For every one of you that has ever said, “What is taking so long?” or “They are totally making this movie right now!” you need… NEED… to read this New York Magazine article, which outlines the deal Columbia made with the principles (Aykroyd, Ramis, Murray, and Reitman) to get Ghostbusters 2 made. And even moreso, it outlines how that deal, as it pertains to Ivan, might be why the project is still not greenlit – in short, Sony wants new directing blood, and Reitman’s contract says they can’t without his say so.
However, Sony’s hopes that FWB would lead to Reitman making a graceful exit from Ghostbusters III will likely be dashed. Insiders familiar with Reitman’s plans say he thinks the two comedies are not mutually exclusive, and still plans to direct both, raising serious questions about whether Sony will want to proceed with Ghostbusters III at all. However, losing Ghostbusters would make a tough 2011 even tougher, as the studio has no other franchise blockbuster scheduled.
Also mentioned through their grapevine is that the second draft of the Stupnitsky and Eisenberg script isn’t due until May.
THAT’S why the movie isn’t officially being made yet, as said here time and time again.
[UPDATE]
Jim Dixon at Examiner.com is saying he’s spoken to Sony directly and his sources says Reitman is still director – which you would think cancels out the Vulture article that says they want him out. But what’s missing is the perspective that NO Sony exec would say anything otherwise, while negotiations are still going on. The two aren’t mutually exclusive – the Vulture can totally have heard that Sony would prefer a different director, and contract reality says Reitman is in until he says otherwise. And Sony can totally be working towards production with Reitman at the helm, and saying so to every Tom, Dixon, and Harry on the Internet – as a public party line, regardless of what’s being discussed behind closed doors.
The Vulture’s information is just as off-the-record, so really, it’s hard to weigh one over the other anyhow, which means the only interesting piece of information is that we’re still two months away from a revised script – and if it doesn’t make all parties happy, Reitman’s role doesn’t matter, does it?
Thanks to Steven Hough for that one.
Not logged in
“Proton Charging: the voice of reason and logic on the internets.”
‘s why I’ve been coming here for 8 or 9 years.
Either make this great or don’t make it at all. Don’t just make it for the sake of making it.
This article saddens me. As once again Hollywood proves to be just a massive corporation. But I agree with Matt, don’t make it for the sake of making it.
I gotta say as much as I love the original, Ivan Reitman should not direct GB3. Has anyone seen his latest film, My Super Ex-Girlfriend? I’m sure you’ve seen Evolution, but what about Six Days Seven Nights or Father’s Day? Really…this guy has been on a bad movie streak, last thing I want is for GB3 to be added to that list.
So Ivan not doing it, I am for it.
ivan or nothing
I don’t think a director loses his ability to direct. I think that Reitman is just as talented and as capable to direct movies today as he was back in 1984. I also think that there are various reasons as to why his more recent films haven’t been very successful. In my opinion his last two films (My Super X Girlfriend and Evolution) although disappointing, wern’t disappointing because of Reitmans directing. In fact, I had absolutely no problem with the way these two films were directed. The most obvious thing to me is that these comedies simply wern’t funny. I also think that they were poorly scripted and in my own humble opinion, miscast.
I’d like Ivan Reitman to direct GHOSTBUSTERS III. If he has a well written script to work from and good actors to collaborate with I think that he’ll be fine as the man behind the camera.
I think directors CAN lose their ability to direct, as well as becoming simply tired and lazy creatively and I’ve always hoped Ivan didn’t direct GB3.
This is really simple. REITMAN! YOU’RE OUT! Ummm,..I don’t know why he’s so concerned with it, we don’t even see him and the movie can be good without him. Nothing against him, because he made the first 2 pretty good, however, as long as the script is written well, it can’t fail.
How bout Ivans son? He’s young and upcoming. Also I wanna say a big F.U. to Sony. To make a fuss about somthing so minor that they would scrap the project all together.
