying that they don't have to do it like that like most reboots are done. Also if they don't need the other actors do one then why haven't they already gone ahead and done a remake? They must know the demand for a "Ghostbusters" movie is there?
 
Yeah, I don't want Bill Murray's character to die and return as a ghost. I personally think that would undermine the series, and it's just a bad idea to begin with. It's an ensemble cast and it should stay and ensemble cast. Plus I don't want to see a new generation of Ghostbusters as it would most likely look like Ghostbusters but not have the same feel. If they don't want to do it, then don't do it. I don't want them forcing something to happen as it's likely to zap any chemistry and enthusiasm of doing it.

Though I heard Ernie Hudson talking about it recently and he said they're doing it, that they were all aboard. I think the reason they can't do it without Bill Murray is because he owns part of the rights to the franchise. And I think that may be why he feels he has a lot of say in what goes on with the 3rd.
 
I'm still hoping for them hammering out these differences, petty or otherwise, and getting us GB:3 next year.
 
If Bill has really been the hold up, I say they film him dying, have him do some green screen stuff and tell him he'll be added in later as a ghost, and simply only use the dying part and cut of the rest of the shit out and not tell him.
 
Harold Ramis says the film has stayed on track, contradict reports GB:3 isn't happening.

December 2012 is the plan.
Last week Bill Murray tried to convince the world he was not the major obstacle in the way of Ghostbusters 3. In fact, he informed people at a press conference that he was getting a bit bored with all the mucking about, but conceded it would be fun to do.
Murray went on to hint that Harold Ramis’s last movie, Year One, was the reason the studio got cold (dead?) feet over another movie. Why? Because he’d hired the same writers to bash out a draft of our beloved 1980s classic (yes, classic, the sequel was pants).
Now Harold Ramis has contradicted news and sense (probably) by telling ABC 7 that pre-production work is going on with Ghostbusters 3 and that it’ll be out for Christmas 2012…when we might all be dead because of the Mayan calendar thingy:
“Well, there’s been a lot of talk about a third Ghostbusters film, which has now become real. It’s… I can say with some certainty that there will be a third movie. It won’t be out until Christmas 2012, but the work is going on now.”
 
Some certainly but again not one hundred percent done deal locked and that won't come until all parties involved can agree on a script. My question is...are the "Year One" writers (and I've still not seen that movies but my friends tell me it was good) still involved at this point or has the studio contracted other writers? I don't think we've heard an update on the script since the end of last year when all the Venkman dies and returns as a Ghost rumors started which I think was started by Signourney Weaver and confirmed sort of by Bill.
 
^ Yeah, I think that has always been the "back-up plan" if Murray didn't want to commit fully to a GB3. Of course, this was when the Hellbent script was being developed, so who knows.
 
^ I read a really bad fan fic years ago that was someone speculation on what "Ghostbusters: Hellbent" was from the plot details on it...I'd imagine that the actual script is somewhat better :)
 
^ I don't know about the fan fic was, but from what I have heard about Hellbent, it was nothing good. From what I heard, the biggest problem is that the original GBs take a very big backseat and focus on new GBs. Now, while that isn't a problem necessarily, the new characters were very bland, interchangeable, and were hardly developed (they didn't even have last names in the script). Granted, that could have changed in future drafts, but that does not sound like a promising start.
 
I think that the fan script had the characters from "Extreme Ghostbusters" it...I remember the wheelchair dude who's name escapes me.
 
Would think that introducing new Ghostbusters would be an important part of GB3. Allows them to play with the old cast one more time, but also spin it into new, cheaper sequels with the new actors...
 
^ I don't know about the fan fic was, but from what I have heard about Hellbent, it was nothing good. From what I heard, the biggest problem is that the original GBs take a very big backseat and focus on new GBs. Now, while that isn't a problem necessarily, the new characters were very bland, interchangeable, and were hardly developed (they didn't even have last names in the script). Granted, that could have changed in future drafts, but that does not sound like a promising start.

Hellbent was truly awful, awful enough that Ivan Reitman told Aykroyd that he'd rather jump off a bridge than shoot it. That it was never made is something for which I'm thankful every single day. I don't know how Eisenberg and Stupnitsky have written the "Venkman dies" plot, but it can't possibly be worse than how it was handled in Hellbent.

But there are elements of it that will be in Ghostbusters 3, whether we like it or not. The biggest one is the "new crew."

Unfortunately, while we all want to see the original Ghostbusters back in action one last time, that's not what Sony wants. Sony has been very clear that if Ghostbusters 3 is going to be made, it's going to be for the purpose of re-launching the franchise with a new cast, using the originals as supporting roles. Even Ramis admitted that in a recent interview on WGN; he said that the goal was to "rejuvenate" the franchise and take it in a new direction. We want a nostalgic trip down memory lane; Sony wants a new franchise it can pump out every few years and make some bucks. I'm guessing that's why Sony is now trying to push Reitman off the project; it wants a "comfortable," risk-free director to herald the new franchise (if it ever happens).

I remember reading somewhere that Ramis and Murray had a major fall out after they did Groundhog Day. I might be wrong though.

They had a major falling-out during the production of Groundhog Day. Murray's feeling was that the film should be a deep, philosophical drama with a lot of moralizing, while Ramis insisted that Murray play the role as written, as a comedy. This led to a lot of heated exchanges on the set, culminating in a final blow-up immediately after production wrapped, and they didn't speak to one another for more than ten years.

That tiff, by the way, is how the whole "Venkman dies in Ghostbusters III" idea came about. Ages ago, a reporter asked Murray about the potential of doing another sequel. He said, "Sure, tell Harold I'll do it if they kill me in the first reel." It figures that an offhand joke has become the one plot element that has existed in every single script permutation over the last several years.
 
I really wish there wasn't talk of handing over to a new and younger crew. It's such a shitty idea, it's almost unbelivable. I don't think it has ever worked in any movie franchise ever. As if anyone wants to watch Ghosbusters without, y'know, the Ghostbusters being in it.

If the original cast are to be marginalised in their own film (much like Indy was to a lesser extent) they may as well not bother.
 
Think some guy named "Nimoy" just did it recently, seemed to work out ok for that movie. Then again, it wasn't a franchise anyone here likes, so... ;)
 
Last edited:
I've heard of a Nimoy fellow. Tell me more about this Nemoy guy; I'd like to hear about this franchise.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top