[partyweb]

For once I have to agree with Pincho. Handled badly this could be a gargantuan flop. Just look at Evolution (which is a bit of an unofficial Ghostbusters III in a way).

The original movie was such a success because of the hype, the hysteria, the originality (sort-of), the chemistry of the actors, and the song. That is such a tough mix to get right. I can see why this 3rd instalment has sat in development hell for so long.

[Pincho Paxton]

[QUOTE=mhsslinky;7674049]

Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton

The statement can be made about just about every film of all time. It's an incredibly simplistic arguement when clearly there was more to Ghostbusters than that. Was The Lord of the Rings a poor story cos it was about a ring and a short person? Raiders of the Lost Ark cos it was about a box and a ghost?!

You are first taking a very large book with hundreds of elements in it LOTR.. down to a ring, and a short person. And Raider's down to a box, and a ghost.

Nope.. Ghostbusters is about a single style.. you go into a building, and catch a ghost in a box. You know it's going to happen.. years before the movie is finished. The only thing you don't know is what the ghost will look like.

Raiders.. could go in multiple directions. In fact, there are too many possibilities to even give you some examples.

[SlinkDaddy]

Nobody is saying it wont be a flop partyweb, it's just the way that some people can be so sure something will be a flop when there is absolutely nothing to go on at this stage whatsoever. In a way almost hoping it will be one.

Pincho, Ghostbusters didn't have the most complex of stories i'm not saying it did, but the point I made earlier still stands. There was only one ghost caught in a box (Slimer) that was given any real screen time in the entire film!!!!! The film wasn't a series of them going into buildings and catching ghosts with a box at all.

[shdwarrior187]

Bad idea all of them are like 60 or 70

[raigraphixs]

Originally Posted by shdwarrior187

Bad idea all of them are like 60 or 70

Let me guess what age Indy is

maybe they will hire some new young bloods to hand over the ghost busting business, still would like some off the original cast in there somewhere.

[SibTiger33]

As much as i would love to see this i just think they are all too old for the roles

unless they change it around so that they are training a new recruit (a bit like the new ghostbusters game)

[Solomon Grundy]

Originally Posted by shdwarrior187

Bad idea all of them are like 60 or 70

Bill Murray - 58
Dan Aykroyd - 56
Harold Ramis - 64

Getting on a bit but it was never really an action movie anyway...there weren't many/any big stunts.

[CrazyHorse]

Still no response to my question of what was CGI in 'Ghostbusters' I see Pincho.

Hmmm, I wonder why that is?

[Pincho Paxton]

Originally Posted by CrazyHorse

Still no response to my question of what was CGI in 'Ghostbusters' I see Pincho.

Hmmm, I wonder why that is?

It's all Matte effects. It was still the effects that made it popular. I never really found the actual film that good even in the 80's.

[CrazyHorse]

Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton

It's all Matte effects. It was still the effects that made it popular. I never really found the actual film that good even in the 80's.

So your original statement...

"It was only popular because of the new wave of CGI. Now the CGI thing is old it will require a really good story.. and it's unlikely that there is a good story to be found in a box, and a ghost."

...was just ill-informed nonsense. No change there then.

For what it's worth I think the original Ghostbusters is a pretty good movie that still holds up well today. Is it perfect..a ground breaking masterpiece?...well, no. It's actually a little episodic in its structure and the effects work varies from exceptional (Stay Puft Marshmallow Man/Slimer) to fairly poor (Demon Dogs - the life size puppets are great, but the stop motion versions have always looked a bit ropey with poor matte work integrating them into the main action. Not Richard Edlund's finest work.).

But the main question should be is it still funny? In my opinion yes. The script is witty and contains some great lines, the main cast are all on fine form (especially Bill Murray) and Sigourney is just so damn hot!

I agree that Ghostbusters 2 is a step down from the first movie, but it still has its moments..again mainly down to the cast.

Which is why I think that if part 3 does actually get made, it would be a shame if none of the original cast members returned. As has been stated, the first 2 films aren't action movies - they're comedies! - so it shouldn't matter that the three main guys are all older and heavier. If anything it could add to the humour.

In the end it will all be down to the script. If someone can get that right, with a decent plot and sharp dialogue, the old cast would be more tempted to sign on I think. And if that happens, then I'm all for it.

[Pincho Paxton]

Originally Posted by CrazyHorse

So your original statement...

"It was only popular because of the new wave of CGI. Now the CGI thing is old it will require a really good story.. and it's unlikely that there is a good story to be found in a box, and a ghost."

...was just ill-informed nonsense. No change there then.