Jason has been asked countless times and passed, Mike.
http://protoncharging.com/gb/2007/12/19/jason-reitman-says-nuh-uh-to-directing-ghostbusters/
Yes, HollyWood is a major Corporation; making movies is what they DO. Regardless of who or what movies are produced. Yes, I’ve seen My Super-Ex Girlfriend and It’s not as horrible as those Olive Garden Commercials. And to say, Don’t make it for the sense of making it; Why, I’d rather see another GB movie and be proud to know that the GB movie franchise isn’t dead and that Holly Wood and Sony still care about it.
Thank you Castewar. This is really buggin me. I cant beleive Sony would scrapt this whole project, just because of Ivan Reitman being the director. Also the article says not making GB3 would leave a big void in a blockbuster for sony in 2011. Aghh
I love GHOSTBUSTERS deeply but I just don’t think there’s enough left in it for another sequel.
The original told the story of an odd business venture where three characters who are thrown out of university, start up their own ghost catching company, gain popularity and eventually save the world. Along the way it told how the business operates, it’s poor customer relations, the technology it uses and it’s relationship to authority. These were all very funny and interesting things to see. But we’ve seen them.
Where do you go after that? In terms of originality I just don’t think there’s anywhere left to go for a sequel. What are they going to do, catch different ghosts? Use different equipment? Stick more contraptions to the roof of the Ecto 1? Yawn!
The other great thing about the original was that it was so original. We hadn’t seen anything like that before. We didn’t know what to expect. We hadn’t met the characters before. We hadn’t heard the theme tune. We weren’t accustomed to special effects. It was a totally fresh and completely unique experience. Now we all know what GHOSTBUSTERS is and because of that no sequel to it will be able to offer the originality or the freshness that the first one gave.
Personally I think that GHOSTBUSTERS should have remained a stand alone movie as originally intended.
They’d better hustle if they are targeting Summer 2011….
Dr Bob wrote:
“And to say, Don’t make it for the sense of making it; Why, I’d rather see another GB movie and be proud to know that the GB movie franchise isn’t dead and that Holly Wood and Sony still care about it.”
No, I don’t think that GHOSTBUSTERS III should be made just for the sake of making another GHOSTBUSTERS film. It sounds as though you don’t really care what the film as like as long as you get another one. What’s the point in making a film if it’s disappointing? I have higher standards than that. I passionately care about GHOSTBUSTERS which is why I only think that they should make one if the script, cast and everything else involved is absolutely right. By the way Hollywood and Sony don’t care about GHOSTBUSTERS or any other movie. Not really. Their prime motivation for making movies is money and they will always put profit above quality.
Yes, a Director’s decisions can very much affect a film’s delivery, and this is very much apparent in My Super Ex-Girlfriend. It already had enough going against it, but some of Reitman’s choices in pacing and camerawork in that film actually affected the punchline of some of its jokes (in a negative way). I’d much rather see Ramis direct GB3.
And for those people STILL naive enough to say that they just want another GB film – no matter the outcome, need to stop. You’re just advocating the continued production of garbage within Hollywood. It just reinforces Hollywood’s “hurry up and get that shit done and out the door so we can start selling tickets and merch” attitude, which is the worst thing for film and filmgoers for that matter. (Transformers, anyone? Stop buying tickets to this crap.)
I am not here to say whether there should be a GHOSTBUSTERS III or not. I have mixed feelings about the matter furthermore the writers that obviously write in a much different style of comedy than the original.
But any official GHOSTBUSTERS movie made replacing ANY of the core IS NOT GHOSTBUSTERS. It doesn’t matter how good the script is, if you have a different director it will not have the same feel as the first two.
IVAN IS AS CRITICAL TO THIS FILM AS DANNY, HAROLD OR BILL. Anyone who doesn’t think that a director is not in a film that they create does not understand Hollywood or how films are made. This film bears Ivan’s distinct imprint. Let’s face it, each actor seemed to play their characters in the scripting process. Danny is the heart behind GHOSTBUSTERS, Harold (The person that helped rework the original script and bring it back down to Earth from Dan’s original concept) is the Brains, and Bill is the mouth. If this is true at all then Ivan is the embodiment of those three. He is the body, he is the soul. Every shot, every take, every laugh and every moment had to go through him. There were MANY great men and women working underneath him to create this masterpiece that we all know and love, but without him the final product would not have been what we know and love.
