| Author
|
the only way GB3 would work - period
|
bizdog
Ghosthead
Joined: Feb 25, 2002
|
 Posted: Sep 11, 2002 3:52 PM
If Ghostbusters 3 came out, it would make money. There is no question about this in anyone's minds. The real issue is whether it would be good, and I'm going to go against the common feeling here by saying that adding a new team would ruin the film. Here's why:
The original Ghostbusters works because its accessible to everyone. The heart of the story is a "Going Into Business" venture for three expelled college scientists. Each character stands out in his own unique and easily associable way - largely due to the excellent acting of the cast (moreso than the shooting script). However, our main characters do not alienate the audience by being overknowledgable - they know as much as the audience about ghosts and spooks, and we can easily side with them when they accidentally nearly vaporize the Sedgewick Hotel cleaning lady. The story quickly takes the Ghostbusters from utter failure to stardom - and soon, they are in charge of saving the world. What an enormous character leap for a few students who wanted to prove they were worth something. Even through the end, we get a sense that they are there to do the job, and do it right - not to be heroes (well, perhaps Venkman...). Thrown in is a mythological aspect thats fairly straight forward, and a winning love story between Venkman and Barret that feels utterly genuine. If you don't associate with the idea of down and out college kids spending thousands on a crappy firehouse in tribeca, you'll at least be able to feel sympathy for Venkman when his crush turns into something else - and soon, he is fighting for her life.
All in all, a very accessible movie.
Then Ghostbusters 2 comes along, and your average film goer assumes the obvious (and correct assumption): a rehash. There is no venturing away from the original movie - we are simply watching the boys go around a second time, rising from failure to fame and eventually put into a position to save the world. Even old conflicts are redredged up - Dana is not attached to Venkman, and we watch them fall in love all over again. There is nothing new to the film whatsoever. Don't get me wrong, as a GB fan, i love it - but it isnt a successful movie, and you have to be able to see that in order to come back wtih a bang for the third.
And now for Ghostbusters 3: Adding characters is an attempt to keep the franchise alive, period. It's an attempt to get people to go see the movie and make money, under the fear that no one would turn out for the old cast. I'm sure that even with Bill Martin on board, Aykroyd is pretty firm up about making a new generation of Ghostbusters, and here's why it wouldnt work.
Ghostbusters 3 would beomce a mythology movie. Your average movie goer is not interested in a mythology movie (short of the legacy of Star Wars or Lord of the Rings). More importantly, the average feeling surrounding the film will be - Same old schtick, new actors. Nothing new except the faces. Except that the new faces would bring a new style of comedy to the film. Very few comedic actors these days depend on dry wit to get by. It's more zaniness, slapstick, or over the top humor instead of the subtle dry wit infused in both of the Ghostbusters films. With cast suggestions of Will Smith and Chris Farley, i shudder to think how much the film wouldve sucked.
My point is that Ghostbusters 3 is no longer an accessible film. It's a film that sounds as if it will ultimately follow the same old pattern of GB2 with new faces. People went to see the original Ghostbusters for the concept, not the plot. People went to see GB2 partly for the concept, partly for the plot. Since both were old and stale in 1989, i can only imagine how they would fare nowadays. Ghostbusters 3, as its developing, sounds to be a plot based film - no concept. This is bad. If you want to infuse a new generation of fans of the Ghostbusters films, you have to start fresh, from the beginning - and give them a fresh concept. Come on, we've got MIB's, but when was the last time anyone used bargain basement nuclear accelerators to go catching ghosts? Give the people something they can associate with, not a movie driven by a ho-hum-the world is going to end-monster that people forget the day after seeing it. Concept is where it's at, not plot. YES, obviously, in addition to the concept, the plot is crucial - but concept should be sending people to the movie theaters in teh case of the Ghostbusters films.
