We’ve been hearing more and more buzz about Ghostbusters 3, and a new interview that Heeb Magazine conducted with writer/director/Egon Harold Ramis seems to suggest that they’re pretty close to the start of production.
Speaking about the status of the film, Ramis had this to say-
Something’s going to happen. Dan [Aykroyd] did write a spec GB3 screenplay a few years ago, but no one was motivated to pursue it. Now, 25 years after the original, there seems to be some willingness to proceed and apparently a substantial public appetite for a sequel. We’ll introduce some new young Ghostbusters, and all the old guys will be in it, too. Think Christopher Lloyd in Back to the Future … GB3 is progressing with plans to shoot next summer and release in 2011.
Young new Ghostbusters like Dana’s son Oscar? Venkman training recruits from the dead?
I wonder if they’ll shoot at the same firehouse down in Tribeca if this happens…. the place will be a madhouse all summer.
21 comments
And 2011 gets even more crammed.
Hopefully The Goon will be finished production for that year as well.
hate to say this but the final product will be a severe let down. Phantom menace, people, phantom menace.
Phantom Menace? no…Kingdom of the Crystal Skull….yes.
"Think Christopher Lloyd in Back to the Future"….. uhhh… what?!?!…."we're also going to have a soundtrack with well known bands songs playing during scenes…confused by the complexity of that statement?….well, think Huey Lewis in the News in Back to the Future"…
wtf does "Think Christopher Lloyd in Back to the Future … " mean? statements like that do indeed make me think of phantom menace.. this story will be a slave to dumb CGI effects and bored actors who had every right to pass on this idea..
It means they'll be like training instructors. You kids reading this shit don't get it yet, but at EVERY job there's a chain of command, meaning someone will be your boss who has more experience at work than you. The GBs having been busting ghosts for so long will become the wise old professors teaching the next genration of gbs and I absolutely loathe the idea.
"It means they'll be like training instructors…." Thanks, Captain Obvious…
Ramis didn't direct GB1 or GB2.
What we want is the 4 original GBs only, pulled back together for one last romp. Oh, and Rick Moranis too, where the hell has he been? And above all we want it to be FUNNY AS FUCK and not just another CGI shitfest. No FX please that weren't readily available in 1987. Go retro, go crazy, but don't try and make it appeal to a whole new generation. They don't give a shit. Pander to me and all the other bitter 30-somethings, damn it…
Meh to the 'new Busters' idea…whats wrong with a story about a bunch of nearly-pensionable men having to reunite to save the world? In fact it would be far more refreshing to have that. In fact why not have young'Busters from the outset who end up ballsing the whole thing up causing Venkman and Co to strap up the Proton packs once again? Good times! And cue lots of jokes about incontinence.
I'd much prefer it to be a full-on return of the old farts, but let's face it, the only way this film will get made is with one eye on the future. We won't get a GB3 without at least a fourth and possibly a fifth, so new blood is inevitable.
does anyone remember part 2?
If they're planning on having Ramis and Ackroyd on-screen together, they'd better shoot for IMAX.
KarateBen, regardless of what you think of GB2, I'm quite sure you know who Vigo the Carpathian is. And quite possibly what a River of Slime refers to.
Moranis' wife died of a brain tumor about 13 years ago and he retired from acting to raise his kids. Read a few interviews with him since then, and he really doesn't seem to miss it despite getting multiple offers to return. Don't see him changing his mind for this. If GBIII was going to happen, it should've been in 1995 at the latest. This has great, great potential…to be totally embarrassing for everyone involved.
Y'know, it's interesting that folks keep bringing up the 'Crystal Skull' 'cause I recall Ramis and/or Ackroyd mentioning in an early interview that the only way they'd go through with a GB3 is if they can avoid it being anything like Indy Jones 4 as far as overdoing the FX goes. Also, anyone out there ever watch the 'Office'? With them writing and the original 'Busters on board to give the film their blessing I believe it'd be folly to simply write it off as a bad idea just because we're all nostalgic for the 80's. Me too guys. Nevertheless, more often than not the medium must adapt to the times rather than the other way around. If Murray's on board then they've got my ticket; the guy knows what he's doing and he's still got it.
