Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

Dan Aykroyd Still Pushing Ghostbusters 3

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie News >> Dan Aykroyd Still Pushing Ghostbusters 3 Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Dan Aykroyd Still Pushing Ghostbusters 3 - 26/8/2011 7:14:37 AM   
Empire Admin

 

Posts: 30250
Joined: 29/6/2005
Post your comments on this article
Post #: 1
Ghostbusted - 26/8/2011 8:28:38 AM   
Macavity


Posts: 473
Joined: 14/4/2006
Hate to say it but the idea's obvious and stinks. No wonder Murray's steering clear.
Post #: 2
Dan Aykroyd Still Pushing Ghostbusters 3 - 26/8/2011 9:29:42 AM   
Snake-Eyes


Posts: 9970
Joined: 1/10/2005
From: ZONE 2
Are they still going on about this? Much as I absolutely worship at the altar of GHOSTBUSTERS, a third film just doesn't matter anymore.

_____________________________

"When you have to shoot, shoot don't talk."

http://www.expendablespremiere.com/index.html
Post #: 3
RE: Dan Aykroyd Still Pushing Ghostbusters 3 - 26/8/2011 10:05:03 AM   
NCC1701A


Posts: 4488
Joined: 12/3/2011
From: Space Dock
Agree love Ghostbusters 1 & 2 but to much time has passed for this to really work leave it alone . However back in the 90s I would of loved a Ghostbusters 3 now I just can't see this working.

< Message edited by NCC1701A -- 26/8/2011 10:07:59 AM >


_____________________________

Trench: I'll be back.

Church: You've been back enough. I'll be back.

[leaves]

Trench: Yippee-ki-yay.


The Expendables 2 (2012)

(in reply to Snake-Eyes)
Post #: 4
RE: Sequel, reboot - 26/8/2011 2:36:59 PM   
mlavagna

 

Posts: 204
Joined: 3/12/2005
Ghostbusters without Venkman?  I'm not sure.  I think that it could still be an entertaining, funny film however Venkman was such a memorable character and so integral to Ghostbusters that his presence and comedic input would be greatly missed if he was left out and I think that the film would be poorer for it.

Personally speaking I would much rather see one final film starring the original characters.  The main reason why Ghostbusters worked and why it is so loved is the Ghostbusters.  It was those particular characters.  Anyone who says that the actors are too old doesn't know what they're talking about.  They're not too old.  You're never too old for comedy.
Post #: 5
RE: Dan Aykroyd Still Pushing Ghostbusters 3 - 26/8/2011 4:59:41 PM   
DazDaMan


Posts: 10109
Joined: 8/9/2006
From: Penicuik - a right shithole

quote:

ORIGINAL: Snake-Eyes

Are they still going on about this? Much as I absolutely worship at the altar of GHOSTBUSTERS, a third film just doesn't matter anymore.


This.

_____________________________

You fucking fuckers are gonna do what I say or I'm going to stick my foot so far up your assholes you'll rue the day you crawled out of your mother's twat!

(in reply to Snake-Eyes)
Post #: 6
RE: Dan Aykroyd Still Pushing Ghostbusters 3 - 26/8/2011 5:01:54 PM   
Spaldron


Posts: 10485
Joined: 6/10/2006
From: Chair
No Venkman = No Point.

_____________________________

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts
And I looked and behold, a pale horse
And his name that sat on him was Death
And Hell followed with him.

(in reply to DazDaMan)
Post #: 7
RE: Dan Aykroyd Still Pushing Ghostbusters 3 - 26/8/2011 6:26:32 PM   
Shifty Bench

 

Posts: 15400
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Land of the Scots
I agree that a third film is pointless (with our without Murray) but this bit intrigued me-

quote:

"I like this guy Matthew Gray Gubler from the Criminal Minds show..."


He'd be perfect in an Egon type role.


_____________________________

Extended Edition Podcast- Episode 46:Threads Of Destiny (Star Wars Fan Film)

(in reply to Spaldron)
Post #: 8
RE: Dan Aykroyd Still Pushing Ghostbusters 3 - 26/8/2011 6:28:07 PM   
Snake-Eyes


Posts: 9970
Joined: 1/10/2005
From: ZONE 2

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron

No Venkman = No Point.