For what it's worth I think the original Ghostbusters is a pretty good movie that still holds up well today. Is it perfect..a ground breaking masterpiece?...well, no. It's actually a little episodic in its structure and the effects work varies from exceptional (Stay Puft Marshmallow Man/Slimer) to fairly poor (Demon Dogs - the life size puppets are great, but the stop motion versions have always looked a bit ropey with poor matte work integrating them into the main action. Not Richard Edlund's finest work.).

But the main question should be is it still funny? In my opinion yes. The script is witty and contains some great lines, the main cast are all on fine form (especially Bill Murray) and Sigourney is just so damn hot!

I agree that Ghostbusters 2 is a step down from the first movie, but it still has its moments..again mainly down to the cast.

Which is why I think that if part 3 does actually get made, it would be a shame if none of the original cast members returned. As has been stated, the first 2 films aren't action movies - they're comedies! - so it shouldn't matter that the three main guys are all older and heavier. If anything it could add to the humour.

In the end it will all be down to the script. If someone can get that right, with a decent plot and sharp dialogue, the old cast would be more tempted to sign on I think. And if that happens, then I'm all for it.

was just ill-informed nonsense. No change there then.

I think that CGI, and Matte effects shake hands, so the sentence with errors retain the same opinion.

[SlinkDaddy]

Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton

Nope.. Ghostbusters is about a single style.. you go into a building, and catch a ghost in a box. You know it's going to happen.. years before the movie is finished. The only thing you don't know is what the ghost will look like.

I still think this is a load of . As I said yesterday there is only one sequence in the film that this happened in, ONE! As has already been said a few times Ghostbusters is a comedy and a good one at that, not an action film. But what really gets my goat is that it is trying to suggest the ending was predictable.

How many styles does Raiders have?! It's an action film with a bit of humour. Ghostbusters is a comedy film with some action thrown in. I just don't see where your point is founded whatsoever.

[Battle]

Originally Posted by mhsslinky

I But what really gets my goat is that it is trying to suggest the ending was predictable.

Agreed. I dont know of anyone who saw a 500 foot tall Marshmellow man comming at the end of the movie

[Pincho Paxton]

Originally Posted by mhsslinky

I still think this is a load of . As I said yesterday there is only one sequence in the film that this happened in, ONE! As has already been said a few times Ghostbusters is a comedy and a good one at that, not an action film. But what really gets my goat is that it is trying to suggest the ending was predictable.

How many styles does Raiders have?! It's an action film with a bit of humour. Ghostbusters is a comedy film with some action thrown in. I just don't see where your point is founded whatsoever.

The ending is predictable in the sense that they have to destroy the biggest, nastiest ghost, and that each remake has to have a bigger nastier ghost at the end. Because the end of a movie is its fundamental element, it's hard to make sequels. It's hard to make something original from it.

Indi (not Raiders) does not really have an outline, it's fuzzy. Indi is looking for inanimate objects, so the whole movie is not based around them. The movies follow his journey, and a journey to find objects is very fuzzy. A journey to find ghosts leads to a confrontation with a ghost.

I do respect your belief in Ghostbusters 3 however, I have thought long, and hard about it, and there might be something new to add to it.

[SlinkDaddy]

Originally Posted by Battle

Agreed. I dont know of anyone who saw a 500 foot tall Marshmellow man comming at the end of the movie

.

[SlinkDaddy]

Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton

The ending is predictable in the sense that they have to destroy the biggest, nastiest ghost, and that each remake has to have a bigger nastier ghost at the end. Because the end of a movie is its fundamental element, it's hard to make sequels. It's hard to make something original from it.

Indi (not Raiders) does not really have an outline, it's fuzzy. Indi is looking for inanimate objects, so the whole movie is not based around them. The movies follow his journey, and a journey to find objects is very fuzzy. A journey to find ghosts leads to a confrontation with a ghost.

I do respect your belief in Ghostbusters 3 however, I have thought long, and hard about it, and there might be something new to add to it.

I can see where you are coming from but the arguement can be used for most films, certainly sequels, ie Batman, Spiderman, Superman etc etc etc. As we've seen with TDK it is possible to improve on the orginal film(s) with a sequel, even when you know what is the likely format and ending of the film. The key is the script and then how the story is told, which is where Ghostbusters 3 will succeed or "flop". In the Indy films as you say they follow his quest to find an object but you know at the end of the film he is gonna find what he seeks. There is a journey made by the characters in Ghostbusters to the ending, with humourous dialogue and some challenges etc along the way. As has been said earlier the films do feel a bit "paint by numbers" but they are still a great watch all the same, even now.

Lets face it, it is pretty rare to watch a mainstream film where you don't know how it is gonna end fairly early on. In films like Ghostbusters the ending isn't necessarily the fundamental part of the film as you suggest. For example in the James Bond films you know at the end he will prevail but we all still watch them because of the journey he goes on and the trials he faces to prevail at the end. As such the ending of the film is not the fundamental part of it.

