Discuss the upcoming 4th movie, Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire to be released in March 2024.
#4968324
RichardLess wrote: March 25th, 2022, 9:45 pm I don’t want a Ghostbusters 4. Let it be. Let it rest with Ivan & Harold. I know that will be an incredibly unpopular opinion but…Ghostbusters, for me anyways, is such a specific thing and no one has come close to getting it right beyond those first 2 movies. The only person who I think has the right tone to make Ghostbusters interesting for me again would be if one of 2 directors were hired.
I think the writing matters, too. You give too much emphasis on the director being the main factor. Harold Ramis knew how to write the characters. If you go through the timeline of his movies Animal House, Meatballs, Caddyshack, and Stripes then Ghostbusters you can see it was his hand that made these funny characters and was another big factor that helped make these movies succeed, imo. Not to disparage Jason or Gil, but I think they and Ghost Corps should be also looking at writers that have the same abilities Ramis had. Devil's advocate, he did mentor Gene Stupnitsky and Lee Eisenberg who did drafts on the GBIII that didn't get made. And no, I'm not saying someone who worked with Ramis or was anointed by him. I am curious how someone like Adam McKay would write a GB story.
RichardLess wrote: March 25th, 2022, 9:45 pm Wes Anderson(which will never happen) or Gore Verbinski(which is maybe a tad plausible but extremely unlikely).
Yeah, Wes needs his own sandbox. I don't know if he'd play in other's. But then again, Jason was an indie director before Afterlife who kept saying he wouldn't go a GB movie. Murray is a frequent collaborator with Wes so he could ask... but I think it's more likely someone like Taika Waititi would direct.
RichardLess wrote: March 25th, 2022, 9:45 pm It’s always surprised me how little some of you seem to care about what Ghostbusters has primarily been: a comedy. A very specific kind of comedy. Sometimes when I visit this place it’s like visiting a Star Wars forum. And if that’s what you dig about the films, all the power to you.

But like I’ve said countless times, Ghostbusters is all comedy through character first and foremost(again for me anyways). With occasional sight gags. It’s heavy on the sarcasm, irony & character wit.
I don't understand what you mean by like visiting a Star Wars forum as I don't go on them. Do you mean like how we tend to talk only about in-universe technical elements ad nauseum? I know some people had quibbles with the amount of comedy in AL but I dug Paul Rudd long before he was cast in AL but loved his stuff. Like when Callie kisses him on the cheek and he tells her to slow down. Gold. Or like Podcast, I thought Phoebe was hilarious. If they're going to try and cast a new team of adults to be the next Ghostbusters working for Winston, easier said than done.
prodestrian wrote: March 25th, 2022, 10:12 pm The other advantage of TV is you can mix it up with different writers and directors each week, it doesn't matter if there's a few weaker episodes if there's also some great ones in the mix. They can experiment and see what works instead of pinning everyone's hopes on a single film.
Yup, I'd be down with a TV series or a streaming series too. But Sony doesn't have it's own but I wonder if they'd do one through Netflix or Amazon. Unless they're gonna retrofit Crunchyroll with all their live action content in the next couple years. A 8-10 episode season wouldn't be a tall feat.
WCat2000, robbritton liked this
#4968328
Ya saying we should not take the story, tech and mythology so seriously because “the comedy is the only thing that matters” and “nobody else understands this” is something that really irks me like I talked about in the Honest Trailers thread.

It’s also a huge discredit to Dan, Harold and Ivan because it’s very apparent they actually DID care about crafting a good, creative story around the idea. Just watching bonus features shows they put a lot of effort into making it as believable as possible.

I didn’t know until recently but didn’t they actually consult real people in the industry about the proton pack? Obviously supernatural stuff is based on that kind of research even if you don’t personally believe it.

A live action tv show would be cool but I really hope the next movie does NOT try an introduce a new team. I want the Spengler family, especially Phoebe, to continue things and other characters or teams can be introduced as things go along.
jonogunn, Kingpin liked this
#4968329
I think Ghostbusters is more than just a comedy. I assume most of us were kids when we watched this and I’m sure it wasn’t the comedy that captured our interest. The ghost lore and the ghost capturing tech is very unique and interesting and it’s what makes Ghostbusters more than just a movie. It’s the same as what lighter sabers and storm troopers do for Star Wars. There is a distinct icon and recognition to the film.

How many successful comedies in the 90’s have dedicated active forums to this day? How many ppl still cosplay and build props for them? How many had fans clamoring for a sequel for so many years?

I believe the comedy is what made ghostbusters a great film but it’s the lore that made it so memorable.
deadderek, Sav C, Kingpin and 1 others liked this
#4968332
RichardLess wrote: March 25th, 2022, 9:45 pm I don’t want a Ghostbusters 4. Let it be. Let it rest with Ivan & Harold. I know that will be an incredibly unpopular opinion but…Ghostbusters, for me anyways, is such a specific thing and no one has come close to getting it right beyond those first 2 movies. The only person who I think has the right tone to make Ghostbusters interesting for me again would be if one of 2 directors were hired.

Wes Anderson(which will never happen) or Gore Verbinski(which is maybe a tad plausible but extremely unlikely). It’s always surprised me how little some of you seem to care about what Ghostbusters has primarily been: a comedy. A very specific kind of comedy. Sometimes when I visit this place it’s like visiting a Star Wars forum. And if that’s what you dig about the films, all the power to you. But like I’ve said countless times, Ghostbusters is all comedy through character first and foremost(again for me anyways). With occasional sight gags. It’s heavy on the sarcasm, irony & character wit. That the plot and mythology and effects work in tandem with all that is just icing on the cake. But some of you take the icing so seriously it’s kind of funny when you realize how half baked it all is. Ghostbusters and Ghostbusters 2 are movies that work because they are held together with spit and duct tape. The first movie especially. Like…read the shooting script. For both movies. There are 1001 choices Reitman made that could’ve gone wrong & the movie would be lesser for it & those choices were so god damn close. Like…Elmer Bernstein’s awful main disco theme that almost made it in the movie or the bums or the original idea or the proton packs & costumes(swat gear?) or the Ecto 1 or Gozer being a dude in a business suit, the Fort determing sequence…and on and on.

