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.

…and on a much lighter note check out Libby’s latest wag!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Riodejaneiro_on.PNG

“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.

(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?)

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.

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…?

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…???

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!

“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!

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?

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.

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!!#

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.

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.

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!”

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.

beautiful words!

The humans that run the internet net don’t run at the same electrical impulse speed as the internet itself, yeah?

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