[Pincho Paxton]

Originally Posted by mhsslinky

I can see where you are coming from but the arguement can be used for most films, certainly sequels, ie Batman, Spiderman, Superman etc etc etc. As we've seen with TDK it is possible to improve on the orginal film(s) with a sequel, even when you know what is the likely format and ending of the film. The key is the script and then how the story is told, which is where Ghostbusters 3 will succeed or "flop". In the Indy films as you say they follow his quest to find an object but you know at the end of the film he is gonna find what he seeks. There is a journey made by the characters in Ghostbusters to the ending, with humourous dialogue and some challenges etc along the way. As has been said earlier the films do feel a bit "paint by numbers" but they are still a great watch all the same, even now.

Lets face it, it is pretty rare to watch a mainstream film where you don't know how it is gonna end fairly early on. In films like Ghostbusters the ending isn't necessairly the fundamental part of the film as you suggest. For example in the James Bond films you know at the end he will prevail but we all still watch them because of the journey he goes on and the trials he faces to prevail at the end. As such the ending of the film is not the fundamental part of it.

I hope it's good, we all want good movies.

[SlinkDaddy]

Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton

I hope it's good, we all want good movies.

Too right.

[Battlestar]

Ghostbusters was well-received and holds a 93% Fresh Rating at Rotten Tomatoes. In her review for the New York Times, Janet Maslin wrote, "Its jokes, characters and story line are as wispy as the ghosts themselves, and a good deal less substantial."[8] Newsweek magazine's David Ansen wrote, "Everyone seems to be working toward the same goal of relaxed insanity. Ghostbusters is wonderful summer nonsense."

Ghostbusters was an enormous financial success. During its first release, it grossed $229,242,989 at the box office, making it the second highest-grossing film of 1984, behind only Beverly Hills Cop. At the time, these figures put it within the top ten highest-grossing films of all-time. A re-release in 1985 made it surpass Beverly Hills Cop in total gross, making Ghostbusters the most successful comedy of the 1980s.


In 2000, readers of Total Film magazine voted Ghostbusters the 44th greatest comedy film of all time. The American Film Institute ranked it 28th in its list of the top 100 comedies of all time (in their "AFI's 100 Years... 100 Laughs" list)] In 2005, IGN voted Ghostbusters the greatest comedy ever. In 2006, Bravo ranked Ghostbusters 76 on their "100 Funniest Movies" list. Entertainment Weekly ranked it as the Funniest Movie of the Past 25 Years.

[Revaan]

The original four have to be involved in some capacity for it to work well. I think maybe the possibility of playing cameo roles as parents, and their children take up the mantle...?

I loved ghostbusters as a kid... every kid did. So no reason to think this cant be a success...

OK, WHO BROUGHT THE DOG

[Revaan]

ps. I could never make out why they brought in the 5th guy when there was no need at that point in the movie or even at all.

I suspect the director realised he was missing the token black guy in the middle of shooting.

[SlinkDaddy]

Originally Posted by revilal

ps. I could never make out why they brought in the 5th guy when there was no need at that point in the movie or even at all.

I suspect the director realised he was missing the token black guy in the middle of shooting.

The "5th" guy was actually the 4th Ghostbuster, Winston Zeddmore. There were 3 scientists originally and they hired a 4th guy due to the high workload as far as I remember.

I think it is important that the main 3 (Murray, Aykroyd, Ramis) play some part in the new film as people are saying but I don't think Ernie Hudson (Zeddmore) being in it is that critical to it being a success personally. I would like to see all 4 of them in it myself though, just purely speaking in terms of the film being a success I don't think Hudson is critical. Zeddmore's character did feel a little tacked on but he did have some decent lines later in the film.

[Pincho Paxton]

Originally Posted by revilal

The original four have to be involved in some capacity for it to work well. I think maybe the possibility of playing cameo roles as parents, and their children take up the mantle...?

I loved ghostbusters as a kid... every kid did. So no reason to think this cant be a success...

OK, WHO BROUGHT THE DOG

When I attempted to come up with a good storyline for Ghostbusters 3, I came up with an idea, and I think it works with a new, or old cast. I wanted to make sure that the film went in a different direction to the other films, and I came up with this, which I think would be quite good. I've spoilered it, because I might be right.....