So I kind of agree with some of the reviewers that were critical of Afterlife for being sooo servile to the original. Yes it’s a great movie and comedy. But Jason Reitman treated the original as if it were Citizen Kane.

The only other way I want to see new Ghostbusters adventures is if they do an animated movie or series. Or hire the above mentioned filmmakers, or me lol.
I completely understand where you're coming from here, but it's also weird to hear this argument coming from within the fanbase, as though the material outside of GB 1&2 never existed. RGB shows you can make a Star Trek style scifi show out of Ghostbusters that can be quite broad in terms of tone & genre. A Murray, Ramis, Aykroyd, Moranis comedy written in the 80's is lightning in a bottle stuff you're never going to recapture.

The best tactic going forward is to establish the franchise outside of that writing style, which Afterlife does, and retain the scifi universe elements which work... and then pair it with contemporary comic actors and directors who can add some flavour to it. So Taiki Watiti or Lord & Miller would be obvious choices. After Sonic & The After Party I think Ben Schwartz would be a perfect addition as comic lead for a sequel.

Wes Anderson is an all-time great auteur, and could entice Bill Murray, but I don't see how his sensibilities would mesh with grounding the franchise tbh. It would be such a different kind of film visually and in dialogue, that it would barely be recognisable as Ghostbusters to a mainstream audience, and I don't think Anderson die-hards would care for him dipping his toe in a major studio franchise. But sure, as a curio I'd be all over it, I just don't see it ever happening.

With regards Ghostbusters 4, the way they set up Phoebe, Podcast, Winston & Janine is too good not to get another outing.
WCat2000 liked this
#4968336
One time wrote: March 23rd, 2022, 10:08 pm Afterlife 2 is tough because there’s nothing to fill in from Afterlife 1. Afterlife 1 answered everything already. Sure, maybe backfill some events between GB2 and Egon moving to Summerville, or link up some unexplained events of TVG (Ghost dimension? Hall of mirrors?)

I don’t see how that would be interesting. What’s left is the old GB’s teaching the kids how to bust ghosts in New York, a new bad guy appearing and them busting it.

By which point the entire franchise turns into the Alien movies. (Humans gets eaten by Aliens one by one over and over again. Alien 1, Alien 2, Alien 3, Alien Ressurection, Alien Covenant). I.e. same story as GB1 and GB2.

...

Maybe something completely different? i.e. the majority of the movie taking place in the Ghost dimension. Like the Manhellton script.

...

Maybe Afterlife 2 is about both living Ghostbusters (the kids) and the OG Ghostbusters (dead) working from both planes of existence to defeat something existentially (truly) terrifying. Worse than life and death! That would be a first for cinema.
It would be a retread, but Afterlife 2 feels like it could be the return to New York movie, and then it could be told over two movies, BttF style. It feels like a very logical trilogy, even if its not trailblazing or anything. I think Ghostbusters needs to be character driven, and the new characters were Afterlife's strong suit, hands down. Ghostbusters is hard because you've got such a great template that coming up with something completely original that can stand on its own is probably close to impossible.

Honestly, the Manhellton ideal, if done right, is probably one of the best twists that could be applied to the franchise, but nailing the tone would be tough. That last idea is super interesting, and would make a great movie (even if it wasn't Ghostbusters specifically).
RichardLess wrote:I don’t want a Ghostbusters 4. Let it be. Let it rest with Ivan & Harold. I know that will be an incredibly unpopular opinion but…Ghostbusters, for me anyways, is such a specific thing and no one has come close to getting it right beyond those first 2 movies. The only person who I think has the right tone to make Ghostbusters interesting for me again would be if one of 2 directors were hired.
...
So I kind of agree with some of the reviewers that were critical of Afterlife for being sooo servile to the original. Yes it’s a great movie and comedy. But Jason Reitman treated the original as if it were Citizen Kane.
Honestly, I'm not clamoring for another sequel. I'm more than happy with the originals. There was a moment where maybe they could have made a great GBIII, but that moment has been eclipsed. Afterlife perhaps had no choice but to use Gozer as a basis, but Gozer really didn't leave much to build on. Afterlife's good, I like a lot of it, but there's only so much you can do without the original busters being front and center. GBI and II didn't have much of an overarching narrative, and GBI didn't set up a sequel. Star Wars would have been able to stand on its own, but it left the possibility of a sequel open by letting Vader get away. The Galactic Empire predates the story, and it keeps going. For Ghostbusters, the story starts in the first movie, and everything is resolved at the end. Gozer was seemingly destroyed, and Peck was disgraced. GBII does its own thing narrative wise, but it works because of the characters and the setting. Dana, Louis, and Janine had to come back, not out of narrative necessity, but because they're a key part of what Ghostbusters is.

GBI and II are connected by the characters, the equipment, and NYC. Without focusing on the original busters nor being set in NY, I don't think Afterlife had much of a choice but to revive the Gozer storyline, even though the Gozer storyline didn't leave any loose ends. (The Vigo storyline could've been revived, but that didn't leave any loose ends, either, and would have been an odd choice for a 2021 blockbusters.) So I get why Afterlife did what it did, but at the same time, GBI and II didn't really setup a narrative groundwork for it.

I'd love to see the first draft of Afterlife--the one that got it greenlit.
#4968337
I'll admit I'll be greedy in wanting more Ghostbusters movies after Afterlife, so many other franchises have been given reboots, and Ghostbusters is as deserving, if not more-so than some. After having just had a reasonable successful outing... And at the risk of the next installment maybe not being so good, I'm not ready to see the fire of the live-action franchise go out so soon after it was reignited.

Of course, whoever takes things on for continuing things has an unenviable task and big shoes to fill... I'd not begrudge Jason in the slightest if he wanted to return to other indie projects, he achieved what he set out to do, and did what we thought for years would be impossible.

