GHOSTBUSTERS III (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Future Films



Message


mlavagna -> GHOSTBUSTERS III (5/8/2006 5:56:16 PM)

Accoring to an empire interview with ivan reitman, he's currently trying to talk sony columbia into it. Personally I'd love to see it, but on two conditions. 1 It must be a hell of a lot better than Ghostbusters II 2 It must star the original actors. What does everyone else think about this?




Tech_Noir -> RE: Ghostbusters III (5/8/2006 6:02:51 PM)

Ghostbusters 2 wasn't a bad film, it was a worthy sequel.

The courtroom scene alone is hilarious:

"Your Honor, ladies and gentleman of the audience, I don't think it's fair to call my clients frauds. Sure, the blackout was a big problem for everybody. I was trapped in an elevator for two hours and I had to make the whole time. But I don't blame them. Because one time, I turned into a dog and they helped me. Thank you."

[sm=happy07.gif] 




Sutty -> RE: Ghostbusters III (5/8/2006 8:03:19 PM)

I'd pay to see a new ghostbusters movie. It'd be great to see bill murray and dan ackroyd with proton packs on their backs again. But have you seen the size of Harold Ramis? That guy is huge now!
I think they should try and get Jack Black involved too, maybe as a renegade ghostbuster or a new member of the team. You know, invoking the spirit of John Belushi so to speak. Would sigourney Weaver be interested though?




BatFan -> RE: Ghostbusters III (5/8/2006 8:32:43 PM)

Bill murray has said he never wants to do a 3rd film for any franchise (But yet he will do 2 Garfield films) Dan Akroyd or Harold Ramis said that they would like Ben Stiller to be in it(as the replacement of the character, not as Bill Murray). The storyline I heard was that the busters find a warehouse with a portal to hell, but not the stereotypical hell. But a hell where people are constantly arguing and the property is destroyed (why not just set it in East London, it would be a lot more believable)




10000hz -> RE: Ghostbusters III (5/8/2006 9:46:17 PM)

As long as it has the same theme music, i'm in...




Kalel795 -> RE: Ghostbusters III (6/8/2006 12:40:39 AM)

im in 110% with CGI lookin better than ever there would be some kick ass monsters to fry.......

sony.... WHO YOU GONNA CALL




sonofapritch -> RE: Ghostbusters III (6/8/2006 12:50:32 AM)

I'm a huge fan of the 1st film, however the second film "licked balls" to coin a phrase. I just hope they do the franchise justice and stick to the original with the new york humour and not just make a painful cash in like the 2nd movie was.




mlavagna -> RE: Ghostbusters III (6/8/2006 9:46:23 AM)

I don't think that Ghostbusters II was necessarily a bad movie, it was just a far weaker carbon version of the original. It should have been alot better.

Oh, and about CGI.

CGI will not have much to do with the success of this movie. People are used to CGI laden movies these days. Hollywood has become saturated with it. Special effects, however impressive, just don't surprise or wow people as they once did, ten or twenty years ago. No, these success of this movie will all hang on the script and whoever stars in it.

Personally I prefer the use of puppetry and animatronics with a little computer wizardry thrown in. It has a unique look and in my opinion looks better than doing it totally CGI.




Hobbes79 -> RE: Ghostbusters III (6/8/2006 12:23:17 PM)

Please, for the love of all that is decent in this world, don't do it!!!

[:(]




doobydoo -> RE: Ghostbusters III (6/8/2006 3:53:28 PM)

lets not forget that Evolution was supposed to be the NEW  ghostbusters. Remember how cool that was? of course you dont because it <beep> sucked <beep> <beep> <beep> oh, and another thing <beep> <beep> <beep>... and for my final point about how bad evolution sucked <beep> <beep> <beep> <beep> 

so in conclusion, i really dont think ghostbusters 3 is <beep> necessary seen as ivan reitman hasnt been on <beep> form for a very long <beep> while.

sorry for all the <beep> bad language folks.




matthewforan -> RE: Ghostbusters III (6/8/2006 4:34:34 PM)

I love the two films but what about a whole new cast, i can see it now just get the members of the Frat Pack and let them do a script by Dan and Harlod it would be great.




