Discuss all things Ghostbusters here, unless they would be better suited in one of the few forums below.
#4950670
In this article, https://www.indiewire.com/2021/04/bill- ... 234628120/, Murray claims he was tricked into doing GB2 but doesn't specify anything. I know he pitched something called The Last of the Ghostbusters, great title by the way, and early scripts had a river of bugs and no Dana. He really wanted that movie made instead of what came later? Even then, he blamed the special effects for taking over.

He does remember being top billed, probably paid the highest salary, had the most screen time, got no slime on him, and had an unorthodox amount of say regarding production i.e. if he didn't like Kurt Fuller, he'd be out of the movie. I wonder if ever there was a time when Reitman or an executive told him to shut up and do the job he was paid to do.

I don't see why he gives GB2 so much flak. Aykroyd and Reitman don't understand it either, something they have made clear over the years. It's not like he hasn't made some duds in his career. What was the name of that elephant movie he was in?

GB2 is 32 years old today and it's the last of its kind regarding the original four. If he wanted it to be better, maybe he should have used his pull to ensure the script didn't change instead of securing creature comforts.
#4950749
They all, including Murray, maybe the exception of Aykroyd weren't in a rush to do another Ghostbusters movie much less planned to make it a franchise. It was just a comedy movie they did in 1984. In that specific article, Murray alludes to how they tricked him into signing on by getting everyone in one room for that lunch summit and talking about the sequel (but he's difficult to reign in so some kind of tactic had to be used, a similar tactic had to be used later in TVG via his brother). It's not like everyone ganged up on him at lunch and forced him to sign on the dotted line with a gun to his head. And sure of course, it was all laughs and Murray was feeling good after the lunch. But to him, it was more like getting to work with them all again than the movie, it just so happened to be another Ghostbusters movie.

But when Batman stomped it on opening week (keep in mind, the crew was originally under the impression GB2 was gonna be a July 4th date then Reitman requested June 23 despite then Batman announced the same date), he probably felt betrayed in some weird sense and started looking for something to blame. He's also said in the past they focused on the VFX too much in GB2. Or it could also be a case of Murray only seeing Aykroyd's original script (The Seed) which parallels like how in the first movie, he only saw the original version Aykroyd wrote, before Ramis and Reitman joined in writing what would be the movie, then he vanished to Europe and barely returned to New York on time to start filming. And to him the script had totally changed behind his back. GB1 had 200-260 optical shots. GB2 had around 180 optical shots. So GB1 actually did more viz work. But I can guess Murray could be referring to how production went back to NY and barely finished on time, using the work of multiple effects studios to do extra scenes and optical work like John Van Vliet at Available Light, Peter Kuran at Visual Concept Engineering, Apogee, and Pacific Title. He equated that was too much dependence on VFX, whereas it was to help make the story more cohesive.

"Last of the Ghostbusters" was just what Murray suggested be the title of the movie so they wouldn't make a Ghostbusters III, IV, V, etc. after. He had no part in pitching or working on the story.
Couture liked this
#4950809
mrmichaelt wrote: He had no part in pitching or working on the story.
Well, this might not actually be the case! According to early reports, apparently Bill had a small hand in crafting the original story/ideas. He also suggested a pretty major shakeup just before shooting. More to come on this in the future.

Bill also seemed to keep tabs on the script through development. Murray's STARLOG interview for Scrooged is pretty meaty. Scrooged was released on Nov 17, 88, just before filming began on GB2 in NYC. I'm guessing that this interview was from the Scrooged press tour-- let's say early November.

It seems the "Peter and Dana are married" script is what he was pitched.

From STARLOG 140. Interesting bits bolded.
"It's not going to be called Ghostbusters II," he reveals. "We'll burn in hell if we call it Ghostbusters II. I've suggested The Last of the Ghostbusters, to make sure there won't be anything like a Ghostbusters III. But the script is nowhere near ready, and we start shooting soon. [Filming, in fact, began at presstime, November 28.] Jeez, more pressure. We'll figure it out...or we won't.

"I was the last holdout. They finally just waved too much money in my face?" laughs Murray. "I really didn't want to do it for all the obvious reasons, but the reasons to do it were obvious, too. With Dan and Harold and Moranis and Sigourney, we really had a ball. That's really the most fun I've had on a movie. It's the most fun group to be with.

