http://screenrant.com/bill-murray-shred ... co-144365/
I hope this doesn't spell the end.....
I would like to see it with or without Murray, but without him, it would not be the same =(
I hope this doesn't spell the end.....
I would like to see it with or without Murray, but without him, it would not be the same =(
Matt
Sorry, I have to be the party pooper here. I'm a massive Ghostbusters fan, but this project makes me cringe. I actually can't believe this is actually going ahead. I'm not just objecting to the concept which the guys are going for here in terms of handing down the baton and reducing their role in the Ghostbusters organisation. But I also refer to the studio backing the film. Can they not see that this is a commercial and critical failure in waiting? Seriously, even if you ignore any potential critical response, do they really expect this to rake in any commercially acceptable revenue?
Consider the following:
- There have only ever been 2 Ghostbusters films, both of which were in the 1980s. While I respect the film, Ghostbuster 2 is almost generally seen as a letdown from the excellence of the first film. So really, the legacy of this franchise really rests on its first outing. But again, I think GB2 was scrutinized too harshly because of the brilliance of its predecessor. I enjoyed it. But the fact that it has been so long since the two films have been released and taking into account the luke-warm reaction of its sequel, it's hard to see how the studios can think Ghostbusters has resonated through the times enough to be marketable today. Yes, the series is still memorable and cherished, but anyone below the age of 16 is more likely to be looking at something like Transformers, Harry Potter or Lord Of The Rings because it is a product of their generation. Just look at the state of popular music. Do you think anyone in that age group is going to spend time listening to U2, Nirvana, REM, The Smashing Pumpkins or Oasis when the airwaves are plagued with the likes of Ke$ha or Katy Perry? Hell no! This to me is analogous to the state of the Ghostbusters franchise in 2011.
- Now if any of the above is not enough to shy studios away from a third GB film, then surely the fact that this film involves a collaboration between Dan Ackroyd, Harold Ramis and potentially Ivan Reitman should serve as more than an adequate warning shot across the bow. For me personally, the final insult was Blues Brothers 2000; absolutely deplorable and unforgivable. If you want a model to base your expectations of GB3 on, then rent the Blues Brothers sequel because they are essentially the same film in that they attempt to unite young and old while also replacing a former cast member. It was one of those films where I almost walked out of the cinema. To the film's credit, the soundtrack was almost as good as the original - truly, it was brilliant. But I don't go to the cinema to see musicals, I go to see MOVIES! Then we have Harold Ramis - Year Zero. Yup, enough said. As for Ivan Reitman, he's certainly the lesser of the offenders in this trio of convicts. While past his prime, his last few films have been...ok. Nothing particularly notable but there's some level of enjoyment to get out of them. But they're certainly not keepers, but if they're on television, i'd watch. That is; Evolution and maybe
No Strings Attached only because of my Natalie Portman crush.
- Of course, there is the obvious point, the whole damn concept. Unlike Star Trek or Doctor Who, Ghostbusters is not a franchise that can easily be made "new". For instance, with Star Trek and Doctor Who, part of the experience of these franchises is the constant change that the audience witnesses. New crew, new doctor, new ship, new enemies - it's all a part of the transition. The audience expects this and even excites them because it (hopefully) suggests a new take on a classic formula. The same cannot be said for GB. As mentioned above, there are only 2 films, both of which have the same cast. Therefore, the audience is accustomed to a very specific configuration of Ghostbusters unlike the various Star Trek crews or Doctor Who portrayals we've had over the decades past. For us, sure, we MIGHT get a kick out of seeing the old team back together. Frankly, had this film not been a passing down film, I'd be more open to it because it would be a film that sends the team into retirement. Instead, it just comes across as a crass attempt to cash in on a franchise that is long dead apart from the various nostalgic fan base around the world.
- Finally, 2011. Yep, the style of production now as compared to the mid to late 1980s is a totally different beast. Even Indiana Jones and the Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull fell casualty to the standards of today. That is, an increased use of blu-screen and CGI in place of actual location shooting and use of scale models for various action sequences. There is no way Ghostbusters can evade this. This film will be saturated in CGI. You can depend on it. As with the Star Wars prequels, GB3 will elicit a robotic, synthetic tone that has little to do with its parent films.