doobydoo -> RE: Ghostbusters III (6/8/2006 5:11:39 PM)

ben stiller, owen wilson, vince vaughn and chris rock - that would be cool. yeah, the frat pack idea is a <beep> cool one. but what about slimer? what form would he take now? steven seagal maybe? they look the same these days.




mlavagna -> RE: Ghostbusters III (6/8/2006 8:30:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: doobydoo

lets not forget that Evolution was supposed to be the NEW† ghostbusters.†Remember how cool that was? of course you dont because it†<beep> sucked <beep> <beep> <beep> oh, and another thing <beep> <beep> <beep>... and for my final point about how bad evolution sucked <beep> <beep> <beep> <beep>†

so in conclusion, i really dont think ghostbusters 3 is <beep> necessary seen as ivan reitman hasnt been on <beep> form for a very long <beep> while.

sorry for all the <beep> bad language folks.


I don't think that's fair to say. Just because Evolution wasn't that good, does not mean a third Ghostbusters movie would be the same.

Back in 1999 Dan Aykroyd approached Sony Columbia with a script for a third Ghostbusters film. It was rejected because Sony thought that the production costs would be far too high.

So, a couple of years later Reitman chooses to work on another script instead which was Evolution which turned out to be average at best.

But I think that if a clever, funny and inventive script is written for a third Ghostbusters movie which does not rely too heavily on CGI to pull in its cinema audience and make it's money and also stars the four original busters the francise still has the potential to to recreate the success of the 1984 blockbusters original.




Spider -> RE: Ghostbusters III (6/8/2006 8:39:32 PM)

quote:

empire interview with ivan reitman, he's currently trying to talk sony columbia into it.

Personally I'd love to see it, but on two conditions.

1 It must be a hell of a lot better than Ghostbusters II

2 It must star the original actors.
quote:

ORIGINAL: doobydoo

ben stiller, owen wilson, vince vaughn and chris rock - that would be cool. yeah, the frat pack idea is a <beep> cool one.


I think I'd have Luke WIlson over Owen Wilson purely because I think Owen is better at more serious comedies rather than light hearted ones. Luke is just more'hapless'.




pettsy -> RE: Ghostbusters III (6/8/2006 8:42:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlavagna

Accoring to an empire interview with ivan reitman, he's currently trying to talk sony columbia into it.

Personally I'd love to see it, but on two conditions.

1 It must be a hell of a lot better than Ghostbusters II

2 It must star the original actors.

What does everyone else think about this?

 
I've said it before, and I'll say it again...
 
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
 
This is my favourite film of all time, stop trying to rape my childhood memories for a few measly bucks!




bertbirch -> RE: Ghostbusters III (6/8/2006 9:56:02 PM)

I don't think it's a coincidence that Reitman has brought this up in interviews around the time he is having flop after flop, it will never be the same as the 80s efforts (i liked GB II by the way), and would just look lame if they had the old cast back. If they HAVE to make it then get Ackroyd to scipt it and do the frat pack actor idea....that would be the best way to make it seem less embarrasing because if it is just awful it will be easier to divorce it from the films we adored as kids.




mlavagna -> RE: Ghostbusters III (7/8/2006 12:15:50 AM)

Why not use the originals?




Fluke Skywalker -> RE: Ghostbusters III (7/8/2006 11:49:22 AM)

I would have all the Ghostbusters as old men - retired old dads. There's a new threat and they are too old to do anything so they hand the mantle of Ghostbusting over to their kids!

I would use Will Ferrell (Son of Reitman), Jack Black (Son of Ackroyd), Jim Carrey (Son of Murray) and Chris Rock (son of the black dude)! Write a gag a minute - bags of special effects. It will work!!






mlavagna -> RE: Ghostbusters III (7/8/2006 12:16:01 PM)

Please tell me you're joking Fluke!

All they have to do is bring the original four back one last time turning this series into a trilogy. The four men still catch ghosts but as a secondary business as the calls are few and far between, their primary income these days being a motor repair garage inside the old firestation. Whenever they get a surprise call they swap their oil stained overalls for the grey uniform and bring out the dusty old ghostcatching equipment. They are all approaching retirement and don't think that anything major will happen in the last few weeks of the companys exsistence. But something does happen and they have to deal with it.