"We weren't so crazy about making money, or being desperate, and it worked," he confesses. "Finally, Dan and Harold said, 'We've got some ideas here. What do you think?' We spent a couple of days talking, and they did have some amazing ideas for this story."

Shortly before presstime, even Murray couldn't confirm Sigourney Weaver's participation in the sequel. In the years since the original Ghostbusters, Weaver (STARLOG #109) has established herself as a major Hollywood force. Based on her Academy Award-nominated performance as Ripley in ALIENS and the financial triumph of James Cameron's film, producers consider the actress "bankable," meaning she wields enough clout to see as controversial and uncommercial a movie as Gorillas in the Mist brought to the screen as a vehicle for her. Though Murray jokingly refers to Gorillas as "The Monkey Movie," Weaver's star has risen to the point where accepting a minor role in a Ghostbusters adventure could represent Poor career move.

"She's not even in the cartoon, so I don't know if she's going to be in the film," Murray says. "The original idea was that she would be in it. The ideas they sold me on to say, 'OK, let's do it,' are no longer in the script. Sigourney was one of those ideas.

"They've gone all the way around trying to figure out how to make it. I had to audition with some actresses, but we all like Sigourney. The only problem with Sigourney is she's so tall. Naaah, I'm just kidding. She's tall, but she's not too tall. The problem is that you would wind up with a story that was tilted and like the Flintstone family. Sigourney and I would be this major thing and it would be hard to figure out how the Ghostbusters' dynamic would grow. The sort of story they were writing ended up not really needing the other three guys."

Fortunately, though, matters have been settled. Reached at press time, Weaver confirms she will be in The Last of the Ghostbusters as "they female lead, as far as I know."

Murray looks forward to the filming -- sort of. "Oh, what the hell, " he sighs. "Even if it's a dog, this sequel's going to make money because so many people are going to say, 'Let's see if they ruined it' or 'Let's see if it's any good.' It's a creative process and that's all that counts. We've got a few weeks yet," Bill Murray notes. "It should be interesting "
robbritton liked this
#4950821
d_osborn wrote: June 19th, 2021, 10:23 am Well, this might not actually be the case! According to early reports, apparently Bill had a small hand in crafting the original story/ideas. He also suggested a pretty major shakeup just before shooting. More to come on this in the future.

Bill also seemed to keep tabs on the script through development. Murray's STARLOG interview for Scrooged is pretty meaty. Scrooged was released on Nov 17, 88, just before filming began on GB2 in NYC. I'm guessing that this interview was from the Scrooged press tour-- let's say early November.

It seems the "Peter and Dana are married" script is what he was pitched.

From STARLOG 140. Interesting bits bolded.
Shortly before presstime, even Murray couldn't confirm Sigourney Weaver's participation in the sequel. In the years since the original Ghostbusters, Weaver (STARLOG #109) has established herself as a major Hollywood force. Based on her Academy Award-nominated performance as Ripley in ALIENS and the financial triumph of James Cameron's film, producers consider the actress "bankable," meaning she wields enough clout to see as controversial and uncommercial a movie as Gorillas in the Mist brought to the screen as a vehicle for her. Though Murray jokingly refers to Gorillas as "The Monkey Movie," Weaver's star has risen to the point where accepting a minor role in a Ghostbusters adventure could represent Poor career move.

"She's not even in the cartoon, so I don't know if she's going to be in the film," Murray says. "The original idea was that she would be in it. The ideas they sold me on to say, 'OK, let's do it,' are no longer in the script. Sigourney was one of those ideas.

"They've gone all the way around trying to figure out how to make it. I had to audition with some actresses, but we all like Sigourney. The only problem with Sigourney is she's so tall. Naaah, I'm just kidding. She's tall, but she's not too tall. The problem is that you would wind up with a story that was tilted and like the Flintstone family. Sigourney and I would be this major thing and it would be hard to figure out how the Ghostbusters' dynamic would grow. The sort of story they were writing ended up not really needing the other three guys."

Fortunately, though, matters have been settled. Reached at press time, Weaver confirms she will be in The Last of the Ghostbusters as "they female lead, as far as I know."

