The horse in The Ring remake that got defeated off the barge and then fell into drowning waters and then got rammed by the barge? It died like five times in that amazing horse-killing scene.
But that dead horse doesn’t hold a candle to the the deadest horse in the stable: Ghostbusters III.
Between the big (and useless) Bill Murray debate, Dan Ackroyd bringing it up every few months just to get people writing about it [yes I am aware of the irony of my typing that], and the strangely loyal fan base, Ghostbusters is still somehow an A-List franchise despite having one and a half decent films and a few decent video games to show for itself.
Now it’s Ivan Reitman’s turn to stir the pot. Apparently the script is done for the third film and it has been sent to Bill Murray. Reitman makes a point to say that the internet has it wrong and Bill Murray hasn’t read it yet.
Think Mr. Reitman’s fingers are crossed that Bill’s going to read that script in perfect weather at the perfect time while getting a massage and drinking his favorite drink while his favorite song plays? Maybe Murray will glance at a section of his mansion that was paid for by residuals from the first film. Maybe Murray will smile and think of the legal feud between Ray Parker Jr. and Huey Lewis. Maybe he’ll long for some more quiet time in his trailer or in Ernie Hudson’s not a trailer.
Bill Murray was a funny man trying to make it as an actor when the first films were made. He was rich but a wildcard. Now he’s built what has to be considered a legendary career that veers from hard drama to soft comedy effortlessly and with often critical and commercial success.
In the past twenty-one years Reitman has directed eight movies and at least six of them were dogshit. And one of the other two is Six Days, Seven Nights.
The odds of this script being good enough to shoot are high. Did you see Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade? The bar is low. The odds of it being good enough to (with the help of many digits) lure Bill Murray back into the jumpsuit are less good but it’s still possible.
But the odds of all this time having passed and all these bullshit rumors having happened for the film to be worth the hubub? That’s a bet I wouldn’t be taking.
Source: Yahoo
21 comments
I’m a big Ghostbusters fan (yes, even the sequel) but I don’t need a third. Too much time has passed and those first two movies were definitely a product of the era they were made. I don’t need to see Shia Labeouf as Bill Murray’s son, or a Michael Jackson ghost, or whatever rubbish they might come up with. Leave it as it is please.
Also: I think you meant “when the first films WERE made” rather than “when the first films where made”.
Thanks! Fixed.
What this franchise needs is a prequel. I can’t be the only person wondering who Slimer was before he became a ghost. Was he a fat, little green man in life? Did he always love hot dogs?
BIG TWIST: Huge fan of philly steaks.
No mention of the not-completely-horrible (by contemporary standards) cartoon? And don’t forget the Diff’rent Strokes tie-in episode (yes, there was one).
This isn’t needed. Which is precisely why it will get made.
Wait, what’s wrong with Last Crusade?
Well I, for one, enjoyed all the Indy movies to varying (decreasing) extents, Last Crusade was the film that first took Indiana Jones from the realm of “straight-up badass” to “the butt of many goofy jokes.” As the series goes along, it becomes increasingly jokey overall, but both of the latter two Indy films particularly suffer from making Indy himself the target of comedy. You don’t see too many gags at Indy’s expense in Raiders and Temple. In Crusade and Kingdom, we’re making fun of one of cinema’s greatest badasses almost non-stop. He’s “Junior” and cowtowing to his dad, calling him “sir” and acting nervous. He’s named after the dog. We get the horrible “DAD?” “WHAT?” “DAD?” “WHAT?” scene. He’s a groucy old man who flip-flops on his son’s schooling in five seconds. He’d rather die in quicksand than LOOK at a snake. One’s badass quotient drops significantly when you’re pointing and laughing at him.
Everything with a semi-recognizable name must get sequelized/remade in the name of nostalgia. It doesn’t matter if the original was a famous failure (TRON) or if people got tired of the franchise roughly 20 years ago (Rambo). EVERYTHING RETURNS.
Well at least Rambo was a good return to form. Something like Ghostbusters III (which hasn’t gotten any good buzz as far as I know) just seems like a pointless exercise.
I honestly can’t think of threequel that was particularly good/memorable, or held a candle to the earlier installments. Last Crusade? Nah. Back To The Future 3? Pass. Alien 3? Don’t call me, I’ll call you. Only The Dark Knight Rises has a good chance of breaking that trend. A GB3 will not under any circumstances be worth watching aside for mild nostalgia value.
Dear Ivan Reitman:
I, the guy whose love for Ghostbusters reaches the very gnetic level of my being, do not need this movie. I don’t even WANT this movie. Not like this. Not with you directing it. I’m sorry if you feel personally about that, but sometimes it’s best just to be honest and forget the nicities of office politics for once. Whatever spark you had in the 80s is gone. Long, long, long gone.
You want something to come of this? Something that can stand alongside the original and not feel like a cash in, or even worse, an even further embaressment than the sequel we already got was? Give it to new people. New people all over. No Bill Murray, yes, but also no Dan Aykroyd, no Harold Ramis, no Ernie Hudson, no Sigourney Weaver, none of them. Take the concept, the idea of Ghostbusters and go in a new direction with new characters. One of the things I love about Ghostbusters is that the concept isn’t tied to the characters; it’s malleable and welcoming of new stories. If what you really wanted to do was make the best movie possible, you’d do that. But what you really want is a big fat royalty paycheck, so that’ll never happen.
Since that’ll never happen, I’m sorry, but we just can’t see each other anymore. Your bustin’ no longer makes me feel good.
Yours,
Me
THAT, I did not expect. When I was working on the article I was thinking… “poor Greg”.
Not to get TOO into the same old Last Crusade debate, but shouldn’t the correct analogy here be Crystal Skull? That is, the two-decades-too-late nostalgia grab that has all the same people but just doesn’t work the same? Last Crusade, as goofy as it got, still FELT like an Indiana Jones flick. Mileage may vary, but it’s in no way veering into disaster territory like GBIII invariably would be.
And anyone who harps on Last Crusade for being goofy: did you SEE Temple of Doom? Sean Connery >>>>>>>>>>>> Short Round
My love for Ghostbusters isn’t such that I can’t see how bad this would be. It’s akin to looking back at a serious relationship years after the bad breakup; sure, the first year was fantastic, but you still remember how it ended five years later. Ghostbusters III is like the idea of running into them years later, maybe you’re both single, so you go, “Hey, what if we hook back up?” before common sense slaps you and points to the breakup. So you say “Nope,” and go back to winning at life.
But that first year WAS great. And now you’re picturing me sleeping with the Ghostbusters ghost. You’re welcome!
I dont recall ever seeing the second Ghostbusters. Don’t really care for a third. If they make it, I will see it, otherwise, I am fine without one.
It really does seem that almost every few weeks there’s talk of Ghostbusters III. When I met Ernie Hudson in November and got him to sign my Leviathan dvd, I was really tempted to ask him if he knew any actual stuff going on with Ghostbusters III, but I figured I’d just stick with talking about Leviathan.
They just need to make the damn movie already.
They really, really don’t.
I’m on board for GB3 in the style of the recent Rambo.
Blood and Ectoplasm.
There are some moments of genuine Murray/Venkman magic. Worth a look on TV if you’re in a mellow mood.
Rene owns a copy of LEVIATHAN signed by Ernie Hudson. This is the best news to come out of this article.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.