I want to see the Busters ride again as much as the next Ghosthead, but I want Ivan at the helm. I was fortunate enough to be able to attend the Ghostbusters Blu Ray Premiere where Ivan too was in attendance. I along with roughly 15 other busters in full regalia stood out front to meet him as he came to the front of the theater. We all formed two rows for him to walk between. Then, (Here comes my statement of geekdom) we all in unison pulled our sticks and held them high as he walked underneath. Later to a crowd of reporters he admitted that he had been moved by the display and that he hadn’t felt that way since he first saw the original Boys in Grey for the first time running down the streets during one of the montage shots.
Simply put: Ivan’s heart is still in this. If ANYONE can make GHOSTBUSTERS III a GOOD reality, the original team can. Danny, Harold, Bill, Ernie AND Ivan.
You don’t make the Captain walk the plank just because there’s a storm brewing…
A bad situation just got even worse. They took the script writing away from the core writers, Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis, and now they are trying to take away the core director in favor of “new blood”? Who exactly? Judd Apatow? One of The Office directors? Didn’t Reitman do a few Office episodes or just Ramis? Regardless, this is a fucking joke. “Lets make a Ghostbusters III with new ghostbusters, a new director, and new writers!” Sony, go fuck yourself. Don’t make this movie if that’s how you’re going to treat the material. Ghostbusters III is beyond repair at this point, unless by some miracle Reitman directs, Harold and Dan can have a quick rewrite on the script, and Bill Murray isn’t turned into a ghost. Fat chance.
Let’s keep an open mind. New characters, a new director, and new writers could be very bad things. But they could also be good things. We won’t know if the movie is any good until we see it. I have certain (very strong) opinions about what I think the third movie should contain, as most of us do. That’s no reason to declare that the movie will be instantly ruined if it contains “X” or doesn’t contain “Y”. If that were true, the RGB cartoons wouldn’t live up to that standard, either.
Yes, changing things up makes me nervous too, but it doesn’t make sense to automatically declare part 3 ruined. And I love and respect the original movie crew, but for as much WIN as Ghostbusters was, these are the same people that brought us Ghostbusters 2. And if Dan had his way, the Ghostbusters universe would actually contain a place called “Manhellton” and the Ectomobile would be sentient. Let’s have someone else take a crack at the franchise, and see if we can’t bring something new to the Ghostbusters universe.
As long as the new material respects its origins, and the original creators accept it as canon, I am willing to, at the very least, give it a chance.
JT for President!!!!
Hey Yo!
Heh Oova bowl or whatever his name is should direct it
I dont think that they should make any further sequels to GHOSTBUSTERS. Yes the desire to see another one is strong, the desire to make one must be tempting and another movie would evoke whole a tidal wave of nostalgia but sometimes you’ve got to know when to quit. Sometimes you have to accept that although you may want a particular thing to happen, having it actually come to fruition may not be a good thing afterall.
According to “Patrick”, a former poster of these threads here on Proton Charging, the movie was already made back in 2009 and we’re all stupid for not seeing it his way. ( LOL, sorry for dredging that one up but that guy never ceased to amuse. )
I’m torn on the Ivan Reitman thing. On one hand, it should be in his hands and would be a great final film to close the career with. It would assure that the movie would have the feel of the previous ones. ….and on the downside, it would have the feel of his completely outdated 1980′s way of making a movie in a modern movie marketplace. There’s something to be said about a fresh director with fresh ideas for modern times, although I seriously fear this being another stupid Apatow movie filled with poop jokes. No thanks. Putting Ivan back in charge is both the strength AND weakness of this movie.
Don’t look at me, I still think the Simon Pegg / Edgar Wright group should be in charge of this movie. They know how to pay homage while also making it their own. Maybe Broken Lizard, too. …maybe.
Ivan Reitman should direct this movie.. period! I hope the script that is handed in this May blows Sony’s mind and they put aside this nonsence of kicking Reitman out of his directors chair. Let them finish the trilogy as a team.