Consider the following:
- There have only ever been 2 Ghostbusters films, both of which were in the 1980s. While I respect the film, Ghostbuster 2 is almost generally seen as a letdown from the excellence of the first film. So really, the legacy of this franchise really rests on its first outing. But again, I think GB2 was scrutinized too harshly because of the brilliance of its predecessor. I enjoyed it. But the fact that it has been so long since the two films have been released and taking into account the luke-warm reaction of its sequel, it's hard to see how the studios can think Ghostbusters has resonated through the times enough to be marketable today. Yes, the series is still memorable and cherished, but anyone below the age of 16 is more likely to be looking at something like Transformers, Harry Potter or Lord Of The Rings because it is a product of their generation. Just look at the state of popular music. Do you think anyone in that age group is going to spend time listening to U2, Nirvana, REM, The Smashing Pumpkins or Oasis when the airwaves are plagued with the likes of Ke$ha or Katy Perry? Hell no! This to me is analogous to the state of the Ghostbusters franchise in 2011.
- Now if any of the above is not enough to shy studios away from a third GB film, then surely the fact that this film involves a collaboration between Dan Ackroyd, Harold Ramis and potentially Ivan Reitman should serve as more than an adequate warning shot across the bow. For me personally, the final insult was Blues Brothers 2000; absolutely deplorable and unforgivable. If you want a model to base your expectations of GB3 on, then rent the Blues Brothers sequel because they are essentially the same film in that they attempt to unite young and old while also replacing a former cast member. It was one of those films where I almost walked out of the cinema. To the film's credit, the soundtrack was almost as good as the original - truly, it was brilliant. But I don't go to the cinema to see musicals, I go to see MOVIES! Then we have Harold Ramis - Year Zero. Yup, enough said. As for Ivan Reitman, he's certainly the lesser of the offenders in this trio of convicts. While past his prime, his last few films have been...ok. Nothing particularly notable but there's some level of enjoyment to get out of them. But they're certainly not keepers, but if they're on television, i'd watch. That is; Evolution and maybe
No Strings Attached only because of my Natalie Portman crush.
- Of course, there is the obvious point, the whole damn concept. Unlike Star Trek or Doctor Who, Ghostbusters is not a franchise that can easily be made "new". For instance, with Star Trek and Doctor Who, part of the experience of these franchises is the constant change that the audience witnesses. New crew, new doctor, new ship, new enemies - it's all a part of the transition. The audience expects this and even excites them because it (hopefully) suggests a new take on a classic formula. The same cannot be said for GB. As mentioned above, there are only 2 films, both of which have the same cast. Therefore, the audience is accustomed to a very specific configuration of Ghostbusters unlike the various Star Trek crews or Doctor Who portrayals we've had over the decades past. For us, sure, we MIGHT get a kick out of seeing the old team back together. Frankly, had this film not been a passing down film, I'd be more open to it because it would be a film that sends the team into retirement. Instead, it just comes across as a crass attempt to cash in on a franchise that is long dead apart from the various nostalgic fan base around the world.
- Finally, 2011. Yep, the style of production now as compared to the mid to late 1980s is a totally different beast. Even Indiana Jones and the Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull fell casualty to the standards of today. That is, an increased use of blu-screen and CGI in place of actual location shooting and use of scale models for various action sequences. There is no way Ghostbusters can evade this. This film will be saturated in CGI. You can depend on it. As with the Star Wars prequels, GB3 will elicit a robotic, synthetic tone that has little to do with its parent films.
I agree with you on a lot of the aspects.
I think they got this idea because of the well received Ghostbusters Video game that was released a couple years ago. (Great game for ghostbusters fans BTW)
I would prefer your idea too of a film sending them on one last adventure into retirement.
I know I may be incredibly disappointed with the film, but I just have an itch for it.
Crystal Skull was a decent film and I enjoyed it but it was not as good as its predecessors.... you do have a point there.