I'm not immediately opposed to the franchise continuing as a TV show, but I'd be worried about the constraints of budget, of changing writing teams, and of whether Dan, Ernie and Annie would appear as cameos, or as regulars. I suppose I'd be worried about whether a live-action Ghostbusters TV series might embody some of the same areas of criticism as other spin-off shows, like Stargate: SG1, Robocop: The Series... Shows I liked, but there's a valid argument in them feeling "watered down" for a television audience and a television series budget.

A further area I'd be concerned about would be for a live-action Ghostbusters television series to fall into the pitfalls of Supernatural and The X-Files, including for instance the plot arcs dominating the show in favour of the "monster-of-the-week episodes"... The latter of which I enjoyed more than the former, even though I loved the plot arcs of shows like Babylon 5 and Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.

If we do see a new movie, I feel very certain we won't see Venkman in it - his character was given a happy ending, and given how much trouble it's been to get Bill involved, I'd be happy to sacrifice Venkman to a life off-screen than to have the rest of the production have to go through the Murray runaround to get him in another movie.

I feel that for the next film, if there is one... It may be tricky to have the focus return to Manhattan and for all the kids to return. Phoebe would probably be the most willing to make the move, as she'd be fully-immersed in Egon's legacy and lab.

Trevor might be unwilling to leave Summerville as that's where Lucky lives, and she might be unable to leave the town unless her dad decides to move to Manhattan.

Podcast would probably jump at the chance to move to New York and also immerse himself in the Ghostbusters' ancestral home, but he might not be allowed to be his off-screen parents.

And given how much I enjoyed Podcast and Phoebe's on-screen chemistry and relationship, I wouldn't want to see them split up.

Beyond that, there's the practical side of things (though this can obviously be resolved for plot convenience), the Spenglers are barely treading water, and have only just moved away from one major city where they were struggling to make ends meet. Unless they get a major helping hand financially, it doesn't seem particularly practical or feasible for them to move back across the country to set up sticks in the five boroughs.
WCat2000 liked this
#4968338
jonogunn wrote: March 26th, 2022, 4:22 am I think Ghostbusters is more than just a comedy. I assume most of us were kids when we watched this and I’m sure it wasn’t the comedy that captured our interest. The ghost lore and the ghost capturing tech is very unique and interesting and it’s what makes Ghostbusters more than just a movie. It’s the same as what lighter sabers and storm troopers do for Star Wars. There is a distinct icon and recognition to the film.

How many successful comedies in the 90’s have dedicated active forums to this day? How many ppl still cosplay and build props for them? How many had fans clamoring for a sequel for so many years?

I believe the comedy is what made ghostbusters a great film but it’s the lore that made it so memorable.
This exactly.

It’s so weird to me that in all of pop culture Ghostbusters seems to be the only one where some people actually criticize the concept and are like...”you like it for the wrong reasons, this is what it’s really about”. As if it’s too dumb compared to all the other fictional franchises people love.

It’s just a very bizarre contradiction.
#4968340
Chicken, He Clucked wrote: March 26th, 2022, 4:55 amSo Taiki Watiti or Lord & Miller would be obvious choices.
Lord and Miller are suggested frequently, but let's not forget they considered and eventually turned down Ghostbusters in 2014 after Ramis' death. I don't have any strong sense that they would be any more likely to want to take over now.
Kingpin wrote: March 26th, 2022, 2:25 pmI feel that for the next film, if there is one... It may be tricky to have the focus return to Manhattan and for all the kids to return.
Basic premise for me would be that Grooberson (with nothing left to do in Summerville) and Callie (whose wounds over her father have healed) move to the firehouse with Phoebe. Podcast is invited to spend the summer at the firehouse as well. Trevor and Lucky don't have to be present in central roles this time -- maybe Trevor is attending college and he visits with Lucky during the second half of the movie or something, but the characters are not that well-developed in Afterlife compared to Phoebe and Podcast. You can have a movie where these four new characters are learning history and Ghostbusting from Winston, Ray, and Janine, and there is some sort of completely new thing that happens in NYC that they can help stop.

One thing that I think is fairly essential here is to conceive of a story where whatever big bust occurs at the end is both 1) not a world-ending sort of prophecy but just a major paranormal occurrence, and 2) is not the dramatic backbone of the movie. I don't think Afterlife does as good a job of this as it could, but in general I think it is a good idea for these movies going forward to tell a story that focuses on character arcs over ghost plots. That's not to say the ghosts aren't important, but I think in terms of being a series, it's easy to write yourself into a hole if every single thing is a cataclysmic event threatening to end the world.
robbritton liked this
#4968343
I agree that the characters need to be one of the high priorities... But you need to have enough going in the ghost plot to get people's butts in seats. The continuation needs to avoid what is frankly the problem with The Walking Dead TV series, and even to some degree the comic: focusing so much on the humans, the antagonists, and the problems they experience and forgetting about the zombies that are the other big threat. It doesn't have to be a Gozer or Vigo-level villian, nor a world-threatening event, but it needs to be enough of a problem to provide for an interesting story and some degree of spectacle that's appropriate to the Ghostbusters universe.
mrmichaelt, deadderek liked this
#4968346
Kingpin wrote: March 26th, 2022, 5:19 pm I agree that the characters need to be one of the high priorities... But you need to have enough going in the ghost plot to get people's butts in seats. The continuation needs to avoid what is frankly the problem with The Walking Dead TV series, and even to some degree the comic: focusing so much on the humans, the antagonists, and the problems they experience and forgetting about the zombies that are the other big threat. It doesn't have to be a Gozer or Vigo-level villian, nor a world-threatening event, but it needs to be enough of a problem to provide for an interesting story and some degree of spectacle that's appropriate to the Ghostbusters universe.
A better way to put what I mean is that it can be spectacular and interesting, but I also think it would be best if defeating said ghost at the end was not really the thing happening in the ending. The accomplishment has to have other meaning to give it more weight. The heart of the ending of the original Ghostbusters is not so much "the Ghostbusters defeat Gozer" but "See you on the other side, Ray." "Nice working with you, Dr. Venkman." The accomplishment of defeating Gozer is the culmination of Venkman's skepticism turning to belief, and their business. I think this is what Ghostbusters II lacks, and while I may not like Afterlife as much as some, especially the ending, it does also do this, and doing so is probably what makes the movie great for the people who do like that ending.
robbritton liked this
#4968350
tylergfoster wrote: March 26th, 2022, 5:01 pm Basic premise for me would be that Grooberson (with nothing left to do in Summerville) and Callie (whose wounds over her father have healed) move to the firehouse with Phoebe.
As much as I'd love for Paul Rudd to suit up as the next fan, he's a seismologist. He probably has a university job somewhere and when the summer ends, he goes back to work. It's kind of a bummer that he was probably planning to publish the data he got from Summerville as a paper in a journal but now that he knows i was supernatural in nature, that idea goes down the toilet. Unless he's entertaining omitting that part out of the paper, lol.