The point of all this is that its destined to fail. I'm one of those fans who hopes never to see GB3, at least, not for a lonnnnng time, because i dont want another crappy installment. I want something that people - not just Ghostheads but people in general - fall in love with. I dont want a movie that people see the #3 and assume its just another attempt to cash in on the franchise.
i visit this board every now and again, and i see all these people posting the exact same posts:
1) who do you want in the movie
2) who dont you want in the movie
3) who should do the soundtrack
4) what's the latest info? when is GB3 coming out?
5) should ghostbusters 3 be made?
my permanent answers:
1) Who do you want in the movie?
Conan O'Brien - very accessible, can play numerous character parts perfectly. would never agree to do it.
Jason Lee - Winning smile, general childlike awe would be a winning addition.
Bruce Campbell - the badass who wants to get the job done.
Three ghostbusters is enough people.
2) Who dont you want in the movie?
Any of the characters listed above. Why? because they all have known personas - Jason Lee is Banky/Brody; Conan is a talk show host; Bruce is Ash. When the original GB came out, it instantly matched the characters with their respective actors because their identities had not yet been firmly entrenched with a single character (tho perhaps in Aykroyd's case, Elwood Blues).
The following people should not touch ghostbusters:
1) Will Smith
2) Tom Green
3) Any cast member from Friends (or any other sitcom)
4) Any actor who has been successful personifying a fictional character (Mike Myers = Austin Powers, etc.)
3) Who should do the soundtrack?
Who cares. You'll never beat the original.
4) What's the latest info?
Shut up and look around.
5) Should GB3 be made?
No.
|
|
|
|
 
|
Ectoman
Ghosthead
Joined: Jul 15, 2001
|
Posted: Sep 11, 2002 8:26 PM
You have the best grasp of Ghostbusters 3.. it is all true.
_____________
-Ectoman
Ghostbusters Prop Archive - The Largest Source for GB Props!
AJ Quick.com - All About... ME!
|
|
|
     |
|
Texasgb
Moderator
Joined: Nov 29, 2001
|
Posted: Sep 11, 2002 8:36 PM
I think that GB3 would have great potential it it was done right. It is a great established franchise that should continue. We all know Aykroyd is very talented when it comes to writing. If he said the script was good I will take his word.
_____________
Nice shooting Tex!
|
|
|
|
|
GHSTBSTRS4LYFE
Ghosthead
Joined: May 22, 2002
|
Posted: Sep 11, 2002 11:53 PM
first of all u got way to much time on ur hands to write all that. but u dont sound like u even have any hope for GB3. it could be one of the greatest movies ever. all they have to do is pay close attention to the cast and the script and we have to pray it doesnt turn out like jurassic park 3
_____________
"Listen....You smell something?
"Do you think there is a connection between this Vigo character and the slime? Is the atomic weight of Kobalt 58.9?"
"Suck in the guts guys...we're the Ghostbusters."
|
|
|
 |
|
bizdog
Ghosthead
Joined: Feb 25, 2002
|
Posted: Sep 12, 2002 12:56 AM
That's not necessarily true - i do have some hope. I hope that it doesnt get made badly. But since i doubt this could happen, then i hope it doesnt get made at all.
Secondly, Aykroyd's not a great writer. At least, not in the sense that you are thinking of. Aykroyd's an idea man when it came to Ghostbusters. I mean, come on, the first draft of the script was so convoluted and out there that it was crazy to even conceive of what the film woulda been like had it gone by the original script. If you read the final shooting script, it only resembles the movie in the sense of a broad outline. None of the written jokes made it into the film, nor did much of the described technology i.e. the black hearse-like Ectomobile, and the "blue futuristic jumpsuits." Amalgamations of them did, but it went through a long and thought out process.
Dan Aykdroyd is quoted as having shown the GB3 script to both Ramis and Reitman, and both found "parts" that they liked. This smacks heavily as being similar to Aykroyd showing the first draft of the original Ghostbusters to Reitman in 1984, and Reitman liking parts of it, but asking him to rewrite. And rewrite. And group rewrite.