Someone just has to come up with a great script which is clever, original, funny and exiting. Trust me, even if this movie came out next year alongside Transformers and Die Hard 4, it would be a box office smash and reign supreme at the number one spot!




Fluke Skywalker -> RE: Ghostbusters III (8/8/2006 4:04:31 PM)

No I am deadly serious! Imagine all that comedy talent on screen - would be hilarious if handled correctly. Will Ferrel and Bill Murray - fooking superb




slater250882 -> RE: Ghostbusters III (8/8/2006 5:29:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fluke Skywalker

I would have all the Ghostbusters as old men - retired old dads. There's a new threat and they are too old to do anything so they hand the mantle of Ghostbusting over to their kids!

I would use Will Ferrell (Son of Reitman), Jack Black (Son of Ackroyd), Jim Carrey (Son of Murray) and Chris Rock (son of the black dude)! Write a gag a minute - bags of special effects. It will work!!





I could see it work with will ferrell and jack black, but Jim Carrey - come on be serious now, he's not been funny since The Mask (his rubber faced lunacy antics suited the role), you just have to watch 'no' fun with DICK and jane to see how irritating he can be. And as for Chris Rock no just don't go there. I would go with someone like Ryan Renyolds (Ben Stiller can be better, but is too variable in his comic timing imo), Ernie Hudson's son/replacement could be played by say Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson - he can do comedy (as long as he doesn't do a frickin eyebrow lift, no matter the irony).




the_equalizer -> RE: Ghostbusters III (9/8/2006 1:42:28 PM)

Some cracking ideas being bandied around here!
 
My Ghostbusters:
 
Will Ferrell
Jack Black
Ryan Reynolds
Ernie Hudson
 
There we have it, now let's go make a movie!




Daniel Kelly -> RE: Ghostbusters III (9/8/2006 1:52:23 PM)

If Reitman can make it better than ghostbusters 2 why not? Otherwise it would just be pointless cause the sequel is mediocre. Jack Black would be a cool addition to the team!!!!




kumar -> RE: Ghostbusters III (9/8/2006 2:10:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slater250882

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fluke Skywalker

I would have all the Ghostbusters as old men - retired old dads. There's a new threat and they are too old to do anything so they hand the mantle of Ghostbusting over to their kids!

I would use Will Ferrell (Son of Reitman), Jack Black (Son of Ackroyd), Jim Carrey (Son of Murray) and Chris Rock (son of the black dude)! Write a gag a minute - bags of special effects. It will work!!



I could see it work with will ferrell and jack black, but Jim Carrey - come on be serious now, he's not been funny since The Mask (his rubber faced lunacy antics suited the role), you just have to watch 'no' fun with DICK and jane to see how irritating he can be. And as for Chris Rock no just don't go there. I would go with someone like Ryan Renyolds (Ben Stiller can be better, but is too variable in his comic timing imo), Ernie Hudson's son/replacement could be played by say Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson - he can do comedy (as long as he doesn't do a frickin eyebrow lift, no matter the irony).



definatley not Ryan reynolds, i fail to find him funny, i think he is a total looser. the Rock i dont think could do a

ghosbuster movie, he may be funny, but you know, he doesnt have that "feel" about him.

Jack Black would be BRILLIANT. it would be so good if he was to star in it. im all for the point that Ben Stillers comedic

value is variable, but if he got it al right it may be worth the risk. im all for Chris rock to star aswell, he makes me laugh!

but i think thats it. either one of those or Jim Carey, but not all together, if you have all of them wouldnt it seem overkill?

i dont see how it can be a failure, obviously people have ideas for it, Ackroyd worte a script, so why not!

and i would like to see a ghostbuster movie in the cinema aswell!




slater250882 -> RE: Ghostbusters III (9/8/2006 3:29:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kumar

quote:

ORIGINAL: slater250882

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fluke Skywalker

I would have all the Ghostbusters as old men - retired old dads. There's a new threat and they are too old to do anything so they hand the mantle of Ghostbusting over to their kids!

I would use Will Ferrell (Son of Reitman), Jack Black (Son of Ackroyd), Jim Carrey (Son of Murray) and Chris Rock (son of the black dude)! Write a gag a minute - bags of special effects. It will work!!