I don't think they should try to bring back the franchise for a new generation.... I don't like that idea much either.... I just wish they would give a tribute with a final film, making it a trilogy that ended it.
I have the same thoughts with a final X-Files film, bringing the franchise to a close with the final invasion mentioned in the last episode. They could make a couple or 3 films based on that, but it should be a final closing. A tribute to the fans.
Anyway, this is my hope for the film... Maybe Murray can convince them to do this instead and he would be part of it.
What are your thoughts?
I think they got this idea because of the well received Ghostbusters Video game that was released a couple years ago. (Great game for ghostbusters fans BTW)
I would prefer your idea too of a film sending them on one last adventure into retirement.
I know I may be incredibly disappointed with the film, but I just have an itch for it.
Crystal Skull was a decent film and I enjoyed it but it was not as good as its predecessors.... you do have a point there.
I don't think they should try to bring back the franchise for a new generation.... I don't like that idea much either.... I just wish they would give a tribute with a final film, making it a trilogy that ended it.
I have the same thoughts with a final X-Files film, bringing the franchise to a close with the final invasion mentioned in the last episode. They could make a couple or 3 films based on that, but it should be a final closing. A tribute to the fans.
Anyway, this is my hope for the film... Maybe Murray can convince them to do this instead and he would be part of it.
What are your thoughts?
Matt
Well...
Firstly, regarding Indiana Jones, I liked the fourth film. It's my least favourite of the series, but I couldn't hate it like a lot of the other fans did because I got what I expected. That is, a fun action adventure that didn't take itself too seriously. That's precisely what the trailer promised and I got it.
But, as for the GB video game, I still don't have it but i've got to get around to it.
There is room for a last Ghosbusters film, but it has to be handled in a very specific way. That method is the way you described. A third film to send the guys into retirement. The original cast with the original crew. I like this idea, but sadly that's not what we're getting. Again, watch Blues Brothers 2000...you'll see what I mean.
Firstly, regarding Indiana Jones, I liked the fourth film. It's my least favourite of the series, but I couldn't hate it like a lot of the other fans did because I got what I expected. That is, a fun action adventure that didn't take itself too seriously. That's precisely what the trailer promised and I got it.
But, as for the GB video game, I still don't have it but i've got to get around to it.
There is room for a last Ghosbusters film, but it has to be handled in a very specific way. That method is the way you described. A third film to send the guys into retirement. The original cast with the original crew. I like this idea, but sadly that's not what we're getting. Again, watch Blues Brothers 2000...you'll see what I mean.
Here is my serious pitch for GB3, I am not kidding. Instead of making a GB movie as such, do a movie that's a tribute to it instead where it's about the making of GB3 that never came to fruition. They have the writers for The Office on board so the necessary people that are all there. The movie could be like a mocu-mentary where it revolves around Dan and Harold trying to make GB3 a reality but only to continually hit road blocks (such as Bill Murray). It would sort of be like the Seinfeld "reunion" we saw on Curb Your Enthusiasm.
I even have the perfect title - BUSTED.
I even have the perfect title - BUSTED.
I'd get a laugh or three out of that. Every new ''chapter'' ought to start with an age and weight count, as they grow older and fatter with each passing year and road block.
It should also feature a cameo by Eddy Murphy, saying he has no regrets refusing to appear in THAT one. It would be doubly amusing, considering the recent Oscars debacle.
It should also feature a cameo by Eddy Murphy, saying he has no regrets refusing to appear in THAT one. It would be doubly amusing, considering the recent Oscars debacle.
Part-Time Nomad
I do agree that GB3 has to be done in a particular way. But, we do seem to be missing the point that old Ghostbusters can still do a movie. For example, the Ghostbusters take care of the spirits of the departed, but at the age of the actors (and thereby, the characters), there becomes a need to question their own mortality & whether or not they could bust the ghost of a fellow Ghostbuster if the situation arose. They know, however, that simply closing down is not an option because they have stood as the only line of defense against ghostly oppression in two movies already, not to mention possible unseen occurrances between GB2 & GB3.
