[Sav C]

Most of the criticisms I don't get--even Bill's criticism that the effects took over. The sequel actually had less effects than the first one.

[JurorNo.2]

Most of the criticisms I don't get--even Bill's criticism that the effects took over. The sequel actually had less effects than the first one.

Yeah who knows. Maybe it seemed that way during filming. People just start looking for reasons when a movie doesn't perform as well as expected.

[Sav C]

Most of the criticisms I don't get--even Bill's criticism that the effects took over. The sequel actually had less effects than the first one.

Yeah who knows. Maybe it seemed that way during filming. People just start looking for reasons when a movie doesn't perform as well as expected.

By ILM having to outsource effects it may have created the illusion there were more than the first film, or maybe they were more complex to shoot.

[SpaceBallz]

I heard it took ILM 3 months to put all the expressions on Bill's face in the reboot.

[JurorNo.2]

I heard it took ILM 3 months to put all the expressions on Bill's face in the reboot.

You know, the guy doesn't play out and out villains very often. His thing is to play bad boys who find redemption. I think that's what threw some people off. He wasn't doing the shtick he's known for. Doesn't mean he was phoning it in.

[tylergfoster]

Not sure if this has been mentioned, but apparently Sony was considering severe legal action against Bill and the other original cast members if they didn't appear in this film.

Big misinterpretation of the leaks. Very obnoxious. I wrote a whole thing about it: http://the-following-preview.blogspot.c ... -2016.html

[Razorgeist]

You know Im not trying to be contrarian here but as much as I like Bill Murray I just really dont care if he's ever involved with Ghostbusters again. He was never the selling point for the movies or the franchise for me. I wasn't really affected by his cameo in the movie and Im just tired of hearing about it. If i had to pick my favorite cameo it would be Ernie Hudson's

[JurorNo.2]

You know Im not trying to be contrarian here but as much as I like Bill Murray I just really dont care if he's ever involved with Ghostbusters again. He was never the selling point for the movies or the franchise for me. I wasn't really affected by his cameo in the movie and Im just tired of hearing about it. If i had to pick my favorite cameo it would be Ernie Hudson's

Well, here's what's funny to me. Fans always go on about how much they love Venkman because he's independent and not especially sentimental. Yet, when Bill basically behaves that way in real life, suddenly he's an inconsiderate jerk and a traitor to the fans, lol.

Same with Ray and Dan. Fans love Ray's ability to look at the positives. But when Dan demonstrates that same sort of optimism, those too-hip-for-the-room fans will call him delusional.

Even Ernie Hudson, fans love his "If there's a steady paycheck" line. They love how Winston is the working everyman. But the minute they suspect he did GB16 "for the paycheck," suddenly he's a sellout.

You have to wonder if those types of fans even understand their favorite movie.

Btw, that's not directed at you, Razor. More the fans you mentioned who were so affected by the cameo and Bill's disinterest in a GB3.

[Razorgeist]

Btw, that's not directed at you, Razor. More the fans you mentioned who were so affected by the cameo and Bill's disinterest in a GB3.

Dont worry I didnt think it was. Hell my point was more toward the "if Bills not in it we cant make a GB movie" crowd. We've had quite a bit of succesful Ghostbusters without him. Come to think of it allot of the more negative pointe raised by some ATC detractors were done before in the GB franchise and done quite well. Lady Ghostbusters, done before, newer younger team, done before.

[GBPaulRivera]

It seems to me that while not so extreme, many have voiced both a positive and negative views about Murray's refusal to be in GB3. I never read any of the leak scripts of third film that ever came out. Though some have said they're not necessarily good, and not entirely bad ... hmmm, just like GB2 and the reboot. Personally, I don't know why Bill Murray refused to do Ghostbusters 3, but I'm not gonna hate him or love him for it. The guy isn't a personal friend and he isn't a personal enemy of mine as some who treat him on both sides just because he didn't make the third film. While I was once excited about a third film, I was satisfied once the game came out even if it was kinda a retread of the original, but hey so did Force Awakens and its the best selling movie of all time. At that point, I moved on and I never wanted a third movie anymore, and I was satisfied with the ongoing comics unlike some such as Ivo who at one point told me he doesn't like their direction even though to me they have done things that progresses the main story line. That isn't a jab at him or others alike, but just I disagree with that view.

With the reboot, Bill hammed it, but he was just having fun just like the others who made the movie. Heck one of my favorite Bill Murray movies is Larger Than Life, what does that say? Oh well I like things, you may not, world keeps spinning. He got to do it for a day, was with a cast of people he thought were funny, enjoyed seeing it. Bill may lie like any of us, but after 25 years of expressing his dislike of GB2 and other bad films, I don't think he would say I thought the movie was great, even if he was paid because Bill can get away with it. Plus, props to him for making a deal I'm sure very few then and nearly no one today can get away with in regards to creating original content and have equal power as the studio WITH HIS CAST/FRIENDS. It sounds like I'm leaning on those who support Bill, and honestly I kinda do, but not from the perspective of a GBFan, but as a regular fan of his content good and some bad, but also as a human being. If life has taught me anything, no one is obligated to do something for you just because like what they did. If they'll do it, they will, if not, well then just enjoy something else. He doesn't hate Dan, Ernie, Harold, and Ivan for trying to do the 3rd one. They know how he works and they're his friends, and they don't hate him. Sure there's regret, but what friendship doesn't have that? Honestly? And as of now they might even be fine/happy that he came to do his cameo. If his friends/co-stars are fine with that, good, if you're not, good you're entitled to your opinion, but to hate him is unnecessary and you have better things to do to society and this community than that.