Murray looks forward to the filming -- sort of. "Oh, what the hell, " he sighs. "Even if it's a dog, this sequel's going to make money because so many people are going to say, 'Let's see if they ruined it' or 'Let's see if it's any good.' It's a creative process and that's all that counts. We've got a few weeks yet," Bill Murray notes. "It should be interesting "
Cool, that's nice to hear Bill was there in initial stages with ideas. Sly allusion to Too Hot To Handle I take it. :P

Ok, yeah, it sounds like the ideas/story they sold Bill on was The Seed where Dana is kidnapped to Scotland. Don't think it was ever mentioned they were married in that script. Well what little information is known about it.

And yeah, it seems when Bill came to the set and discovered Sigourney was now not in the story and he had to test with actresses for the role of Lane Walker, that probably miffed him. It appears there was some odd 'is she in or is she out' with Sigourney. Not sure if that was ever explained.

The irony is Dan and Harold probably wrote the romance subplot for Bill so he would have a big role and a lot of scenes, but Bill didn't care for it because it kept them away from the rest of the cast in the movie.
#4950824
Not The Seed, as that was Aykroyd's solo script. What Murray is referring to was after the famous lunch meeting. According to Murray, Ramis was involved.

" "Finally, Dan and Harold said, 'We've got some ideas here. What do you think?" We spent a couple of days talking, and they did have some amazing ideas for this story."

My guess is that it's an earlier version of the 8/5/88 script. Maybe the same core concept, with different character stuff?

In the Ramis/Cavett interview that Alex Newborn posted on his Summer of 89 video, Ramis mentions there being multiple scripts and names off a few ideas, including Dana and Peter being married.
#4950829
d_osborn wrote:Not The Seed, as that was Aykroyd's solo script. What Murray is referring to was after the famous lunch meeting. According to Murray, Ramis was involved.

" "Finally, Dan and Harold said, 'We've got some ideas here. What do you think?" We spent a couple of days talking, and they did have some amazing ideas for this story."

My guess is that it's an earlier version of the 8/5/88 script. Maybe the same core concept, with different character stuff?
Oh. My mistake, I didn't know Dana was in those early collaborative scripts. I just thought was replaced with Lane then she came back towards the final draft after she had the guest appearance with Sting at the dinner date scene in one.
d_osborn wrote:In the Ramis/Cavett interview that Alex Newborn posted on his Summer of 89 video, Ramis mentions there being multiple scripts and names off a few ideas, including Dana and Peter being married.
Oh yeah, that's right. That's the one where they had the concept of the baby suddenly standing and acting like an adult or something? I think another was GB2 continued right after the GB1 ending?

Or maybe after the schism with Harold in Groundhog Day, he looked back at the recent projects and the feelings he had about GB2 rose to the surface after the fact?
#4950901
d_osborn wrote: June 19th, 2021, 10:23 am
mrmichaelt wrote: He had no part in pitching or working on the story.
Well, this might not actually be the case! According to early reports, apparently Bill had a small hand in crafting the original story/ideas. He also suggested a pretty major shakeup just before shooting. More to come on this in the future.

Bill also seemed to keep tabs on the script through development. Murray's STARLOG interview for Scrooged is pretty meaty. Scrooged was released on Nov 17, 88, just before filming began on GB2 in NYC. I'm guessing that this interview was from the Scrooged press tour-- let's say early November.

It seems the "Peter and Dana are married" script is what he was pitched.

From STARLOG 140. Interesting bits bolded.
"It's not going to be called Ghostbusters II," he reveals. "We'll burn in hell if we call it Ghostbusters II. I've suggested The Last of the Ghostbusters, to make sure there won't be anything like a Ghostbusters III. But the script is nowhere near ready, and we start shooting soon. [Filming, in fact, began at presstime, November 28.] Jeez, more pressure. We'll figure it out...or we won't.

"I was the last holdout. They finally just waved too much money in my face?" laughs Murray. "I really didn't want to do it for all the obvious reasons, but the reasons to do it were obvious, too. With Dan and Harold and Moranis and Sigourney, we really had a ball. That's really the most fun I've had on a movie. It's the most fun group to be with.

