• 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 is Finally Being Made. (2020 Release)

Halloween continuity is crazy. The most recent only acknowledges the first. The Rob Zombie Halloween 1 and 2 follows the first two I believe. Then there was H20 and Resurrection which were similar and I can’t remember if they acknowledge each other in continuity. Halloween 3 was it’s own thing so 4-6 follow from the original two.
 
Terminator timeline is kinda a shitshow (which sorta works due the to actual story being a time-travel disaster where causality is long gone, and we've never seen the prime timeline), but could say that they did a bit of a reboot with new cast and direction, but latest one is going back to Arnold and Sarah Connor again.

Superman was mentioned. Didn't Aliens kinda hand-wave over parts of the later ones?

I know there's a ton more examples, just struggling with specifics. gotta be old enough a franchise to have tried a reboot, and enough interest or nostalgia in the original to go get the old actors again...
 
Accepting the call

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.


I like one of the youtube comments

"Where Thor failed. Ant-man will succeed"


Actually that would be the second time. Without Ant-man the Avengers would have never been learned how to time travel
 
I saw that video earlier today on a break during work. On Twitter right after it was first posted had no idea at first who it was. Brilliant casting. His comedic sensibilities fits the tone of that original movie the way few modern actors do.
 
I was on pins. Seriously. Ghostbusters has always--who am I kidding? This is a terrible idea. Stop with the re-makes. Three scripts in Hollywood, and they don't even change the names anymore. Gender changes exposed huge problems with cult fanbases (a female Spock or Kirk would not bother me), but it hardly made Ghostbusters fresh.
 
The Borgified Corpse said:
Agreed. The originals are tightly written deadpan masterpieces. The 2016 film is an awkward mix of broad humor and just expecting the cast to randomly improv funny moments. Randomly improvising jokes can often yield some very funny results but I don't think it works when the expectations are this high.



It did respectably for a Paul Feig movie, though not as well as Bridesmaids or The Heat. I think the big problem was how much more expensive Ghostbusters was compared to his other films. Had he been able to keep costs down, I think Sony would have ignored the fan backlash and gone ahead with a sequel to it anyway.

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Director&id=paulfeig.htm
Click to expand...

I think things like The Heat and Spy worked because it sort of parodied a genre whilst also being seriously part of that genre at the same time (especially the heat) without being super specific. Answer The Call was too specific in that it was one film (Ghostbusters) and I think he genuinely didn’t get it...there are two versions of Ghostbusters...there’s the film adults watched in 84 because it was the SNL crew and it did well, and there’s the film kids watched for years afterwards on VHS and watched the cartoon of, and it is funny but also totally real. That these are the same film is part of the charm. It’s why it means so much to people, and he didn’t get that...the attempt to put it through a modern lens also sometimes doesn’t get that, particularly when looking at stuff like the Venkman/Dana relationship. It’s a movie and plays by the fairytale rules of movies from the eighties.
Feig genuinely did his best, but I think he misread the love for the original, misread the original, and in some ways misread the audience in the present day. Then he went wildly crazy and filmed a song and dance number that was cut, cgied in seventies New York for reasons that were never clear and felt like it was from a much more grounded movie that didn’t make it even a little bit to screen (was it the ghost of old sleazy New York that the original film was instrumental in moving past in popular culture? Was it Time Travel? What was going on there?) until eventually it just wasn’t gonna be good enough to pull the money to profit after its costs.
I might rewatch it later, because it’s not a terrible movie...it’s just no where near what it should be for one with those hopes and that title.
 
Professor Zoom said:
Did you SEE Ghostbusters 2? "Masterpiece" isn't what I would call it. An adequate follow up, perhaps. But, not a masterpiece.

To be frank, I don't know why we even call Ghostbusters a franchise. It's 1 great movie, followed up by... whatever it was. The Saturday morning cartoon was good, but...come on.... Ghostbusters wasn't Indiana Jones or Bond or Star Trek.

It was one great movie... The smart play WAS to reboot it. They didn't do a great job of it. Maybe it should just ... be left alone. The time to have done a sequel was 20 years ago.
Click to expand...

Most of us kids at the time loved Ghostbusters 2. I know it’s popular to snark on it, but about 90 percent of the criticisms don’t hold up in the light of day (it’s no where near a retread of the original for example) it’s just...not quite as good as the first one.
 
jaime said:
Most of us kids at the time loved Ghostbusters 2. I know it’s popular to snark on it, but about 90 percent of the criticisms don’t hold up in the light of day (it’s no where near a retread of the original for example) it’s just...not quite as good as the first one.
Click to expand...

I was 14 when it came out. Thought it was terrible then too.

I don’t blame it for being a retread—which it sort of is, they go through a lot to reset the characters as back on the bottom. But there’s a general dullness and Murray sleep walking through it doesn’t help. It’s really not a good movie.

It’s sort of like Phantom Menace. It’s nice seeing all of the stuff that made you happy once, but it really isn’t very good past the nostalgia.
 
Professor Zoom said:
I was 14 when it came out. Thought it was terrible then too.

I don’t blame it for being a retread—which it sort of is, they go through a lot to reset the characters as back on the bottom. But there’s a general dullness and Murray sleep walking through it doesn’t help. It’s really not a good movie.

It’s sort of like Phantom Menace. It’s nice seeing all of the stuff that made you happy once, but it really isn’t very good past the nostalgia.
Click to expand...