THIS.

_____________________________

"When you have to shoot, shoot don't talk."

http://www.expendablespremiere.com/index.html

(in reply to Spaldron)
Post #: 9
RE: Dan Aykroyd Still Pushing Ghostbusters 3 - 26/8/2011 7:44:43 PM   
jobloffski

 

Posts: 1896
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: elsewhere
quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron

No Venkman = No Point.


The role of Venkman was originally written for John Belushi, and that of Louis Tully for John Candy. Written by Dan Aykroyd, and subsequently written by Harold Ramis. Winston was originally envisaged as Eddie Murphy. Things turned out differently of course, but to say no Venkman (ie murray) = no point is to underplay the number of non Murray elements required to make the films work.

There are many ways the Venkman spirit could be created for the film, including creating a character that is him in all but name, or having Venkman as a ghost (visually resembling or even as a cloud of smoky type stuff apparition, a half arsed not ully forming apparition, provoking lines about how 'you never really committed to any thing, did you Venkman/the spirit of Venkman engaging with events unseen, allowing a riff on the 'Venkman! Venkman! lines from Stantz).

If a good enough script can be written, a good enough film can be made. That's the bottom line, and perhaps Danny Boy should concentrate on writing the best script possible rather than all the tease, so that the first stage of the process is complete and there's something to say to enough of the people who have a say/influence we HAVE to make this. Hint, what he is talking about in the article should go in the bin, right now. Do not make a passing of the torch movie. Continue or reboot, under no circumstances make a halfway house movie designed to create future sequels. One more spin for the boys, then if you must, reboot.

Hell, just have Venkman turn up as having posessed someone, complaining about how he died or something. start the film with Younger Ghostbusters having already taken up the mantle, have them not make it past the opening sequence, and the kick off point being...NOW who are we gonna call...opening title seqence then being a montage of 'where they're at' for the older Ghostbusters, ending with them in situ, on the job and no screen time wasted in bringing the team back together.

Or whatever. Ideas are aplenty for the franchise. Do it, and get on with it! Of course it could all go wrong,but it could, possibly go right.




< Message edited by jobloffski -- 26/8/2011 7:50:58 PM >

(in reply to Spaldron)
Post #: 10
RE: Dan Aykroyd Still Pushing Ghostbusters 3 - 26/8/2011 9:00:59 PM   
smoreyjinza

 

Posts: 5
Joined: 26/8/2011
Yah I really don't want to see a sequel now. If it is horrible it might ruin one of the best series. Making a sequel for sequel sake doesn't make sense.

(in reply to jobloffski)
Post #: 11
RE: Ghostbusted 2 - 27/8/2011 9:01:41 AM   
NCC1701A


Posts: 4488
Joined: 12/3/2011
From: Space Dock
The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull took 19 years to get to the big screen and look what happened its been 23 years since Ghostbusters 2. I agree with Big D2012 lets just have the francise as a memory that you can enjoy on DVD or Blu Ray.

_____________________________

Trench: I'll be back.

Church: You've been back enough. I'll be back.

[leaves]

Trench: Yippee-ki-yay.


The Expendables 2 (2012)
Post #: 12
RE: Ghostbusted 2 - 27/8/2011 9:23:38 AM   
Wild about Wilder


Posts: 1682
Joined: 9/4/2010
From: Hertfordshire
Can't have Ghostbusters without Bill thought they could've done something like 20 years after they've seen each other Weaver turns up to see down on his luck Venkman to tell him she had a child by him & that the Demons that came after her have now come for their kid so he gets the boys back together? Crap I know but judging what Dan's coming up with it's an idea.

< Message edited by Wild about Wilder -- 27/8/2011 9:25:06 AM >

(in reply to NCC1701A)
Post #: 13
RE: Dan Aykroyd Still Pushing Ghostbusters 3 - 27/8/2011 1:52:31 PM   
horribleives

 

Posts: 5113
Joined: 12/6/2009
From: The North

quote:

ORIGINAL: jobloffski

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron

No Venkman = No Point.