"We weren't so crazy about making money, or being desperate, and it worked," he confesses. "Finally, Dan and Harold said, 'We've got some ideas here. What do you think?' We spent a couple of days talking, and they did have some amazing ideas for this story."

Shortly before presstime, even Murray couldn't confirm Sigourney Weaver's participation in the sequel. In the years since the original Ghostbusters, Weaver (STARLOG #109) has established herself as a major Hollywood force. Based on her Academy Award-nominated performance as Ripley in ALIENS and the financial triumph of James Cameron's film, producers consider the actress "bankable," meaning she wields enough clout to see as controversial and uncommercial a movie as Gorillas in the Mist brought to the screen as a vehicle for her. Though Murray jokingly refers to Gorillas as "The Monkey Movie," Weaver's star has risen to the point where accepting a minor role in a Ghostbusters adventure could represent Poor career move.

"She's not even in the cartoon, so I don't know if she's going to be in the film," Murray says. "The original idea was that she would be in it. The ideas they sold me on to say, 'OK, let's do it,' are no longer in the script. Sigourney was one of those ideas.

"They've gone all the way around trying to figure out how to make it. I had to audition with some actresses, but we all like Sigourney. The only problem with Sigourney is she's so tall. Naaah, I'm just kidding. She's tall, but she's not too tall. The problem is that you would wind up with a story that was tilted and like the Flintstone family. Sigourney and I would be this major thing and it would be hard to figure out how the Ghostbusters' dynamic would grow. The sort of story they were writing ended up not really needing the other three guys."

Fortunately, though, matters have been settled. Reached at press time, Weaver confirms she will be in The Last of the Ghostbusters as "they female lead, as far as I know."

Murray looks forward to the filming -- sort of. "Oh, what the hell, " he sighs. "Even if it's a dog, this sequel's going to make money because so many people are going to say, 'Let's see if they ruined it' or 'Let's see if it's any good.' It's a creative process and that's all that counts. We've got a few weeks yet," Bill Murray notes. "It should be interesting "
I love it whenever Ghostbusters 2 production gets talked about because you can for sure know that D Osborn will set the record straight. I thought I knew a lot about the GB 2 production but he puts me to shame. It’s always a pleasure to see that knowledge get put into action. So kudos to you sir.

I prefer GB1 but for me the production history of GB2 is the more fascinating and relatively untold story(compared to the first film). Which is why I was so exited about the GB2 blu ray commentary, only to be let down by it’s…blandness. Too much time had passed I guess. One of my most anticipated movies coming up is the CLEANING UP THE TOWN documentary sequel.

It always bothered me the way Murray kind of threw the VFX artists under the bus on GB2. They salvaged Ghostbusters 2. I’ve talked about this many times, but if GB2 existed as it does on script…it’s reputation would be alot worse. Reitman saved it through editing and reshoots.
#4950903
d_osborn wrote: June 19th, 2021, 6:21 pm In the Ramis/Cavett interview that Alex Newborn posted on his Summer of 89 video, Ramis mentions there being multiple scripts and names off a few ideas, including Dana and Peter being married.
Cavett? Or Bob Costas?

Jump to about 6:26



You may also like this supercut.



Alex
#4950949
Thanks Alex! Foiled by Costas-- AGAIN.
mrmichaelt wrote: June 19th, 2021, 8:47 pm Oh. My mistake, I didn't know Dana was in those early collaborative scripts. I just thought was replaced with Lane then she came back towards the final draft after she had the guest appearance with Sting at the dinner date scene in one.
Harold also touched on the early scripts in the Cinefex article:

"The baby idea did tie into something we were playing around with--that Bill and Sigourney had gotten married after the first movie and had a child and that it was going to be their child that got possessed. Having them married, however, proved to be a real dead end for us character-wise, so we dropped that notion. But we stayed with the baby and gave it a different father whom Dana had married and then divorced. Gradually, our story evolved. We came pretty far from our original ideas except for what we perceived to be the core of the film thematically--which was that negative and positive emotions affect the way we live.
RichardLess wrote: June 22nd, 2021, 9:30 pm I love it whenever Ghostbusters 2 production gets talked about because you can for sure know that D Osborn will set the record straight. I thought I knew a lot about the GB 2 production but he puts me to shame. It’s always a pleasure to see that knowledge get put into action. So kudos to you sir.
Thanks! I love talking this stuff! My friends and family are sick of hearing about it.
RichardLess wrote: June 22nd, 2021, 9:30 pm It always bothered me the way Murray kind of threw the VFX artists under the bus on GB2. They salvaged Ghostbusters 2. I’ve talked about this many times, but if GB2 existed as it does on script…it’s reputation would be alot worse. Reitman saved it through editing and reshoots.
Dude, same with the VFX crew thing. They were simply following marching orders from Reitman. I wish Murray would expand more on this stuff. The early drafts had way less "creatures" and more "rotting dead people" ghosts. The Scoleris were as crazy as it got early on. I've wondered if that's what he was referring to with "the FX guys took it over".
pizzarat liked this
#4950964
d_osborn wrote:Thanks Alex! Foiled by Costas-- AGAIN.

Harold also touched on the early scripts in the Cinefex article:

"The baby idea did tie into something we were playing around with--that Bill and Sigourney had gotten married after the first movie and had a child and that it was going to be their child that got possessed. Having them married, however, proved to be a real dead end for us character-wise, so we dropped that notion. But we stayed with the baby and gave it a different father whom Dana had married and then divorced. Gradually, our story evolved. We came pretty far from our original ideas except for what we perceived to be the core of the film thematically--which was that negative and positive emotions affect the way we live.
Yeah, this stuff I was aware of but I didn't know these were script drafts. I thought they were just ideas they discarded. Interesting.
#4950976
RichardLess wrote: June 22nd, 2021, 9:30 pm Which is why I was so exited about the GB2 blu ray commentary, only to be let down by it’s…blandness. Too much time had passed I guess.
I wonder if there are still some things too keenly felt, even thirty years down the line, or things which for one reason or another mustn't be made public.
#4951705
Corey91 wrote: June 19th, 2021, 10:09 am
JA Slow wrote: June 16th, 2021, 12:46 pm Aykroyd and Reitman don't understand it either, something they have made clear over the years.
Do you have any interviews where they mentioned this? Super interested to hear/read their thoughts on GB2
I could track 'em down but two that come to mind are the GB2 Blu-ray feature with Aykroyd and Reitman and the second was a Crystal Head Vodka short video where Aykroyd discussed the flak Murray gives the film is not deserved.
#4951897
I thought I heard that they pitched Murray one version of the film (I wanna say the ghostbusters had to go to the 'other side' where a majority of the film took place) but then literally before they started shooting they gave him the GB2 script we all know which was basically a beat-for-beat rehash of GB1, which pissed Murray off so much that he stayed away from GB3 decades.
Alphagaia liked this
#4952927
This 1990 Roger Ebert interview gives a little variation on Murray's feelings about GB2. Personally, I think he has his finger on what's wrong with the movie. GB2 feels like all its effort was spent assembling together a lot of special effects set pieces that "had" to be in there, and the humor was treated as an afterthought. Whereas, in the original, it didn't feel like any one particular ghost scene had to be in the movie. They were able to write a story and then figure out where the funny ghosts would go as the inspiration came to them. I don't think Murray is blaming the studio or the special effects crew or the director or anybody in particular. I think he's saying the entire concept of doing a sequel to Ghostbusters almost demanded an approach that was inherently going to undermine the movie. Ghostbusters 1 was about going where the laughs took you. Part 2 was about being dragged along where the special effects set pieces demanded you to go.

https://www.rogerebert.com/interviews/b ... nge-artist

"Or maybe it's just the sequel business itself," he said. "I made a sequel ["Ghostbusters Two"], and it's hard, it's really hard to make a sequel, no matter how sincere you are, how much you want to try. Somehow the directors take over from the writers and the comedians, and the thing ends up being a lot more action than comedy. Action is a lot easier to direct than comedy."

    Just like the GB2 situation there was a tiny handf[…]

    I believe it's an 8/32 Festo bolt. https://i[…]

    What is everyone using for the copper wires an[…]

    PKE - units

    Thanks Fienen, I'm using mbar but had left a /100 […]