And that's how i look at Ghostbusters as being a success - it was totally, 100% a joint project. It took Aykroyd's directing skill, Reitman's excellent flair for comic timing, the overall acting skills, and most importantly, the improvisational skills of the comedians involved. Read the shooting script. I would say 95% of the jokes were improved. All in all, Ghostbusters seems to be a coming together of greats minds to create a great product. And with only one mind currently on board - Aykroyd - I think the most we could "hope" for is an ok concept played out wrong. Stax writes that much of the script is "jargon," which scares me for two reasons. One, it means the script is very convoluted and probably needs to be strained (as did the original). And two - has anyone noticed how seriously Dan Aykroyd takes this whole ghost thing? ("I think they'll be prepared for revelations that are yet to come in the next century" - 1999 Documentary [not accurate quote]). Im a little nervous that the comedic aspects of the film might be sacrificed for "authenticitY" in a weird kind of way. In any event, if the original Ghostbusterss had been made according to script with only Aykroyd at the helm, it would have failed. So will GB3.
And yeah, i do have some free time on my hands. but i always dig the posts that are long, because they usually say something other than the SAME damn post that is done over and over and over. Thats why i keep geting tired of this board, returning a month later, and finding the same posts.
Keep the spirit alive, but dont hope for Ghostbusters 3. Hope for a Ghostbusters 3 that rocks. I used to think anything with the "Ghostbusters" name attached to it would be worth my time. Then the crap that is Extreme Ghostbusters went on the air, and i was presented with a Ghostbusters concept that I just couldnt watch, as it was so painfully bad and the characters just so damn unlikable. If its a choice between no movie and Extreme Ghostbusters: The Movie, i take no movie.
I hope that the forces that made Ghostbusters 1 and 2 come together for a third and final round to make a trilogy. But if it's just one player, then forget it.
nick
|
|
|
|
|
Tamawig
Ghosthead
Joined: Aug 23, 2002
|
Posted: Sep 12, 2002 1:56 PM
this movie would suck worse than anything has sucked before if new younger gbs were brought in. The only way the movie would be good, is if all the originals were back. And even if everyone is back, its still a longshot at making a decent story. But hey, it is possible. If Dan and Harold put there heads together i'm sure they will think of something.
|
|
|
|
|
StayPuft0017
Ghosthead
Joined: Jul 15, 2001
|
Posted: Sep 12, 2002 6:05 PM
I think all gb fans need to listen to this guy. I read the posts here almost every day and i rarely post but this person sees exactly how it is. He got all the facts down and a new gb flick would only survive because people loved the orginals. If the studio thinks that people dont care about the originals, they'll try and add a new "hip" edge to it. By either casting certain stars or music for the soundtrack. This would be leading to sell out and the movie would be forgotten forever because of this. It needs a completely new concept and plot and actors and not just a cheesy sequel. The only reason why the fans would love the 3rd if it had the same repeating storyline would be because they fell in love with the original. I LOVE ghostbusters and i DEFINATELY WANT A THIRD! but if they are going to make a movie based off my all time favorite movie it better be damn good cause nearly 20 years is too long of waiting.
|
|
|
|
|
LordVego
Ghosthead
Joined: Nov 30, 2001
|
Posted: Sep 12, 2002 8:12 PM
Bizdog...i have never headr of you and i agree with you almost completely, except about who u choose for the cast
_____________
Lord Vego(Pronounced Lord Vay*goh) the lesser known twin of Vigo, I am the one that took his kitten.
I LOVE SUBWAY!
Proud to be part of ECTO FORCE!
The von Homborg Deutschendorf Family Webpage!
Surfing Amy!