[SpaceBallz]

You know Im not trying to be contrarian here but as much as I like Bill Murray I just really dont care if he's ever involved with Ghostbusters again. He was never the selling point for the movies or the franchise for me. I wasn't really affected by his cameo in the movie and Im just tired of hearing about it. If i had to pick my favorite cameo it would be Ernie Hudson's

You know, everybody's characters seemed out of place and over the top in this film. Except for Ernie's performance, even when he was interacting with Patty it seemed like he brought out a legitimate performance out of her character there too. He still gots it!

[Razorgeist]

You know Im not trying to be contrarian here but as much as I like Bill Murray I just really dont care if he's ever involved with Ghostbusters again. He was never the selling point for the movies or the franchise for me. I wasn't really affected by his cameo in the movie and Im just tired of hearing about it. If i had to pick my favorite cameo it would be Ernie Hudson's

You know, everybody's characters seemed out of place and over the top in this film. Except for Ernie's performance, even when he was interacting with Patty it seemed like he brought out a legitimate performance out of her character there too. He still gots it!

Agreed he was great! I wonder if that has more to do with the fact that he's not a comedian.

[pferreira1983]

I really like Bill's cameo in the new movie. It doesn't feel phoned in to me. Now Bill's performance in TVG, that is what I call phoned in.

He phoned both of them in. He does a lot of calling.

[Sav C]

I heard it took ILM 3 months to put all the expressions on Bill's face in the reboot.

I don't think SP Imageworks outsourced anything to ILM...

[ZedRage]

Not sure if this has been mentioned, but apparently Sony was considering severe legal action against Bill and the other original cast members if they didn't appear in this film.

Big misinterpretation of the leaks. Very obnoxious. I wrote a whole thing about it: http://the-following-preview.blogspot.c ... -2016.html

Okay, fair enough.
Though anything Tom Rothman supposedly said should be taken with a shaker of salt, slice of lime, and a quart of tequila, the rest of the analysis seems pretty solid.

[HunterCC]

I like wondering if sometimes things behind the scenes are not what they appear. Out of curiosity, if there is a simple answer that explains why things happened the way they did, I'd like to know. If Bill Murray was the holdout that kept GB3 from getting made, then why was the reboot made right after *Harold Ramis* died, with Murray in the reboot?

[Alphagaia]

My reasoning: because they really wanted to make one, but could not get the script right, and with the man dying who could pull back the craziness of Dan's scripts Dan and Ivan finally allowed others to take a crack at it? Which evolved into someone wanting to do a stand on its own story. Which evolved into a 'reboot'.
I believe Bills problem was he did not want to be Venkman again, he had no problems being in a GB movie otherwise.

[Fritz]

To repeat something I said elsewhere, because it seems relevant:

My own personal hunch is that Murray felt a lot less pressure when it came to a reboot. Any continuation (ie a "real" GB3) he would have either felt pressured to contribute because of his importance to the first two movies, or everybody would complain about him not being in it. (And I don't think he's wrong about that--look how many people bitched and moaned that Rick Moranis and his far more minor character weren't in the video game) With a reboot, it's not about him--he could have not shown up and it wouldn't have mattered much either way. Ironically, without that pressure...he did show up.

[RichardLess]

Yeah who knows. Maybe it seemed that way during filming. People just start looking for reasons when a movie doesn't perform as well as expected.

By ILM having to outsource effects it may have created the illusion there were more than the first film, or maybe they were more complex to shoot.

No I'm pretty sure GB2 had more FX shots than the first film. They kept adding things don't forget. I've read the exact number of shots somewhere but I know it was more than GB1.

[JurorNo.2]

By ILM having to outsource effects it may have created the illusion there were more than the first film, or maybe they were more complex to shoot.

No I'm pretty sure GB2 had more FX shots than the first film. They kept adding things don't forget. I've read the exact number of shots somewhere but I know it was more than GB1.

Oh that may very well be, we're just wondering if it felt like the FX took over the movie.

[Sav C]

By ILM having to outsource effects it may have created the illusion there were more than the first film, or maybe they were more complex to shoot.

No I'm pretty sure GB2 had more FX shots than the first film. They kept adding things don't forget. I've read the exact number of shots somewhere but I know it was more than GB1.

It's possible. According to Ghostbusters The Ultimate Visual History (Page 157) ILM had to complete nearly 180 effects shots (like you said they kept adding to that total.) The final number I've heard for the amount of effects shots in GBII is 200, exactly the same as the first one. There's also a quote by Reitman (Page 181:)

I think part of the problem was that Bill got down on the second one and did it publicly, he kept saying, 'There's too many special effects,' when in fact there were fewer.

They probably have around the same amount of effects shots, since it's possible Ivan was factoring in the in-camera effects.

[ZedRage]

Most of the criticisms I don't get--even Bill's criticism that the effects took over. The sequel actually had less effects than the first one.

Well, I know I felt it was pretty ineffective.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.




Wakka wakka!

[pferreira1983]

My own personal hunch is that Murray felt a lot less pressure when it came to a reboot. Any continuation (ie a "real" GB3) he would have either felt pressured to contribute because of his importance to the first two movies, or everybody would complain about him not being in it. (And I don't think he's wrong about that--look how many people bitched and moaned that Rick Moranis and his far more minor character weren't in the video game) With a reboot, it's not about him--he could have not shown up and it wouldn't have mattered much either way. Ironically, without that pressure...he did show up.

I think this was probably it ot be honest.

No I'm pretty sure GB2 had more FX shots than the first film. They kept adding things don't forget. I've read the exact number of shots somewhere but I know it was more than GB1.

There definitely felt like there were less effects in the sequel.