Trilogy? It depends on what the Reitman, Murray, Aykroyd and Ramis decide. Sony almost certainly wouldn’t stop at 3 if they had their way. Sony want to resurrect GHOSTBUSTERS. GHOSTBUSTERS = big money. They want to make a string of sequels out of it. They’ve wanted to for years! The only reason why they haven’t is because they’re not in control of it. If they had their way we’d probably be on GHOSTBUSTERS V by now or perhaps even a series of films starting from a remake. If they’d had their way they probably would have chewed GHOSTBUSTERS up for all it’s worth in a series of sub par films and then spat it out when the flavour disappeared.
sony hired new writers and now they want to push Ivan out of his contract rights, then they say they want to reboot Ghsotbusters like they are doing with spiderman. How long till they push out Aykroyd, Ramis, Murray and Hudson. sony don’t care about the story all they want is the name, the logo and all the money they can pull in from it. if i had my name on that contract i would tell sony to go Fu## them self’s.
If Reitman isn’t allowed to do it, my vote goes for Sam Raimi. Drag Me to Hell had allot of elements to it that would work wonders in the realm of GB. Raimi is a master at the scary/zany comedy which GB3 should be. Raimi has a relationship with Sony, so it wouldn’t be a reach to think he could be a possibility.
Plus I think Evolution is very underrated, but we’re all agreed that My Super Ex-Girlfriend blew ass.
I still and always will have faith in this movie. Ghostbusters 3, i believe, WILL INDEED HAPPEN. A lot of us have been waiting most of our lives, and let’s just face it, with all the time and legacy built into the franchise, I highly doubt they would let this thing become a disaster, let alone scrap it when we’ve come this close. Sure, we’ve been close before, but, to be honest, NOT. THIS. CLOSE. Time may be pressed, but Summer 2011 still seems very, very logical.
my two cents…
Back in january Reitman said that he’ll direct GB3.
This is the point: REITMAN SAID.
He’s the only one saying that he will be the director, we haven’t heard anything official by Sony about GB3′s director.
maybe Sony has a young director in mind from the beginning and only now they uncover their cards.
It seems to me that Sony/Columbia and the fans want completely different things out of this movie.
The fans want a good gb movie with the old guys being still in the forefront to close out the “trilogy”.
While Sony/Columbia wants to essentially reboot it so they get another franchise on their hands.
Would Sony have the right to tear up the contract that Ivan and the other guys signed? Or would some kind of legal action happen? Or maybe a cash settlment
I fear that by trying to please too many people GHOSTBUSTERS III could well result in a movie which is all over the place storywise and has no clear direction or intention. This is generally what happens when you try and do too much in a movie.
If you’re going to make it please keep it simple. Don’t overcomplicate it with too many characters or unnecessary subplots. And don’t forget that it’s a COMEDY which means that it has to be FUNNY!
come on Sony…..The Smurf’s movie is moving forward more quickly…THE SMURFS MOVIE, FOR CHRIST SAKE!!
A source close to the production, in response to the question whether Reitman had left or was leaving the project, tells me: “Not true. He is our director.”
The same source also tells us that the project remains in “priority development” and there is nothing to report other than “continued progress on our script.”
http://www.examiner.com/x-29730-Fanboys-Examiner~y2010m3d18-Ivan-Reitman-is-too-directing-Ghostbusters-III
Dude, I was just posting that.
The humans that run the internet net don’t run at the same electrical impulse speed as the internet itself, yeah?
“priority development”
beautiful words!
Beautiful words? Not necessarily. The movie could turn out to be extremely disappointing.
Everyone wants them to get it right, yet hurry up. They want something new, but without changing anything. I love this site and there is a special place in my heart for any Ghostbusters fan, but holy s**t some of you are pessimistic.
I want Gb3 turning out THE BEST DAMN THING (in Avril Lavigne’s words). I can wait til 2015…only, please make it right.
I think that they either bring Ivan Reitman back or they just dont do it. It would be one thing if Mr. Reitman gave another director his blessing, but he has not done that and I think to make another with out anyone of the original Ghostbusters (at least before they attempt to do one without the originals which is what I guess they are aiming for, since getting all new recruits) would mess with the cinergy that made the other films.