And yes, on the other hand, Louis Tully had his own practice and suddenly in 1989 jumped to work for the Ghostbusters. Could a similar thing happen with Gary? Perhaps.
Kingpin wrote: March 26th, 2022, 2:25 pm I suppose I'd be worried about whether a live-action Ghostbusters TV series might embody some of the same areas of criticism as other spin-off shows, like Stargate: SG1, Robocop: The Series... Shows I liked, but there's a valid argument in them feeling "watered down" for a television audience and a television series budget.
Wut. SG-1 and the 2 spin-offs were WAY better than the actual movie. In all ways.
Kingpin wrote: March 26th, 2022, 2:25 pm If we do see a new movie, I feel very certain we won't see Venkman in it - his character was given a happy ending, and given how much trouble it's been to get Bill involved, I'd be happy to sacrifice Venkman to a life off-screen than to have the rest of the production have to go through the Murray runaround to get him in another movie.
Yes, they have a simple way to do that. He's been teaching upstate and he lives upstate with Dana. Nothing more to say.
Kingpin wrote: March 26th, 2022, 2:25 pm I feel that for the next film, if there is one... It may be tricky to have the focus return to Manhattan and for all the kids to return. Phoebe would probably be the most willing to make the move, as she'd be fully-immersed in Egon's legacy and lab.
Others have suggested just time skipping to a summer break have the gang visiting New York under the guise of checking out prospective colleges. Then they get wrapped up in the latest case the Ghostbusters are dealing with.
#4968352
tylergfoster wrote:Lord and Miller are suggested frequently, but let's not forget they considered and eventually turned down Ghostbusters in 2014 after Ramis' death. I don't have any strong sense that they would be any more likely to want to take over now.
They were on a podcast talking about this recently - they didn't turn it down and seem open to it:
"I don't know what we can or should say, but we can say we had a friend who had an idea for a Ghostbusters thing that was great and we developed it for a little bit with Ivan," Lord said on Happy Sad Confused. "Then we put it to the side for a bit and I don't know if it will ever come back, but it was fun.

"My understanding is that where Jason and Ivan are heading is, first things first, 'protect the mothership,'" Lord said of the 1984 classic. "[Ours] was a little more sideways of that."
https://comicbook.com/movies/news/phil- ... ris-pratt/
tylergfoster liked this
#4968353
WCat2000 wrote: March 26th, 2022, 1:48 am Ya saying we should not take the story, tech and mythology so seriously because “the comedy is the only thing that matters” and “nobody else understands this” is something that really irks me like I talked about in the Honest Trailers thread.

It’s also a huge discredit to Dan, Harold and Ivan because it’s very apparent they actually DID care about crafting a good, creative story around the idea. Just watching bonus features shows they put a lot of effort into making it as believable as possible.

I didn’t know until recently but didn’t they actually consult real people in the industry about the proton pack? Obviously supernatural stuff is based on that kind of research even if you don’t personally believe it.

A live action tv show would be cool but I really hope the next movie does NOT try an introduce a new team. I want the Spengler family, especially Phoebe, to continue things and other characters or teams can be introduced as things go along.
Where did I say “no one else understands this”? “Understand” is the wrong way to look at it. It’s just one man’s opinion. If you don’t agree with it, it’s not because you “don’t understand” the movie and what’s it’s trying to do. No. You just take something else from it. That’s fine. That’s cool.
I’m not saying it’s bad or wrong to take the equipment and mythology seriously. The verisimilitude of the film is why it works so well. By all means like what you want from the movie. But the comedy and the characters are the special sauce, for me. It’s the hardest thing to get right. And the comedy was the primary thing the filmmakers were concerned about. Ghostbusters is first and foremost a comedy and sometimes it feels like that’s one of the least discussed aspects of the movie around here. There’s so much “is this canon, is that canon” but not a lot of talk about the comedy. I find that interesting.
Like with Afterlife…it seems to have completely got wrong what *I* love about these movies. Yes Ghostbusting is fun and cool. But that’s the easy part. That’s the eye Candy. It just wasn’t funny. At all. I didn’t like GB16 but at least that movie tried to be funny. It’s like each movie leaned into the wrong thing. GB16 took almost nothing seriously and all the characters were cracking jokes and Afterlife took everything too seriously and comes across as over manipulative and too servile.

So, yes, take the story seriously. Take the equipment seriously. Ghostbusters wouldn’t be what it is without those elements. Like I said, it’s the icing on the cake. The mythology is cool and feels totally legit. That’s not easy. But it’s funny how seriously we take those things when a lot of it was just kind of made up as they went along. They had less than a year to make these movies. Their main concern was “let’s make it funny”. Christ it was Signourney Weaver that came up with the idea of her character becoming possessed and becoming terror dogs.

I guess here’s another way to look at what I’m trying to get across. They say with something like Lord of the Rings or Star Wars, the mythology we see in the movies is just the tip of the ice berg. There’s all this stuff happening under the water that we can’t see, but it’s there. George Lucas and Tolkien took the time to figure that shit out. But what’s in those books and movies, what we the audience see, is just on the surface, there’s all this other stuff buried or hidden under the water. With Ghostbusters…it’s all on surface. They didn’t know anymore about Zuul or Gozer or Ivo Shandor than what we see and hear. So that’s what I mean when I talk about how seriously the fandom takes this stuff Vs how the filmmakers thought of it. I mean read the scripts…the movie on those pages is a pretty different experience than the what we ended up with.

