f13.net

Ghostbusters 3 is starting filming this winter (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/herocomplex/2009/05/dan-aykroyd-says-ghostbusters-3-may-start-filming-in-winter.html)! I'm fairly excited about this since the original cast will be reappearing.  Looks like a good effort to "reboot" another older franchise. I wonder if the video game will be any good?

Here's another interview with Harold Ramis (http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1607995/story.jhtml) from March.

Woah, I'm surprised to hear Rick Moranis is returning. He pretty much retired after Honey I Blew Up The Kids.

I figured he was waiting for Woody Allen to die and then return as the preeminent mousy Jewish guy in Hollywood.

His wife died and he decided raising his kids was more important than staring in generic_comedy_film_23453
Sorry if that kills the mood, but I've always had huge respect for him since I found that out.

What a mensch.

He also made a shitload of money on those Honey I shrunk the _____ movies, where he never has to work again anyway.

Rofl.

Considering his wife died in 1991 and he continued making movies and working a lot until 1997, the truth is probably somewhere in between those two scenarios with a dash of the "I'm sick of being typecast" rumor I'd heard.   He also hasn't completely been off the radar, having done voice over work for a few things from 2001 onward.

Meanwhile, Shawn Wallace has made out like a bastard.

All the above aside, how can this movie be any good? I don't think they could actually launch the original one today, given the lag time between any of these actors being in anything the target audience for a Ghostbusters movie has any interest in seeing. I appreciate them trying, but I just don't know that there's a franchise here. Everything that followed the first one needed to have some amount of apology around it.

cuz of the man in your avatar

I'm kinda wondering about this too.  I mean, all these people are nearing their sixties, or already in them.  If they bring them in as cameos to (copout) train new busters that'll be lame.  If they're busting themselves, then It's going to be less than awesome watching them run around with canes and walkers.  Do we really want to see what the gatekeeper and the keymaster can do these days?

Time and culture man. Much as I loved the original (and my buddy and I still drive our wives and kids insane with the stupid quotes), it's as much a product of those times as Bill Murray's schtick was.

Bill Murray could be a corpse in 2068 and still own.

They must be waving a good amount of cash in front of Ernie Hudson. He's said in interviews the biggest dead spots in his career have come after the Ghostbusters movies, as no-one wants to hire the black straight man of a comedy horror film.

It's not like he's some spring chicken.  He's nearing his sixties, I'd wager.  Besides, there's always a black cop lieutenant needed somewhere in the movie industry, as demonstrated by his career.

Congo hired all the people no one wanted to hire when it came out: Curry, Hudson, Pantoliano and the general that was all "Mr. Hermolka, STOP EATING MY SESAME CAKE." And you know what, it was awesome.

Awesome because of them, or because of the crazy monkeys of doom?  I'm thinkin' it was the monkeys.

No, it was because of Herkermer Homolka.

The whole ape subplot dragged it down imo. I want to see the adventures of a ukranian philanthropist in the jungle with his sidekicks Ernie Hudson and Joe Pantoliano. That sort of thing would make the money hairs on the back fo my neck go woo woo.

Odds aren't good.

Call Crichton. Your story would probably have done better than his book and the movie it spawned combined...

You got a Ouija board handy?

Ghostbusters didn't need a sequel, much less a threequel a Jurassiac age later. The first was funny. The second was humping a money horse. I expect this one to be humping a dead money horse hooker that blows money out of her dead anus. It'll be a worse "Where's my check?" performance from Bill Murray than Charlie's Angels. This will be Caddyshack 2 with a bloated budget and stars who should fucking know better.

Also, Congo the movie was even worse than the goddamn book. Satellite lasers of death and Amy the most annoying talking monkey EVER? SERIOUSLY? God, that movie was wretched.

I dunno, I think that if they play it as old, tired, jaded and worn out ghostbusters replete with failed marriages, delinquent children, unwanted fame and all that other baggage it could be pretty humorous.  The whole thing should just be played for one liners and sight gags with a chance to have a few explosions and maybe some neat special effects.

The only person who should take it seriously is Venkmann since he never took it seriously in the other movies.

I'm thinking they should play it like Unforgiven.

I read that one of Bill Murray's conditions to come back for this was that they greatly expand Hudson's role compared to the prior movies, which I think is pretty classy.

That (if true) is nice of Murray - Hudson was always the third wheel in the films, but Ghostbusters needs the normal guy who got hired to do a job.

If this movie comes out I really don't think they can pass it off without considerable in-movie time between 2 and 3. By now Hudson couldn't possibly be "new guy" anymore. He barely was in 2.

Nice of Bill though. If true.

Otherwise, Haemish has it. This didn't need #2, much less a third one a few decades too late.

I liked 2 minus the statue of liberty.

I can't even begin to imagine how this one will take off after so long.  How do they explain the time inbetween films?

I love me some Ghostbusters and will totally be down for this. I had more Ghostbusters shit than Star Wars shit as a kid.

The plot of the first movie all but explicitly stated that the Ghostbusters are only necessary during extremely rare events which threaten the fabric of reality. Even then, they're dangerous and destructive. All the humor springs from the fact that the characters are either too jaded, too eager, too intellectual, or too sarcastic to realize how insane they are... and from their awkward interactions with sane people. It's basically a better version of Ace Ventura: Pet Detective. In the second film the characters have come to realize how insane they are, and though it's enjoyable and hits a bunch of familiar notes, the self-awareness weakens the humor.

The only way to do the series justice in a third film would be to have (as the rumors are implying) a group of new Ghostbusters, every bit as crazy and naive as the original cast was in the first film. Heck, they're probably fans of the originals... who have now spent decades in their painfully normal, everyday, unghostbusterly lives. These new folks realize the fabric of reality is genuinely threatened, decide they're in over their heads, and start to seek out the old team WHO DO NOT BELIEVE THEM, and play the role that the sane folks played in the original: "At best you're confused, at worst this is a money-making hoax. Do you have any idea how dangerous it is to carry a partical accellerator on your back? This sort of thing doesn't happen anymore. We should know."

Then, of course, (like the Mayor in the first film) they get convinced somehow and everybody teams up and saves the day.

It'll still has a HUGE potential to suck if they miscast the "New Ghostbusters" and supporting players, but there's a lot of filmmaking smarts involved and I imagine it'll be enjoyable even if it doesn't live up to expectation.

That actually doesn't sound too horrible.

I will watch it at some point. If I can still afford premium cable by the time it hits HBO  :grin:

If word of mouth is good I might even drag my ass to the theatre. Considering I haven't seen anything in a theatre since TDK, that would be a feat. Of course, my son will be older and easier to pawn off on a babysitter by then too.