As far as the comment made by Ivan Reitman about how once people know what to expect that alot of your comedic tools are gone, I think that is true, but I also feel all things have been done so replication on some level is unavoidable. For instance, who goes to a horror film without expecting possible cheap scares, the kissing couple to NOT get killed (when we know they always do), incredibly stupid people peeking (around doors for no good reason), or unnecessary blood and gore? I’ll tell you, none of us. Therefore, I think its how you do it, no matter what you do your going to constantly battle the tried and true (though I understand what he is saying). I also feel that, the Ghostbusters has alot of creative room to explore, so maybe thats what sony wants with a new director.
Jin what do you mean by “creative room to explore”?
Is Reitman the wrongman? You can always get a new director, and some fresh blood. It’s plausible. It could work… But wouldn’t a new director just be standing on the shoulder of giants? And if they screw it up that would equate to a large boulder on those shoulders.
A heavy burden to bare to the loyal fan base. But having to resort to comparisms again, you may be able to find a replacement, like you would with Dana and her fine art restoration projects, but it would always be considered as a refurbishment. And perhaps a lot of the original idea(s) would be ‘lost in translation’?
There is no escaping ‘Evolution’ was just a pile of crap. And someone wants someone else to blame. Usually the hard core critic. who if dying of thirst, would no doubt complain that the elixir of life was ‘too wet’. Glass half empty syndrome and all.
So one rowdy rabble point the finger at Reitman/wrongman, and in turn the buck gets passed to the scriptwriters, and then the casting agent takes a dive when the producers blame the actors, and the end user (the movie goer) feels ripped off because the end product was sub standard.
If a movie/story/script is crap. It just is!
And my opinion keeps getting divided about which way they should go with it. Not that my opinion matters a fig much. I appreciate that certain parties wish this to be treated with kid gloves, and that they should take more time to get it right. All anyone can hope for is that everyone who is involved just does their best. And only those people who are giving their time and effort can gauge that. We can only arrive at a decision after the project has hit the theatres. Bottom line.
I think they should try to remain faithful to the original in as much as can be expected, and that includes as many hands from the GB1 and 2 as is humanly possible to be creatively involved. But this is the digital age folks. Hark the message from that Pacino film SIMone. Digital evolution/revolution is here and that must make stage hands quiver, and pyrotechnicians eyes smart somewhat.
All things considered Jurassic Park 3 was probably the best in the franchise, and that involved a different director. (and Speilberg’s no dinosaur either).
Just do it Reitman! Stop fannying around.
Kevinj319 Posted March 17, 2010 at 10:55 PM
“That’s no reason to declare that the movie will be instantly ruined if it contains “X” or doesn’t contain “Y”.”
…Well let’s just hope it doesn’t contain “Zzz!”
In my opinion the right director is crutial when making a sequel, especially when making a sequel to an iconic film. I feel that a sequel should always replicate the look and feel of the films that preceeded it.
Lets look at the Die Hard series, a personal favourite of mine. Now, the first film (Die Hard) was directed in 1988 by John McTiernan. It was a great film and no need to go into it, I think You’ve all seen it. The sequel, 1990s Die Hard 2: Die Harder was directed by Renny Harlin. This was a change of director and whatever you may feel about Die hard 2, it worked. Harlin managed to pull off the look and feel of John McTiernans Die Hard, so much so in fact that when I first saw it I thought that it was directed by McTiernan. With 1995s Die Hard With A vengeance McTiernan was back at the helm and made another great movie which continued the look and feel of the series.
Then there was Live Free or Die Hard. This movie was directed by (Underworld) Len Wisdeman. This movie had a completely different look and feel to the previous three movies and because of this it simply did not feel like a Die Hard film. His style simply did not suit the series and the movie felt like it just didn’t belong along side the previous ones. I remember 20th Century Fox about a year beforehand saying that Die Hard 4 would be a movie which gives the series a “revamp”. In my opinion the series didn’t need a revamp at all. It would have been far better if they had sinmply brought back McTiernan, Harlin or some other director who has the style and ability to replicate the look and feel of the preceeding films.
I think it’s the same deal with Ghostbusters III. I’m not totally against a change of director. I think that what’s important is that whoever directs it manages to replicate the look and feel of Ghostbusters and Ghostbusters II. If it’s a different director their end product should be a film in which the change of director is not noticable.