The role of Venkman was originally written for John Belushi, and that of Louis Tully for John Candy. Written by Dan Aykroyd, and subsequently written by Harold Ramis. Winston was originally envisaged as Eddie Murphy. Things turned out differently of course, but to say no Venkman (ie murray) = no point is to underplay the number of non Murray elements required to make the films work.

There are many ways the Venkman spirit could be created for the film, including creating a character that is him in all but name, or having Venkman as a ghost (visually resembling or even as a cloud of smoky type stuff apparition, a half arsed not ully forming apparition, provoking lines about how 'you never really committed to any thing, did you Venkman/the spirit of Venkman engaging with events unseen, allowing a riff on the 'Venkman! Venkman! lines from Stantz).

If a good enough script can be written, a good enough film can be made. That's the bottom line, and perhaps Danny Boy should concentrate on writing the best script possible rather than all the tease, so that the first stage of the process is complete and there's something to say to enough of the people who have a say/influence we HAVE to make this. Hint, what he is talking about in the article should go in the bin, right now. Do not make a passing of the torch movie. Continue or reboot, under no circumstances make a halfway house movie designed to create future sequels. One more spin for the boys, then if you must, reboot.

Hell, just have Venkman turn up as having posessed someone, complaining about how he died or something. start the film with Younger Ghostbusters having already taken up the mantle, have them not make it past the opening sequence, and the kick off point being...NOW who are we gonna call...opening title seqence then being a montage of 'where they're at' for the older Ghostbusters, ending with them in situ, on the job and no screen time wasted in bringing the team back together.

Or whatever. Ideas are aplenty for the franchise. Do it, and get on with it! Of course it could all go wrong,but it could, possibly go right.





And surely that overplays the chances of those non-Murray elements being any good?
Since Ghostbusters, he has given countless brilliant performances in a several amazing films and continues to to this day.
Ramis has made one masterpiece and numerous clunkers (said masterpiece just happening to star Mr Murray), Reitman churns out the empty work of a tired anonymous hack, and Aykroyd (always the weakest link anyway) is a fat unfunny cunt.
Bill was the best thing in Ghostbusters and the chief reason it rocked. To push ahead without him makes no sense and smacks of desperation.



_____________________________

www.hollywoodunbound.co.uk - some nonsense about alien film directors and musclebound man-children.

(in reply to jobloffski)
Post #: 14
RE: Dan Aykroyd Still Pushing Ghostbusters 3 - 27/8/2011 2:54:07 PM   
Spaldron


Posts: 10485
Joined: 6/10/2006
From: Chair

quote:

ORIGINAL: horribleives


quote:

ORIGINAL: jobloffski

quote:

ORIGINAL: Spaldron

No Venkman = No Point.


The role of Venkman was originally written for John Belushi, and that of Louis Tully for John Candy. Written by Dan Aykroyd, and subsequently written by Harold Ramis. Winston was originally envisaged as Eddie Murphy. Things turned out differently of course, but to say no Venkman (ie murray) = no point is to underplay the number of non Murray elements required to make the films work.

There are many ways the Venkman spirit could be created for the film, including creating a character that is him in all but name, or having Venkman as a ghost (visually resembling or even as a cloud of smoky type stuff apparition, a half arsed not ully forming apparition, provoking lines about how 'you never really committed to any thing, did you Venkman/the spirit of Venkman engaging with events unseen, allowing a riff on the 'Venkman! Venkman! lines from Stantz).

If a good enough script can be written, a good enough film can be made. That's the bottom line, and perhaps Danny Boy should concentrate on writing the best script possible rather than all the tease, so that the first stage of the process is complete and there's something to say to enough of the people who have a say/influence we HAVE to make this. Hint, what he is talking about in the article should go in the bin, right now. Do not make a passing of the torch movie. Continue or reboot, under no circumstances make a halfway house movie designed to create future sequels. One more spin for the boys, then if you must, reboot.