Ghostbusters is a hard needle to thread. Perfect movies are rare and I think that first movie is perfect. And when you read those scripts…it’s a miracle how perfect the finished film is. You put in any of those deleted scenes and the movie is lesser for it, you change the Bus Boys “Cleaning Up the Town” to Elmer Bernstein disco theme & the movie suffers from it, you paint the Ecto 1 black, you have John Candy do a German Louis, or the Ghostbusters have thin metal wands eject out of their sleeve instead of the proton pack as we know it or Paul Rueben’s in a business suit instead of Gozer…

Anyways I’ve belaboured the point enough. But I didn’t mean to suggest my way of looking at the movie is anymore valid than anyone else’s.
Sav C, robbritton liked this
#4968354
I saw the behind the scenes making of the original Ghostbusters movie and you're right Dan aykroyd and Harold ramis did such a fantastic job with the movie. There was so many deleted scenes that didn't make it into the original movie I was even impressed with some new deleted scenes I didn't even know existed which was very impressive

What about one based on a slimer and a real Ghostbusters citizens ghost it takes place a few moments after the first ghostbuster movie I think that makes for more interesting story :blush:
#4968356
RichardLess wrote: March 27th, 2022, 3:39 am
WCat2000 wrote: March 26th, 2022, 1:48 am Ya saying we should not take the story, tech and mythology so seriously because “the comedy is the only thing that matters” and “nobody else understands this” is something that really irks me like I talked about in the Honest Trailers thread.

It’s also a huge discredit to Dan, Harold and Ivan because it’s very apparent they actually DID care about crafting a good, creative story around the idea. Just watching bonus features shows they put a lot of effort into making it as believable as possible.

I didn’t know until recently but didn’t they actually consult real people in the industry about the proton pack? Obviously supernatural stuff is based on that kind of research even if you don’t personally believe it.

A live action tv show would be cool but I really hope the next movie does NOT try an introduce a new team. I want the Spengler family, especially Phoebe, to continue things and other characters or teams can be introduced as things go along.
Where did I say “no one else understands this”? “Understand” is the wrong way to look at it. It’s just one man’s opinion. If you don’t agree with it, it’s not because you “don’t understand” the movie and what’s it’s trying to do. No. You just take something else from it. That’s fine. That’s cool.
I’m not saying it’s bad or wrong to take the equipment and mythology seriously. The verisimilitude of the film is why it works so well. By all means like what you want from the movie. But the comedy and the characters are the special sauce, for me. It’s the hardest thing to get right. And the comedy was the primary thing the filmmakers were concerned about. Ghostbusters is first and foremost a comedy and sometimes it feels like that’s one of the least discussed aspects of the movie around here. There’s so much “is this canon, is that canon” but not a lot of talk about the comedy. I find that interesting.
Like with Afterlife…it seems to have completely got wrong what *I* love about these movies. Yes Ghostbusting is fun and cool. But that’s the easy part. That’s the eye Candy. It just wasn’t funny. At all. I didn’t like GB16 but at least that movie tried to be funny. It’s like each movie leaned into the wrong thing. GB16 took almost nothing seriously and all the characters were cracking jokes and Afterlife took everything too seriously and comes across as over manipulative and too servile.

So, yes, take the story seriously. Take the equipment seriously. Ghostbusters wouldn’t be what it is without those elements. Like I said, it’s the icing on the cake. The mythology is cool and feels totally legit. That’s not easy. But it’s funny how seriously we take those things when a lot of it was just kind of made up as they went along. They had less than a year to make these movies. Their main concern was “let’s make it funny”. Christ it was Signourney Weaver that came up with the idea of her character becoming possessed and becoming terror dogs.

I guess here’s another way to look at what I’m trying to get across. They say with something like Lord of the Rings or Star Wars, the mythology we see in the movies is just the tip of the ice berg. There’s all this stuff happening under the water that we can’t see, but it’s there. George Lucas and Tolkien took the time to figure that shit out. But what’s in those books and movies, what we the audience see, is just on the surface, there’s all this other stuff buried or hidden under the water. With Ghostbusters…it’s all on surface. They didn’t know anymore about Zuul or Gozer or Ivo Shandor than what we see and hear. So that’s what I mean when I talk about how seriously the fandom takes this stuff Vs how the filmmakers thought of it. I mean read the scripts…the movie on those pages is a pretty different experience than the what we ended up with.

Ghostbusters is a hard needle to thread. Perfect movies are rare and I think that first movie is perfect. And when you read those scripts…it’s a miracle how perfect the finished film is. You put in any of those deleted scenes and the movie is lesser for it, you change the Bus Boys “Cleaning Up the Town” to Elmer Bernstein disco theme & the movie suffers from it, you paint the Ecto 1 black, you have John Candy do a German Louis, or the Ghostbusters have thin metal wands eject out of their sleeve instead of the proton pack as we know it or Paul Rueben’s in a business suit instead of Gozer…

Anyways I’ve belaboured the point enough. But I didn’t mean to suggest my way of looking at the movie is anymore valid than anyone else’s.
Ok maybe I jumped to that conclusion but I’ve seen the “you don’t understand GB” argument I was referring to brought up many times and honestly it’s something that annoys the heck out of me for the reasons I already mentioned.

Afterlife definitely had humor though. Maybe not as much as the first 2 but I think it got it right.

I’ve never read the scripts but that’s true about all movies. They go through a process and things change over development. That’s not specific to the making of GB.

Still just because it was not adapted from a book series or trying to be the next Star Wars does not mean the mythology, tech, etc...is less worthy of expanding on.

The notion that the ghost busting concept was more of an excuse to make a comedy is something I’ll never agree with because we know Dan’s into the supernatural and stuff. He’s clarified more than once his intention was to make a movie based on that subject matter. His original idea was just too complex.