I think one of the major problems they face is,.. we’re relying on a team that writes mediocre office-humor to work up a blockbuster. Does anyone else get that feeling? That feeling of mediocrity? I think the 3rd GHOSTBUSTERS should be more dramatic. Bring in Bill Murray as a ghost trapped in the world, who Ray and Egon visit regularly. Make his haunting a centerpiece. He’s trapped in an unusual building, can’t talk to anyone, but can communicate the idea that he feels he’s trapped on earth to save Dana and her son from ultimate evil, when in the end, he makes a re-appearance at that exact location to save his fellow team-mates, his real destiny, and becomes a key-player in saving the world. As a side-theme in the movie, a rival Ghost-catching company has stolen their technology and shows up on the scene with flashy suits and cell-phones, and his hell-bent on putting them out of business, so they hire a new team to be the first to use this new cross-rip technology, but in the end the team gets in trouble and it’s up to Ray, Egon, Winston, to save them and the world, but it’s the Ghost of Bill who saves them and then ascends into the afterlife. It’s got drama, excitement, it takes you in one direction (with the new generation) and then whips you back to the 80s when the original team suit up to save everyone. Good?
very very very good!
Personally I don’t like the sound of a new team or the idea of Venkman being a ghost.
If I had to write it I would simply write a script which tells a new story and keeps the spotlight placed firmly on the original four characters.
There’s a mystery person on the loose with a knowledge of black magic who decides to blackmail the city by into handing him over money. Only when he recieves his loot will he quit his evil rampage.
The Ghostbusters have to run around all over new York in their battle to clean up the mess that he leaves in his wake and eventually capture him.
How dull…the old ‘city for ransom’ chestnut. If you dabbled in Black Magic what the hell would you want with cash??? You would be able to control the banking system, Wall Street, military, White House -the whole sha-bang!
I think Brandon’s idea has balls. I wish I had thought of it. I think it’d fly. May need a few subtle tweaks. But I’d be for it.
Still, this ghost Venkman idea does not necessarily mean he can’t return to his physical self/body. Venkman can’t die, UNLESS he’s resurrected. And, even so, we’re all just second guessing and romanticising here.
I think Dana should become a char lady and show off her domestic skills. Polishing and cleaning her apartment from top to bottom so it is allergen free.
After all…#dustin’ makes me feel good!!#
-and just one other thing Brandon, as much as I hope your theory of the afterlife holds sway…what makes you think Venkman would ‘ascend’? He’s got some debts to pay -and undoubtedly some to collect too! Surely??
There should be a limit to one post per poster on these boards.
But this is exactly what I and every other rational fan has suspected all along. Sony is behind this revival. It whored out its other franchises and now needs one to fill a hole.
I personally Love ghostbusters 2. But there are some who hate it. Well thank your lucky stars it was made. Because the contracts that were signed to get it made prevented Sony from running the franchise into the ground. The only chance we have for a good GB film is Reitman and Murray. Aykroyd loves GB so much he’ll take anything and Ramis is a studio pet. The script is being written by the writers of the office for gods sake. The office is lame drama, you could get a better script from a hamster.
I really hope this doesn’t happen and I would love to jump back in to the GB universe with the original busters.
But the price here is too high and Sony should be making vcrs not movies. They screw everything they touch up.
Everybody and their cat is going to see GB3 regardless of New ghostbusters. So why force them in? Because Sony is terrified of losing a single penny. Even if they know they will make a billion they might want a billion and ten bucks which a new cast would bring. This smells to much of Sony and I think it would be better to leave it alone then let Sony call the shots on a ghostbusters film.
One post per board? Indicating one submission, and not multiples posts right? Typically I would agree. Just sometimes I have needed to add something, or alter the post once I have actually submitted it. I’d be in favour of the Mods merging them if they still scanned. Some other forums allow you a window of, say half an hour, to edit if you have made a boo-boo. But I guess the argument holds that you should proof read your own posts BEFORE submitting. Being half asleep can cause such oversights.
Moving on…I thought it was a directors job to ‘call the shots’?