There is an EDIT button
A thing about Link Posting...
|
|
|
|
|
Texasgb
Moderator
Joined: Nov 29, 2001
|
Posted: Sep 13, 2002 10:16 PM
I have to agree with the combination of talent produced a great film but I do not think you are giving Aykroyd the credit he deserves. So what if Stax did not like the script. He should not be the final say on it. And from what I have seen of the origional gb script it was very good just too costly to make. Aykroyd has to be involved in the script to produce a sucessful GB3.
_____________
Nice shooting Tex!
|
|
|
|
|
GB3
Ghosthead
Joined: Jun 01, 2002
|
Posted: Sep 13, 2002 11:38 PM
GB3 will only be good when Ackroyd and Ramis, Reitman get together to finalize and flesh out that script when they get the OK from Columbia pictures that the script is acceptable to them as well (witch we don't know from their view). But we don't even know if GB3 is coming at all. And then there's the Bill Murray thing. Either he makes a cameo or doesn't show up and they proceed without (witch seems almost happened). But that won't happen either. Ackroyd said that not only Bill Murray with his rights is the problem, but its the actors and Reitman as well. What they take of gross profits and any up front salary (if any). This makes it difficult and Ackroyd said they didn't wish to do GB3 without Murray. So its in limbo.
He said he'll only come up to Ramis and Murray with a new idea and never bring up GB3 again. Come on then, when will they ever work together again?
I also agree GB wasn't good an idea from Ackroyd's original story. GB2 was the same. He said in an old interview for GB2 that his idea for GB2 was Dana's baby gets kidnapped by a ghost or entity and taken to Scotland. Then the GB's must find and rescue baby, stop the ghost. He acknowledges that it was too radical and hence Ramis comes in with him on it and drive that story into the GB2 we saw. Perhaps that is why GB2 is so alike with GB. Maybe they didn't have time to work on the story.
From Stax's GB3 script review (if it ain't BS), I only question the idea of the GB's getting into the hell realm with their technology (too Real GB cartoony to me) and this Nat with the big head. Flesh out the new characters, more humour and GB3 could be better. Ah, heres still hoping.
_____________
GB3 support. Remember lets keep clicking on:
http://www.ghostbusters.com
http://www.ghostbusters3.com
http://www.haroldramis.com
http://www.sonypictures.com/spe/help_feedback_index.html
|
|
|
|
|
bizdog
Ghosthead
Joined: Feb 25, 2002
|
Posted: Sep 14, 2002 3:09 AM
Obviously, Stax doesn't have ANY kind of final say - he just wrote his review of a script that may or may not be fake. Needless to say, I didnt really consider that review for what I posted earlier.
But one of the key aspects of his review that bothered me was the interchangability of the characters. I mean, COME ON - they arent even given last names. Ray Stantz, Peter Venkman, EGON SPENGLER - EGON SPENGLER, perhaps one of the most easily recognizable names in film history. Each has their own personality - each is so basic (the hands, the brain, and the mouth, as described by Reitman) and yet so intrinsically winning. How can you then go and create four kids to take over that have no distinguishable personalities?
I agree with people who have compared the idea of GB3 to a Real Ghostbusters episode. In fact, I think that nearly any script post-Ghostbusters 1 is doomed to be seen as an overlong RGB episode - once you get past the origin story (which was so winning in the first place) you are simply telling tales that happened in their Ghostbusting careers - the point of the cartoon show. GB2 was like an episode of the cartoon (well, obviously with a lot more depth and subplots). Altho I must give both Ghostbusters 1 AND 2 credit for creating two memorable enemies (for all the flak GB2 got, does anyone NOT remember Vigo?).
I have a lot of freakin' respect for Aykroyd, despite my post, but its more for his ideas and kernels of ideas than his writing. I think you see a lot of bad stuff happen if his ideas are left unchecked - i.e. all the goofy crap that happened in Blues Brothers 2000. Similarly, leaving Reitman to his own brings us Evolution - which definately had its comedic elements and timing in place, but overall plot and concepts were poorly planned and given up on. (scary to see them use "From THe Maker of Ghostbusters" so frequently in connection with the film ... shudder...) Looking at individual projects, its easy to see that colaboration is the only way to go.