I know you did not say that but it sounds similar to what I’ve heard before. That basically it was all for comedy sake.
Kingpin liked this
#4968357
mrmichaelt wrote: March 26th, 2022, 9:27 pmWut. SG-1 and the 2 spin-offs were WAY better than the actual movie. In all ways.
LIES.:)

As I said, I liked SG1, but if it helps explain what I mean, just compare the Cheyenne Mountain complex set in the movie against the one featured in the show (though the one element present in the TV version that I wish was in the movie were the chevrons illuminating) - the set felt more physically real.
RichardLess wrote: March 27th, 2022, 3:39 am Ghostbusters is first and foremost a comedy and sometimes it feels like that’s one of the least discussed aspects of the movie around here. There’s so much “is this canon, is that canon” but not a lot of talk about the comedy. I find that interesting.
Casting my mind back all the way to 2002 when I first started participating in the online community... I think the props and the canon have always been the primary focus of the discussion... I guess maybe there's more meat to those discussions than dissecting the comedy side of the movie?

Maybe it's because we've got a better understanding of the nuts and bolts of the props and the canon lore than of how well comedy works?

Admittedly it's the props and lore I'm more interested in... Though I will say I wish more comedies today were the intelligent wit of Ghostbusters, rather than the godawful humour of Judd Apatow.

On the topic of comedy, what's your view on Extreme Ghostbusters? Of the versions of Ghostbusters, that's probably the most serious incarnation that's been produced so-far. Sure, there are jokes in the dialogue... But they're few and far between, and the overall vibe and tone of the show is such a stark contrast to the 1980s cartoon... XGB is kinda like "Ghostbusters has grown into its angsty teenager phase", which I suppose isn't too much of a stretch as one part of the zeitgeist of the 1990s was teenage angst.
#4968358
WCat2000 wrote: March 27th, 2022, 5:32 am
RichardLess wrote: March 27th, 2022, 3:39 am

Where did I say “no one else understands this”? “Understand” is the wrong way to look at it. It’s just one man’s opinion. If you don’t agree with it, it’s not because you “don’t understand” the movie and what’s it’s trying to do. No. You just take something else from it. That’s fine. That’s cool.
I’m not saying it’s bad or wrong to take the equipment and mythology seriously. The verisimilitude of the film is why it works so well. By all means like what you want from the movie. But the comedy and the characters are the special sauce, for me. It’s the hardest thing to get right. And the comedy was the primary thing the filmmakers were concerned about. Ghostbusters is first and foremost a comedy and sometimes it feels like that’s one of the least discussed aspects of the movie around here. There’s so much “is this canon, is that canon” but not a lot of talk about the comedy. I find that interesting.
Like with Afterlife…it seems to have completely got wrong what *I* love about these movies. Yes Ghostbusting is fun and cool. But that’s the easy part. That’s the eye Candy. It just wasn’t funny. At all. I didn’t like GB16 but at least that movie tried to be funny. It’s like each movie leaned into the wrong thing. GB16 took almost nothing seriously and all the characters were cracking jokes and Afterlife took everything too seriously and comes across as over manipulative and too servile.

So, yes, take the story seriously. Take the equipment seriously. Ghostbusters wouldn’t be what it is without those elements. Like I said, it’s the icing on the cake. The mythology is cool and feels totally legit. That’s not easy. But it’s funny how seriously we take those things when a lot of it was just kind of made up as they went along. They had less than a year to make these movies. Their main concern was “let’s make it funny”. Christ it was Signourney Weaver that came up with the idea of her character becoming possessed and becoming terror dogs.

I guess here’s another way to look at what I’m trying to get across. They say with something like Lord of the Rings or Star Wars, the mythology we see in the movies is just the tip of the ice berg. There’s all this stuff happening under the water that we can’t see, but it’s there. George Lucas and Tolkien took the time to figure that shit out. But what’s in those books and movies, what we the audience see, is just on the surface, there’s all this other stuff buried or hidden under the water. With Ghostbusters…it’s all on surface. They didn’t know anymore about Zuul or Gozer or Ivo Shandor than what we see and hear. So that’s what I mean when I talk about how seriously the fandom takes this stuff Vs how the filmmakers thought of it. I mean read the scripts…the movie on those pages is a pretty different experience than the what we ended up with.

Ghostbusters is a hard needle to thread. Perfect movies are rare and I think that first movie is perfect. And when you read those scripts…it’s a miracle how perfect the finished film is. You put in any of those deleted scenes and the movie is lesser for it, you change the Bus Boys “Cleaning Up the Town” to Elmer Bernstein disco theme & the movie suffers from it, you paint the Ecto 1 black, you have John Candy do a German Louis, or the Ghostbusters have thin metal wands eject out of their sleeve instead of the proton pack as we know it or Paul Rueben’s in a business suit instead of Gozer…

Anyways I’ve belaboured the point enough. But I didn’t mean to suggest my way of looking at the movie is anymore valid than anyone else’s.
Ok maybe I jumped to that conclusion but I’ve seen the “you don’t understand GB” argument I was referring to brought up many times and honestly it’s something that annoys the heck out of me for the reasons I already mentioned.

Afterlife definitely had humor though. Maybe not as much as the first 2 but I think it got it right.

I’ve never read the scripts but that’s true about all movies. They go through a process and things change over development. That’s not specific to the making of GB.

Still just because it was not adapted from a book series or trying to be the next Star Wars does not mean the mythology, tech, etc...is less worthy of expanding on.

The notion that the ghost busting concept was more of an excuse to make a comedy is something I’ll never agree with because we know Dan’s into the supernatural and stuff. He’s clarified more than once his intention was to make a movie based on that subject matter. His original idea was just too complex.

I know you did not say that but it sounds similar to what I’ve heard before. That basically it was all for comedy sake.
The Ghostbusting concept was 100% an excuse to make a comedy. Dan Aykroyd has said this a million times. They took the Bowery Boys, Abbot and Costello and other comedy teams that did the “Ghost breaking” thing in the 1930s/40s and modernized it. That’s all Ghostbusters ever was. It was using the then modern technology to do a modern spin on those classic Ghostbusting team movies. Yes he’s interested in the Supernatural but he never intended to make it a serious thing. Dan Aykroyd literally says all this sitting next to Bill Murray on the films EPK. So you can not agree with it all you want but it is what it is.