Re; The Office. If my sources are correct the original office stared here in the UK. It became apparent after 10 minutes of viewing that it was a satire. Filmed deliberately in a documentary style. It showed office life in all it’s dull and dreary glory. I wouldn’t go so far as awarding it a BAFTA, but it was an original idea. That’s probably what set it apart from the other detritus circulating the rounds. That said, I can’t comment on the American version. But if it’s anything like ‘Friends’ count me out! Ever wonder where the term ‘canned laughter’ was coined? Live studio audience my hairy armpit!
I don’t understand the flack about GB2. It was a worthy sequel. It had the same flavour as the first in every way. It may not have been received so well, but come on, the first one was gonna be hard to beat!
No matter, it will be expected/anticipated that everybody and their hairless cat will see GB3.
The question now is… will Rake with-hold his right to reply?
Trotski said;
“How dull…the old ‘city for ransom’ chestnut.”
Oh, so the “person becoming a ghost” idea is original I suppose? Ever watched Beetleguise, Ghost Dad, Bill and Teds Bogus Journey, Ghost, The Sixth Sense or Teen Angel…yeah, real original.
“If you dabbled in Black Magic what the hell would you want with cash??? You would be able to control the banking system, Wall Street, military, White House -the whole sha-bang!”
Where are you getting this from? Did you write the rule book to black magic or something? There are no rules! It’s a sci fi comedy for gods sake! You make up the science and the mythology to to fit the story and the laughs! Just write it so that the only ability he has is to raise the dead! It’s that simple!
I was referring to the GB1 and 2 plot. The city being sent into chaos. Again!
And is in article 12, category 4, paragraph 2. According to Tobins spirit guide. Also the recent amendment mentions if Matthew challenges your authority to turn him into warthog.
Re; GB2. Where is the statue of liberty now since she went walkabout? Heard she went down to Rio to bag herself a boyfriend. She’s a chick, she likes latinos, she’s into guys. It’s that simple!
Reply to Trotski:
I was referring to the GB1 and 2 plot. The city being sent into chaos. Again!
“So you think it’s a bad idea for the city to be sent into some kind of chaos in Ghostbusters III? What have you got in mind? A romantic comedy between Peter and Dana? A courtroom drama following the professional career of Luis Tully?”
“And is in article 12, category 4, paragraph 2. According to Tobins spirit guide. Also the recent amendment mentions if Matthew challenges your authority to turn him into warthog.”
Exactly! As I said, you invent the mythology to fit the joke!
“Re; GB2. Where is the statue of liberty now since she went walkabout? Heard she went down to Rio to bag herself a boyfriend. She’s a chick, she likes latinos, she’s into guys. It’s that simple!”
Okay…???
I f*c£in’ loved you as Jason Bourne. All that sexual tension between you and that chick who was in on the Treadstone cover up. I even think Pam wants a piece of your pythagoras theorem. If you know what I mean?
Oh, I’m sorry that was Matt DAMON. Not Demon. Oops! You really should take yours down to the gym Matthew and, you know, exorcise it. Still it’s all good therapy.
All I was getting at was that the city had been held to ransom in both the films already. Can we agree on that at least? I never wrote either of the scripts, so please don’t hold me to account eh? I don’t think it’s a ‘bad idea’, per say, but it has already been done! Will they be overcooking it a 3rd time? -if that’s what they have in store at all??
A rom-com? I’d rather eat a porcupines rear end if truth be told. But Peter and Dana have some chemistry that could be worked on. A few loose ends need addressing… Did they ever get hitched? Did Dana ever accept her fate as the ‘ball and chain’? Have another ankle biter? Start divorce proceedings? It definitely has some potential for a few funny sketches. may turn out to be a little too Mork and Mindy. But I liked Mork and Mindy!
And as for Luis, wouldn’t it be funny if he was spirited off to the afterlife to chase after those who had avoided paying their taxes (which you shouldn’t do). Death and taxes.
Inventing mythology? Well with the exception of Egon’s library and Ramis’ over active imagination. Tobins Spirit Guide doesn’t really exist. I’m sorry to break it to you. But someone had to. If however, you look very carefully you may find it in Rays Occult Shop somewhere near the Hover board section. This years model is particularly difficult to find as it is camouflaged.