Finally, there really can't be any dialog in any GB script, just general ideas. Ive read a ton of fan fic, as well as the original scripts, and all the dialog within just comes off as so - unspontaneous. What made the first and second (to a lesser extent) so damn good is the freedom they had to improv. I know most of you are aware of the fact that 95% of the jokes (and lines) in the first movie were improved over generalities previously laid down. Would this be done in the third? If not, I think we're in for some trouble.
glad some of you agree!
nick
|
|
|
|
|
Shadow_weaveR
Ghosthead
Joined: Aug 30, 2002
|
Posted: Sep 14, 2002 4:24 AM
I almost had enough attention span to read that whole thing, you make some really good points but your cast selection is horrible and you should be slapped for making them,  J/K
_____________
I LIKE PIE!
The Fastest Growing Paranormal Site On The Net!
The Paranormal World: Your Ghost Resource!
|
|
|
|
|
Spooky
Ghosthead
Joined: Jul 15, 2001
|
Posted: Sep 14, 2002 1:34 PM
Very good thats best explination ive heard. A few have said before but never as well and mabey now people will finaly understand.
_____________
-Kev
The Optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds, the Pessimist fears its true.
This is your brain.....THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON SKA!
Call me immature call me a poser, Id like to spread manure in your bed of roses.
Welcome to GBN. If your not crazy you will be....
|
|
|
|
|
Havok98
Ghosthead
Joined: Sep 01, 2002
|
Posted: Sep 17, 2002 5:35 PM
hmmm.
bizdog, you make a convincing argument. however, i just can't help but feel that if done properly, gb3 could be really good. i bet you hear that a lot..."if it's done right it could be AWESOME!" heh heh heh.
however, i disagree a little with your thing about casting. i think there are a bunch of people out there who could be potential ghostbusters. jimmy fallon, michael ian black, elise neal, jay mohr, sean patrick thomas, liew schreiber, karen allen, enrico colantoni, michelle rodriguez, and others i don't feel like listing 'cause i've been on the computer for a long time.
i don't know. the idea of the originals having some established headquarters with some of the people named above and have the story be focused on someone else mentioned above joining could be pretty good (also, f.y.i. - i'm not restricting the possibilities to my list...there are tons).
the villian? i don't know if this devalues the point i'm trying to make, but like i said in another post -- boogeyman. i can't get over how bad to the freakin' bone he was. for my thoughts on that, see that post.
thanks for listening.
|
|
|
|
|
Ghostbuster_D
Moderator
Joined: Nov 19, 2001
|
Posted: Sep 17, 2002 6:00 PM
I think that they should try and find some undiscovered talent for the role of the GB's. I'm sure that we here at GBN aren't the only people who like the type of comedy that was in GB and GB2. There are probably some people out there who are good actors and like that kind of comedy who would be willing to do a GB3.
Also, I half disagree with what you said about dialogue. I think that a script should have general ideas with no dialogue that must be said, but I think that it should have dialogue written that can be changed. So that they'll have a little more of an idea as to what to say.
_____________
-Daryl, the Scoleri Brothers guy
Visit my Scoleri Brothers site
and
the river of slime!
"Don't worry. I'm not a real ghostbuster, but I've seen them on TV."
"A good person is one who is willing to forgive."
"You see, we plan ahead, that way we don't do anything right now."-Val, Tremors
|
|
|
|
|
Texasgb
Moderator
Joined: Nov 29, 2001
|
Posted: Sep 17, 2002 7:31 PM
I would rather see the same cast and no new talent. But from a sales point of view new talent would be needed to draw a crowd and make a lot of money.
_____________
Nice shooting Tex!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User Info
|
|
|
|
|
|