If Bill Murray doesn't want to be in GB3, that's fine with me. Did he bring a lot of life to the previous films? Yes. But there are ways of scripting & filming a movie that can selectively remove him from it while still honoring the character Peter Venkman. For example, since the new movie is meant to pass the torch, all things old must become new again, so you'd at least consider replacing the Ecto-1 with a newer vehicle. This gives the opportunity of killing Venkman via side impact while answering a call at the beginning of the film, which then leads to the others questioning their own mortality and whether or not they could bust his ghost even if they had to, which then also leads to the recruitment phase of the story. This also enables Venkman's ghost to make appearances throughout the movie, as well as make a sacrifice play at the end to save the new team & beat the big bad ghost of the film, showing that even as a ghost, he chooses to go down a Ghostbuster.
The way I see things, the first film had a theme about it which gave it part of its magic. There was a sense of bringing new life to that which had none in that film. Whether you look at the Ecto-1 having been a clunker before its restoration; or the firehouse being a "building [that] should be condemned" before its fixer-upper; or even the fact that the Ghostbusters were broke at the time of their first call, so close to losing it all before they even got started really; there was an underlying theme linking all these things that made up the Ghostbusters.
I feel that GB2 lacked this theme, or any real theme, for that matter. But if GB3 can capture one and make it solid, I feel it has a great chance for success.
My two cents,
Hammerhead
If Bill Murray doesn't want to be in GB3, that's fine with me. Did he bring a lot of life to the previous films? Yes. But there are ways of scripting & filming a movie that can selectively remove him from it while still honoring the character Peter Venkman. For example, since the new movie is meant to pass the torch, all things old must become new again, so you'd at least consider replacing the Ecto-1 with a newer vehicle. This gives the opportunity of killing Venkman via side impact while answering a call at the beginning of the film, which then leads to the others questioning their own mortality and whether or not they could bust his ghost even if they had to, which then also leads to the recruitment phase of the story. This also enables Venkman's ghost to make appearances throughout the movie, as well as make a sacrifice play at the end to save the new team & beat the big bad ghost of the film, showing that even as a ghost, he chooses to go down a Ghostbuster.
The way I see things, the first film had a theme about it which gave it part of its magic. There was a sense of bringing new life to that which had none in that film. Whether you look at the Ecto-1 having been a clunker before its restoration; or the firehouse being a "building [that] should be condemned" before its fixer-upper; or even the fact that the Ghostbusters were broke at the time of their first call, so close to losing it all before they even got started really; there was an underlying theme linking all these things that made up the Ghostbusters.
I feel that GB2 lacked this theme, or any real theme, for that matter. But if GB3 can capture one and make it solid, I feel it has a great chance for success.
My two cents,
Hammerhead
They could always make the Ghostbusters Ghosts, all three of them... And with that, considering they would be animations, they could all be slender and fit like the good old days... Then have Rick Moranis and Ernie Hudson as living Ghostbusters and they all team up to take down some enemy where they need the power of a ghost along with the traditional Ghostbuster tools...
Then at the end after all the baddies are defeated you have the 3 Ghost Ghostbusters go into the light and pass over... And if they want to they can do one of those scenes after the credits that show Rick and Ernie training 3 or 4 newbies, just so they can leave it open to further stories down the line somewhere...
Then at the end after all the baddies are defeated you have the 3 Ghost Ghostbusters go into the light and pass over... And if they want to they can do one of those scenes after the credits that show Rick and Ernie training 3 or 4 newbies, just so they can leave it open to further stories down the line somewhere...
The Paved Straight Road, Won't Always Get You Farther Than The Winding Dirt Road...
Can You Run Your Game??? Click Here And Find Out...
*Note, Not All Games Have Been Tested & Therefore May Not Be Listed...
Can You Run Your Game??? Click Here And Find Out...
*Note, Not All Games Have Been Tested & Therefore May Not Be Listed...
Ok, if this is true, i'm gone:
http://www.grantland.com/blog/hollywood ... tbusters-3
http://www.grantland.com/blog/hollywood ... tbusters-3
"Even more intriguingly, Aykroyd hinted that Bill Murray may not return as Peter Venkman, and that the character could be played by a different actor, a la Jack Ryan."