Of course it may also exist in a fan boys collection, designed by a fan boy, and available through an underground fan boy movement, but I couldn’t be absolutely certain.
And what is it you have against ‘Libby’ having a hispanic squeeze? That ankle length toga look was soooooo ancient Greece. If she wants to shorten the hem of her dress, good luck to her. Give the girl a break!
Rake do you have any input here? Man, we may as well let a few more sparks fly…?
All I was getting at was that the city had been held to ransom in both the films already. Can we agree on that at least?
The city wasn’t held to ransom in Ghostbusters or Ghostbusters II.
Personally I like the idea of a character who is hellbent raising the dead or perhaps even has an objective to end the world. Perhaps the entire movie could be one long chase which would set it apart from the first two movies.
I agree with Rake. Some of you are just being cruel and writing whole pages of crap. Go to the boards and fight or discuss. These articles would be better if you said your piece and then went on to discuss it elsewhere. I’m not mentioning names, that is wrong and childish “Troski is a Demi god”. But really if something is bugging you so much say I’m ummmm Jake69482047winterpeaches and talk to me on the gbforum.
???
So, contrary to popular belief, the Ghostbusters were asking the mayor for clemency regarding some unpaid parking fines then??
(Attention Mods, what was the deal with the links I tried submitting recently? I hit the submit comment button, the computer extracted the post/data but failed to display it on the board. Hence the ‘???’ remark. It’s not that I like the sound of my voice much, but as I am not a fully paid up member,I am not aware about what quantifies a breech of the FAQs, terms and conditions etc…I wasn’t advertising, soliciting, or offending anyone. I know you have a duty to vet information submitted. If your arbitrary preferences justify such actions, for the record, I don’t expect preferential treatment. However an explanation would be helpful. I couldn’t find an administrator contact link, as I would rather not have to clog up the board with this irrelevant message. Could you therefore please omit this bracketed text?)
Trotski said:
“So, contrary to popular belief, the Ghostbusters were asking the mayor for clemency regarding some unpaid parking fines then??”
What do you mean? If you’re referring to the first film all that happened was that Venkman managed to convince the mayor to take his side rather than Pecks. It had nothing to do with blackmail at all. The Ghostbusters never held the city for ransom in either movie.
I think you have your streams in a twist. I never mentioned that team GB were responsible for holding the city to ransom. Not once, not ever. I use metaphors occasionally, and a tad liberally. So unless the court of Matthews opinion wishes to try me with the Scoleri brothers let’s just bury this hatchet huh?
…and on a much lighter note check out Libby’s latest wag!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Riodejaneiro_on.PNG
Attention Trotski – these are comments. It’s not a messageboard. There are no moderators, other than me. The website automatically screens for spam, using certain keywords and being wary of links in posts. Normally, links get put into a hold until I OK them. Others, like yours, have that magic combination that the machine deems spam, and it’s trashed. That’s all there is to it. Nobody did nothing to your posts, the spam filter just didn’t like them.
Some misconceptions you hold, based on your comments;
- “but as I am not a fully paid up member,I am not aware about what quantifies a breech of the FAQs, terms and conditions etc”
Proton Charging offers no membership and as a result collects no membership fees. This is a public comment system, subject to no terms and conditions, other than the implied “It’s my site, I’ll tank your comments if I think they’re out of order.”
- If your arbitrary preferences justify such actions, for the record, I don’t expect preferential treatment. However an explanation would be helpful.
You got an explanation above, but in the instances where I do actually pull a comment, you’ll probably know it’s coming. But in general, don’t expect much feedback.
-I couldn’t find an administrator contact link, as I would rather not have to clog up the board with this irrelevant message. Could you therefore please omit this bracketed text?
Nope. It takes up more than enough time, the rare occasion I feel I have to interject in the comments, let alone when you feel I have to interject in the comments on your behalf. It’ll just have to lay there, like roadkill.
And I think this thread has gone on long enough – the suggestion you take this to a messageboard is an excellent one, though I will allow that one half of the on-going discussion mistakenly though this WAS a messageboard.
[...] One important thing to bear in mind is that a 2012 release, as per Ramis’ comments, leaves room for Reitman as director, instead of conflicting with his current film project. [...]