I was nine. It stops being anything like a retread pretty quickly tbh. (In fact it isn’t anyway...it’s more a..getting the band back together than a starting fresh)
Maybe you were starting to get too old for the bits that appealed to kids, and the bits for adults were toned down in that one because of the cartoon...plus it was a different generation of adults.
Murray...well...yeah...kind of, but I always found it more of an ensemble thing anyway, even the original barely registers as a comedy for me.
 
StCoop said:
Shooting has started and after seeing this photo it's pretty obvious whose kids these are...

https://twitter.com/JasonReitman/status/1149837684891881473/photo/1
Click to expand...


Yeah those definitely look like Egon's kids or Grandkids. The younger kid looks to be wearing his grandpa's old glasses or a similar style of glasses



Jason Reitman instagramed a photo of Ecto-1

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bz0wMFVp967/?utm_source=ig_embed

mkCJSSh.jpg
 
I never liked the implication that Murray was "the star" and the others were there to support him, and reading about Murray I think that's what he thought as well.

One thing that both Ghostbuters and GBII seem to do that a lot of other movies don't is remember there are economic concerns to deal with. In the first movie, they were getting a mortgage and their food was the last of their petty cash and the whole Walter peckerless Peck sub plot was the bureaucracy accusing them of defrauding people to get their money.
The only reason they hired Winston was they were so busy, the only reason they were so busy is because of Gozer's increased activity, so when Gozer went so did their business and they went broke. Do people fondly remember flash in the pan businesses that go broke? Not usually, which puts them where they started in GBII. It's not fun, but I think it makes sense.
 
Marsden said:
I never liked the implication that Murray was "the star" and the others were there to support him, and reading about Murray I think that's what he thought as well.

One thing that both Ghostbuters and GBII seem to do that a lot of other movies don't is remember there are economic concerns to deal with. In the first movie, they were getting a mortgage and their food was the last of their petty cash and the whole Walter peckerless Peck sub plot was the bureaucracy accusing them of defrauding people to get their money.
The only reason they hired Winston was they were so busy, the only reason they were so busy is because of Gozer's increased activity, so when Gozer went so did their business and they went broke. Do people fondly remember flash in the pan businesses that go broke? Not usually, which puts them where they started in GBII. It's not fun, but I think it makes sense.
Click to expand...

It sort of implies that after the mass event, ghost stuff dropped down...it’s a bit of a stretch to imagine everyone would forget, but that’s just part of the suspension of disbelief. Even if people hadn’t forgotten, a year or 2 with zero ghosts (because there wasn’t any spectral energy left, because it was all turning into ooze under the city) people will just...go back to normal. It works just about tbh, and is dealt with fairly swiftly...it’s a ‘what they did next’ followed with a ‘getting the band back together’.

As to why go that route? Well, it keeps you from keep having to up the stakes and keeps it grounded in our real world as well as the fictitious one. Otherwise you eventually have to extrapolate too many real world repercussions from the discoveries of the first film...pressure groups calling for the release of imprisoned ghosts, branches of law dealing with unfriendly spooks versus benign, wills and inheritance, religious impacts, healthcare impacts (die, get stuck in trap, get body fixed, poses your own body once it’s running again) weapons research, security implications (dead presidents) history research...etc etc.
Or you can just do your best to give it a bit of a reset between films, because of the kind of story you are trying to tell and hope the audience comes along with you (which is basically what happens in the MCU)
 
Marsden said:
I never liked the implication that Murray was "the star" and the others were there to support him, and reading about Murray I think that's what he thought as well.

One thing that both Ghostbuters and GBII seem to do that a lot of other movies don't is remember there are economic concerns to deal with. In the first movie, they were getting a mortgage and their food was the last of their petty cash and the whole Walter peckerless Peck sub plot was the bureaucracy accusing them of defrauding people to get their money.
The only reason they hired Winston was they were so busy, the only reason they were so busy is because of Gozer's increased activity, so when Gozer went so did their business and they went broke. Do people fondly remember flash in the pan businesses that go broke? Not usually, which puts them where they started in GBII. It's not fun, but I think it makes sense.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. The surprise of that was largely the result of The Real Ghostbusters cartoon. Where the guys are portrayed as basically superheroes with no problems. They keep living in the Firehouse and had no real life problems or outside lives.

I would like to see their history, if we hear what has happened the last 30 years, being closer to a rock band. They had their breakups and estrangements. They have a occasional reunions when needed for business and money reasons. They are friends but there is tension too.
 
Which is why I feel it would make sense for them to have gone the franchise route. Because, honestly, I think it makes far less sense for them to still be the only outlet busting ghosts given how big the world is. Would be more interesting too to see other outlets take the calls.
 
Owain Taggart said:
Which is why I feel it would make sense for them to have gone the franchise route. Because, honestly, I think it makes far less sense for them to still be the only outlet busting ghosts given how big the world is. Would be more interesting too to see other outlets take the calls.
Click to expand...


Maybe Chris Hemsworth character from the 2016 movie could start a "Ghostbusters International" branch ;)
 
Why him? It'd be far more sensible for the original team to make the call as a business decision. An increase in ghost activity all over the world overwhelming them that they can't possibly handle all on their own prompting an expansion of sorts and a call for new busters. Then you have the training, the assignments, and then a big epic showdown between a supernatural force requiring the cooperation between the different teams around the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top