I don’t know what you mean by the whole “doesn’t mean it’s not worth expanding on”. Who said it’s not worth expanding on? I’m saying there wasn’t really too much thought put into it beyond basic plot mechanics. The other stories I mentioned had this massive mythology that the story was built around. Ghostbusters mythology was just a way to get a brilliant sight gag of the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man. It was built as a set up to a joke, which is awesome.

Afterlife had humour the way Marvel movies have humour. I wouldn’t call those movies comedies. They are comic book action movies with moments of levity. This was a supernatural thriller with moments of levity. It was not a comedy. I didn’t laugh out loud at a single moment(granted I didn’t see the movie under the best of circumstances…). Paul Rudd did his best Paul Rudd impression. And the movie ended in a way that I think Harold Ramis would hate. They went with sentiment over comedy and the sentiment felt hollow, unearned, manipulative and schmaltzy.
#4968359
Kingpin wrote: March 27th, 2022, 7:07 am
RichardLess wrote: March 27th, 2022, 3:39 am Ghostbusters is first and foremost a comedy and sometimes it feels like that’s one of the least discussed aspects of the movie around here. There’s so much “is this canon, is that canon” but not a lot of talk about the comedy. I find that interesting.
Casting my mind back all the way to 2002 when I first started participating in the online community... I think the props and the canon have always been the primary focus of the discussion... I guess maybe there's more meat to those discussions than dissecting the comedy side of the movie?

Maybe it's because we've got a better understanding of the nuts and bolts of the props and the canon lore than of how well comedy works?

Admittedly it's the props and lore I'm more interested in... Though I will say I wish more comedies today were the intelligent wit of Ghostbusters, rather than the godawful humour of Judd Apatow.

On the topic of comedy, what's your view on Extreme Ghostbusters? Of the versions of Ghostbusters, that's probably the most serious incarnation that's been produced so-far. Sure, there are jokes in the dialogue... But they're few and far between, and the overall vibe and tone of the show is such a stark contrast to the 1980s cartoon... XGB is kinda like "Ghostbusters has grown into its angsty teenager phase", which I suppose isn't too much of a stretch as one part of the zeitgeist of the 1990s was teenage angst.

Oh I love Extreme Ghostbusters. But I actually find it pretty funny. Eduardo is hilarious. Also there’s a joke in the pilot episode that always makes me chuckle. As the new characters meet each other for thr first time at the College Eduardo mentions he’s taking Egon’s class for an “Easy A” and Garret asks Roland “ what about you? Are you here for the Easy A?” And Roland’s response is a legit funny joke “Actually I’m not into rap music”. I also always get a kick out of Eduardo’s “Maybe he’s dead”.

I view the animated universe differently from the movies tho. My expectations are different. That show is more about the Ghostbusting and the plot. That’s why I’m fine with the franchise continuing in that medium.
Last edited by Kingpin on March 27th, 2022, 12:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.Reason: Fixed quote coding
robbritton liked this
#4968363
RichardLess wrote: March 27th, 2022, 9:19 am
WCat2000 wrote: March 27th, 2022, 5:32 am

Ok maybe I jumped to that conclusion but I’ve seen the “you don’t understand GB” argument I was referring to brought up many times and honestly it’s something that annoys the heck out of me for the reasons I already mentioned.

Afterlife definitely had humor though. Maybe not as much as the first 2 but I think it got it right.

I’ve never read the scripts but that’s true about all movies. They go through a process and things change over development. That’s not specific to the making of GB.

Still just because it was not adapted from a book series or trying to be the next Star Wars does not mean the mythology, tech, etc...is less worthy of expanding on.

The notion that the ghost busting concept was more of an excuse to make a comedy is something I’ll never agree with because we know Dan’s into the supernatural and stuff. He’s clarified more than once his intention was to make a movie based on that subject matter. His original idea was just too complex.

I know you did not say that but it sounds similar to what I’ve heard before. That basically it was all for comedy sake.
The Ghostbusting concept was 100% an excuse to make a comedy. Dan Aykroyd has said this a million times. They took the Bowery Boys, Abbot and Costello and other comedy teams that did the “Ghost breaking” thing in the 1930s/40s and modernized it. That’s all Ghostbusters ever was. It was using the then modern technology to do a modern spin on those classic Ghostbusting team movies. Yes he’s interested in the Supernatural but he never intended to make it a serious thing. Dan Aykroyd literally says all this sitting next to Bill Murray on the films EPK. So you can not agree with it all you want but it is what it is.
I’m aware of what he took inspiration from. He mentions it on Jimmy Fallon too but it’s very obvious, for Dan Aykroyd at least, the supernatural/paranormal stuff was meant to be taken seriously.

Aside from his original idea being more elaborate he’s wanted to do GB3 + more than any of them. Every time he talks about it you can tell how genuine he is on the whole subject. He’s never downplayed it.

His motivation for the franchise is clearly more than the comedy. It’s why some people like Bill Murray have poked fun at him.
#4968364
RichardLess wrote: March 27th, 2022, 9:19 am Afterlife had humour the way Marvel movies have humour. I wouldn’t call those movies comedies.
I think what the new cast had going against them in Afterlife was that in GB1, Bill, Dan, and Harold were all Second City and/or SNL alums, the experience that goes with that, and were familiar working with each other. Even ATC had that going for itself. So going forward, inevitably when new teams of adult Ghostbusters enter the picture, they should focus on casting those who are friends/workmates. Not to say the new cast had no chemistry with each other, but there's something about actors having already worked with each other for years.
Kingpin wrote: March 27th, 2022, 7:07 amLIES.:)