Did anyone here play the recent Ghostbusters video game? For the voice-over work, Ramis, Hudson, and Aykroyd all immediately jumped into character and might as well have been extracted direct from 1984. Murray on the other hand…sounded almost like he was parodying the dialog. Like he thought it was stupid, and didn't want you to have to dig deep to realize it. It's weird at times, because the other three guys click so well. Who knows, maybe it's just a bad voice over director, but man did his heart not seem into it.
I dunno, I have this weird theory that Murray hates Ghostbusters (he's on record as saying he only really likes the first half of the original film). Would he tank an entire film over it? No, definitely not, but I really, really don't have high hopes.
I keep wanting to be into this…then I read Dan Aykroyd saying how he'd love to see Alysso Milano and Eliza Dushku as Ghostbusters. Siiigh.
"If Murray's on board then they've got my ticket; the guy knows what he's doing and he's still got it." – I guess you raced to theaters to catch both Garfield movies then. You don't think it's a coincidence that Bill Murray's sudden interest in making Ghostbusters 3 coincided with a messy, expensive divorce? He's always been the holdout stopping a third film from happening, and it's because a third GB flick is his ace up the sleeve. Now he's cashing it in. As for the involvement of the Office writers, they (and Ramis) brought us the truly awful Year One – a movie that didn't have a merch-hungry studio approving every line – so let's not assume they'll be the saviours of the franchise.
There is no ghostbusters 3, there is only Zul!
***You read it here first: If they go with training a new young team (which they will) Charlie Day from 'It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia' would make an AWESOME Ghostbuster. Just my opinion. I would pay to see that (and Bill Murray).
Alright, I rarely do this but 'Custard's comment was so laced with venom and spite that I couldn't help but make some kind of response. Seriously, this article was written, what, 2 months ago? And it still gnaws at the back of my mind somehow. Now, I'm not sure what I want to say here (heh, like ANYONE is gonna read this post, or care for that matter) but I suppose I would really like to go on the record here and say that I don't like to assume, like ever. I know very little about the people involved in 'The Office'; all I know is that I enjoy watching the show. Sure, I as well was somewhat underwhelmed by 'Year One', but I've always had the feeling that I wasn't exactly the target audience for that movie so I'm certainly not gonna bash it just because I CAN. But I enjoy 'The Office'. I'm not sure I really need to address Mr. 'Custard's comments on Mr. Murray, as it really seems as though he has some kind of deep, personal vendetta against the guy or something. I can't honestly remember the last Bill Murray movie I've seen, but I can remember the last time I HAVE seen Bill Murray in a film and that was 'Zombieland'. I truly cannot speak for his recent body of work, but the Bill Murray I saw do a cameo in 'Zombieland' spoke to me of a man who can still make people laugh if he wants to; that's where I was coming from there. Then there's the Garfield comment. I find it ironic that 'Custard' chose to use that as an example 'cause it was the line from 'Zombieland' which refered to that flick (those who've seen 'Z-land' know the one I'm talking about) that really had me rolling with laughter. Yeah, I ran to see the first live-action 'Garfield' movie, and I'm not ashamed to admit it. What can I say? I'm a Garfield fan! Didn't really like that particular rendition, however, so I never really bothered with the second one; again, I suppose 'Garfield: the Movie' was aimed at a younger audience. Enough of all that though and on to the closing statement. Yeah, this novel of a comment is, in part, a (hopefully) polite response to the stuff 'Custard' said in his comment but, honestly, I'm mostly writing this thing for me. See, I don't WANT to become one of those people that simply say whatever hurtful things they choose simply because they can. I don't really like hurting folks' feeling in the real world, so why would I elect to do so in the cyber-world? When I leave a comment it's my way of telling the guys who work on this site that I got something out of the article. That I was either informed or entertained or whatever. I don't agree with a lot of the opinions and attitudes and opinions of those who write for CHUD but I come here 'cause a friend I trust told me that they're a reliable source for movie news. Hopefully, this whole trolling thing is just some kind of bizzare fad and will disappear soon {as fads are wont to do}. I, for one, refuse to allow myself to get sucked into this whole vindictive bashing thing. I address 'Custard's post because he made a slight against me, personally, and it hurt. Now, I guess I feel a little bit better and can go on with whatever it was I was going to do today.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.