 

The film opens in a large, well decorated home to an elderly couple who have entertained the ghosts in their home for many years. the ghosts are nice.. it has a Beetlejuice feel. The elderly couple eventually die, and join the ghosts in the house. The house is then taken over by a very nervous couple, afraid of anything that moves. the ghosts try to be nice to them, but they run out of the house screaming. This then leads to a montage of attempts to remove the ghosts, who gradually get meaner, and meaner after a series of training in being scary. The first montage is the Exorcism, and has an Exorcist feel to it, but the Exorcists leave with their hair turned white, and this goes on. The house slowly turns from a nice house into an Amityville house. During this time a new team of ghost hunters is created called The Ghost Exterminators. These are the meanest ghost hunters on the planet. They literally send the ghosts to hell with a tube that shoots ghosts down into the ground... some of these ghosts were never bad enough to go to hell. Hell is piling up with good people. Now the Ghostbusters, and The Ghost Exterminators are in competition with each other to rid the world of ghosts. But Ghostbusters brainy scientists are worried about the effect of sending ghosts directly to hell. "Not all ghosts are bad!" Basically, the reason for this sort of story was so that the ghosts have a bigger part in the story, and so it doesn't matter if the Ghostbusters are new actors, or not. Another reason was to get away from inventing bigger, scarier ghosts, but rather take the story on a road that is based more on justice, and judgement. Make your own end up... But in my end, the nice ghosts are taken in those little ghost boxes to a new home to be released, but The Ghostbusters are given credit for destroying them. And finally the good ghosts in Hell cannot be held there permanently, and are all released at once to seek revenge on The Ghost Exterminators, who in turn have to get The Ghosbusters help to their embarrassment.

I came up with this story so that I have made a good attempt to dismiss my previous posts, and perhaps mhsslinky will be happy with my attempt.

[Revaan]

Originally Posted by mhsslinky

The "5th" guy was actually the 4th Ghostbuster, Winston Zeddmore. There were 3 scientists originally and they hired a 4th guy due to the high workload as far as I remember.

I think it is important that the main 3 (Murray, Aykroyd, Ramis) play some part in the new film as people are saying but I don't think Ernie Hudson (Zeddmore) being in it is that critical to it being a success personally. I would like to see all 4 of them in it myself though, just purely speaking in terms of the film being a success I don't think Hudson in critical. Zeddmore's character did feel a little tacked on but he did have some decent lines later in the film.

Oops, yeh, the 4th guy... I know what you mean but it would have been better if he'd been in from the start.

BTW, check out the original movie poster ;

[SlinkDaddy]

You've certainly given it some thought Pincho, nice one. It's a nice idea, however it feels more like The Frighteners 2 to me. In as far as it tells the story more from the Ghosts point of view. Which would be a good film too.

I think it's the dialogue and the way the main characters interact that is critical for me. A strong plot wasn't overly critical in the first one.

[Pincho Paxton]

Originally Posted by mhsslinky

You've certainly given it some thought Pincho, nice one. It's a nice idea, however it feels more like the Frighteners 2 to me. In as far as it tells the story more from the Ghosts point of view. Which would be a good film too.

I think it's the dialogue and the way the main characters interact that is critical for me. A strong plot wasn't overly critical in the first one.

I haven't seen Frighteners 2, I didn't know there was one. I like The Frighteners with M J Fox.

[SlinkDaddy]

Originally Posted by Pincho Paxton

I haven't seen Frighteners 2, I didn't know there was one. I like The Frighteners with M J Fox.

What I was meaning was that it feels more like a script for Frighteners 2 in as far as it tells the story from the Ghost's perspective like The Frighteners did.

[Pincho Paxton]

Originally Posted by mhsslinky

What I was meaning was that it feels more like a script for Frighteners 2 in as far as it tells the story from the Ghost's perspective like The Frighteners did.

Oh... well it is close to Beetlejuice, which is the main problem. I woke up with the idea this morning, I often wake up with an idea, so I thought I would post it.

[raigraphixs]

Originally Posted by raigraphixs

maybe they will hire some new young bloods to hand over the ghost busting business, still would like some off the original cast in there somewhere.

seems that is the plan



Harold Ramis sent a email to the 'Chicago Tribune' regarding Ghostbusters 3.

“yes, columbia is developing a script for GB3 with my year one writing partners, gene stupnitsky and lee eisenberg. judd apatow is co-producing year one and has made several other films for sony, so of course the studio is hoping to tap into some of the same acting talent.

Aykroyd, ivan reitman and i are consulting at this point, and according to dan, bill murray is willing to be involved on some level. he did record his dialogue for the new ghostbusters video game, as did danny and i, and ernie hudson, the concept is that the old ghostbusters would appear in the film in some mentor capacity, not much else to say at this point, everyone is confident a decent script can be written and i guess we’ll take it from there.

best, harold”

http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune....-ramis-co.html

[sways81]

This should not happen!!!!!