Hell, just have Venkman turn up as having posessed someone, complaining about how he died or something. start the film with Younger Ghostbusters having already taken up the mantle, have them not make it past the opening sequence, and the kick off point being...NOW who are we gonna call...opening title seqence then being a montage of 'where they're at' for the older Ghostbusters, ending with them in situ, on the job and no screen time wasted in bringing the team back together.

Or whatever. Ideas are aplenty for the franchise. Do it, and get on with it! Of course it could all go wrong,but it could, possibly go right.





And surely that overplays the chances of those non-Murray elements being any good?
Since Ghostbusters, he has given countless brilliant performances in a several amazing films and continues to to this day.
Ramis has made one masterpiece and numerous clunkers (said masterpiece just happening to star Mr Murray), Reitman churns out the empty work of a tired anonymous hack, and Aykroyd (always the weakest link anyway) is a fat unfunny cunt.
Bill was the best thing in Ghostbusters and the chief reason it rocked. To push ahead without him makes no sense and smacks of desperation.





This ^

Sorry jobloffski but your argument that we can have a "Murray-esqe" element without Murray makes no sense. The reason the original film works so well is the chemistry between the characters, Murray fitted in perfectly with that. I'm well aware that the part was originally for Belushi but in all honesty I'm not sure Belushi would've been right for that part.

And besides we wouldn't have gotten Slimer if he hadn't OD'd.

_____________________________

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts
And I looked and behold, a pale horse
And his name that sat on him was Death
And Hell followed with him.

(in reply to horribleives)
Post #: 15
RE: Dan Aykroyd Still Pushing Ghostbusters 3 - 27/8/2011 5:03:52 PM   
jobloffski

 

Posts: 1896
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: elsewhere
Venkman's part of the comedy equation was to cynically comment dryly on the situation and largely be a charlatan, basically incompetent and cowardly until towards the end when the baddie has messed with the girl he has fallen for. That, of course reduces what he did to it's ultimate basics, but those kind of elements could still exist in a film without Murray. I only referred to the Venkman part being written for someone else originally because it would have quite clearly been possible for a Murray free Ghostbusters film to exist. It would of course been different but it would still have existed (which it wouldn't have if money planned for a Hitch Hikers Guide TTG movie hadn't come its way).

Murray is great, but only an element of Ghostbusters, not the whole thing. More problematic than his show or no-show is the kind of story Danny Boy seems to be talking about in the Empire article. And Murray's absence can be explained (Lines shared between the returning originals...No Peter/Why?/He never liked us that much, now I don't think he likes us at all/so who's going to insult us, look all scared when anything starts happening, then pretend to be brave and step forward to take the kudos and credit when it's all over?We'll cross that bridge when we come to it, my friend) or not explained, or whatever.


(in reply to Spaldron)
Post #: 16
RE: G3 - 28/8/2011 11:02:42 AM   
NCC1701A


Posts: 4488
Joined: 12/3/2011
From: Space Dock

quote:

ORIGINAL: tjhyman

I think Ghostbusters should happen as a complete re-boot. It will not work as a sequel (see Superman Returns!), but should include the old gang just in a small cameo scene, at the beginning or end (a la Starsky & Hutch movie). I think it's best not to link it with the old days - that will lose its core audience of young moviegoers - just go all out on scares and effects and bring the comedy in via some great new Saturday Night Live talent. I feel a little wary too over Aykroyd's script, as it may be just a little too nostalgic (i.e. dated). But having said all that, I can't wait to see Ghostbusters 3 (it's gotta be better than 2!!!).








Wow nothing wrong with Ghostbusters II.

_____________________________

Trench: I'll be back.

Church: You've been back enough. I'll be back.

[leaves]

Trench: Yippee-ki-yay.


The Expendables 2 (2012)
Post #: 17
RE: G3 - 28/8/2011 11:37:01 PM   
TheSpleen

 

Posts: 1294
Joined: 11/7/2009
I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure they need Murray to agree to do the film anyway? Even if he doesn't star in it I thought they all had a share and say.

(in reply to NCC1701A)
Post #: 18
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie News >> Dan Aykroyd Still Pushing Ghostbusters 3 Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.109