I could see it work with will ferrell and jack black, but Jim Carrey - come on be serious now, he's not been funny since The Mask (his rubber faced lunacy antics suited the role), you just have to watch 'no' fun with DICK and jane to see how irritating he can be. And as for Chris Rock no just don't go there. I would go with someone like Ryan Renyolds (Ben Stiller can be better, but is too variable in his comic timing imo), Ernie Hudson's son/replacement could be played by say Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson - he can do comedy (as long as he doesn't do a frickin eyebrow lift, no matter the irony).



definatley not Ryan reynolds, i fail to find him funny, i think he is a total looser. the Rock i dont think could do a

ghosbuster movie, he may be funny, but you know, he doesnt have that "feel" about him.

Jack Black would be BRILLIANT. it would be so good if he was to star in it. im all for the point that Ben Stillers comedic

value is variable, but if he got it al right it may be worth the risk. im all for Chris rock to star aswell, he makes me laugh!

but i think thats it. either one of those or Jim Carey, but not all together, if you have all of them wouldnt it seem overkill?

i dont see how it can be a failure, obviously people have ideas for it, Ackroyd worte a script, so why not!

and i would like to see a ghostbuster movie in the cinema aswell!



Yeah a new Ghostbusters flick would be great. However the balance of the actors would have to be right. Yes Ryan Reynolds can be well, shit,  as long he isn't centre stage (i.e. there is a concerted  group effort, then the film could work with him in. To be honest the reason i came up with Dwayne Johnson was because i was lacking in inspiration at the time, so instead how about Orlando Jones ( The Geology lecturer from Evolution)? Still a no no to Jim Carrey, He's a fricking timebomb in that too many directors give him too much leniency on set. As for scripting how about bringing in Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg?




mlavagna -> RE: Ghostbusters III (10/8/2006 3:36:29 PM)

Simon peggs actually a massive fan of Ghostbusters. I have a picture of him somewhere standing outside the Ghostbusters Hook and Ladder firehouse in New York. As for him writing a Ghostbusters script. I dunno. I think he'd write a funny movie as far as dialogue is concerned, but for the story and premise I'd have him co write it with Harold Ramis.

Regarding new actors. The comedy in Ghostbusters extremely dry, deadpan and witty. Comedians who normally to silly humour such as Jim carrey etc wouldn't work in a movie like this. They'd turn it into slapstick which Ghostbusters is not. They need to chose good actors who have a talent for comedy timing and making the situations their characters are in completely beleivable without overplaying their characters (ei Jim Carrey, Will Smith etc). For me, Jack Black would be a very worthy addition. He's seen as somewhat of a loud, crazy character in much of his stuff but for me he proved in King Kong that he can turn the volume down and play more straight characters. I think that Jamie Foxx would be great also. Another actor I've seen and who is somewhat lesser known is a guy by the name of David Krumholtz. I think his acting and sence of humour would suit a picture such as the very well. Maybe John Tuturro as well. Stick a pair of wire rim spectacles on him and he looks surprising like a younger Harold Ramis!




Monkeyshaver -> RE: Ghostbusters III (10/8/2006 3:45:31 PM)

With Hollywood's predilection for trilogies & cash in sequels itís only a matter of time before this gets greenlit. Unfortunately.




mlavagna -> RE: Ghostbusters III (10/8/2006 4:14:04 PM)

Unfortunately? But it may be very good!




matheus_the_grey -> RE: Ghostbusters III (10/8/2006 6:22:56 PM)

Why not have Jim Carrey in it but put him through the Mask make up and he can play Slimer who has been to Jenny Craig hmm Jim Carrey, Jenny Craig, JG, JG think I got something here and than he has his stomach shrunk and he goes to college to learn how to speak and learns to speak english and likes to say smoking[sm=icon_smile_pistols.gif]....[sm=whistle.gif] what do ya think?




Funky_Gibbon -> RE: Ghostbusters III (10/8/2006 11:04:53 PM)

Like anyone with good taste I love Ghostbusters but I wouldn't want there to be a third film... at least not after so long. The CGI might be brilliant but I don't think it would have the same heart.






Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.1708984