As I said, I liked SG1, but if it helps explain what I mean, just compare the Cheyenne Mountain complex set in the movie against the one featured in the show (though the one element present in the TV version that I wish was in the movie were the chevrons illuminating) - the set felt more physically real.
I knew it'd be down to the chevron. It always is. :P
#4968366
WCat2000 wrote: March 27th, 2022, 4:43 pm
RichardLess wrote: March 27th, 2022, 9:19 am

The Ghostbusting concept was 100% an excuse to make a comedy. Dan Aykroyd has said this a million times. They took the Bowery Boys, Abbot and Costello and other comedy teams that did the “Ghost breaking” thing in the 1930s/40s and modernized it. That’s all Ghostbusters ever was. It was using the then modern technology to do a modern spin on those classic Ghostbusting team movies. Yes he’s interested in the Supernatural but he never intended to make it a serious thing. Dan Aykroyd literally says all this sitting next to Bill Murray on the films EPK. So you can not agree with it all you want but it is what it is.
I’m aware of what he took inspiration from. He mentions it on Jimmy Fallon too but it’s very obvious, for Dan Aykroyd at least, the supernatural/paranormal stuff was meant to be taken seriously.

Aside from his original idea being more elaborate he’s wanted to do GB3 + more than any of them. Every time he talks about it you can tell how genuine he is on the whole subject. He’s never downplayed it.

His motivation for the franchise is clearly more than the comedy. It’s why some people like Bill Murray have poked fun at him.
So you’re aware of what he took inspiration from and yet you said you don’t believe it was an excuse to make a comedy. Both of those things can’t be true.


“The supernatural stuff was meant to be taken seriously”


You mean the movie with a walking 100 foot Marshmallow Man? Or the green blob “Slimer”? Yeah that’s serious stuff. I think you are confusing believability with seriousness. They wanted to audience to buy into the creditably of the science & equipment. That’s where the movies terrific verisimilitude comes into play.

I mean, sure, the threat of Gozer was meant to be taken seriously. But it was all in service to the comedy. The movie was a horror comedy.

Dan has an interest in the paranormal. But he wasn’t trying to make Poltergeist. His original draft had Mr. Stay Puft.

I mean come on dude. Ghostbusters 2 has a ghost jogger checking his pulse. You think that’s meant to be anything other than a joke?

Dan has always been the most vocal champion of the franchise. It’s his baby. He’s the originator of the franchise. His idea was to take the pseudo science stuff he believes in and mash it with one of the ghost breaking comedy teams movies. That’s it.
robbritton liked this
#4968368
RichardLess wrote: March 27th, 2022, 8:37 pm
WCat2000 wrote: March 27th, 2022, 4:43 pm I’m aware of what he took inspiration from. He mentions it on Jimmy Fallon too but it’s very obvious, for Dan Aykroyd at least, the supernatural/paranormal stuff was meant to be taken seriously.

Aside from his original idea being more elaborate he’s wanted to do GB3 + more than any of them. Every time he talks about it you can tell how genuine he is on the whole subject. He’s never downplayed it.

His motivation for the franchise is clearly more than the comedy. It’s why some people like Bill Murray have poked fun at him.
So you’re aware of what he took inspiration from and yet you said you don’t believe it was an excuse to make a comedy. Both of those things can’t be true.

Of course they can. Plenty of things draw inspiration from other things. It doesn’t void your own ideas.

“The supernatural stuff was meant to be taken seriously”


You mean the movie with a walking 100 foot Marshmallow Man? Or the green blob “Slimer”? Yeah that’s serious stuff. I think you are confusing believability with seriousness. They wanted to audience to buy into the creditably of the science & equipment. That’s where the movies terrific verisimilitude comes into play.

I mean, sure, the threat of Gozer was meant to be taken seriously. But it was all in service to the comedy. The movie was a horror comedy.

Dan has an interest in the paranormal. But he wasn’t trying to make Poltergeist. His original draft had Mr. Stay Puft.

I mean come on dude. Ghostbusters 2 has a ghost jogger checking his pulse. You think that’s meant to be anything other than a joke?

Obviously there was going to be cute and goofy characters given the comedy angle. Even so they don’t hurt the overall theme.

Dan has always been the most vocal champion of the franchise. It’s his baby. He’s the originator of the franchise. His idea was to take the pseudo science stuff he believes in and mash it with one of the ghost breaking comedy teams movies. That’s it.

This is what I’ve been saying. He wanted to make his own movies while still treating it with a certain level of authenticity because he believes in this type of stuff.

What you seemed to claim is that it had nothing to do with his interest in the supernatural/paranormal. That the entire concept was for comedy purposes only.
#4968373
WCat2000 wrote: March 28th, 2022, 12:34 am
RichardLess wrote: March 27th, 2022, 8:37 pm

So you’re aware of what he took inspiration from and yet you said you don’t believe it was an excuse to make a comedy. Both of those things can’t be true.

Of course they can. Plenty of things draw inspiration from other things. It doesn’t void your own ideas.

“The supernatural stuff was meant to be taken seriously”


You mean the movie with a walking 100 foot Marshmallow Man? Or the green blob “Slimer”? Yeah that’s serious stuff. I think you are confusing believability with seriousness. They wanted to audience to buy into the creditably of the science & equipment. That’s where the movies terrific verisimilitude comes into play.

I mean, sure, the threat of Gozer was meant to be taken seriously. But it was all in service to the comedy. The movie was a horror comedy.

Dan has an interest in the paranormal. But he wasn’t trying to make Poltergeist. His original draft had Mr. Stay Puft.

I mean come on dude. Ghostbusters 2 has a ghost jogger checking his pulse. You think that’s meant to be anything other than a joke?

Obviously there was going to be cute and goofy characters given the comedy angle. Even so they don’t hurt the overall theme.

Dan has always been the most vocal champion of the franchise. It’s his baby. He’s the originator of the franchise. His idea was to take the pseudo science stuff he believes in and mash it with one of the ghost breaking comedy teams movies. That’s it.

This is what I’ve been saying. He wanted to make his own movies while still treating it with a certain level of authenticity because he believes in this type of stuff.

What you seemed to claim is that it had nothing to do with his interest in the supernatural/paranormal. That the entire concept was for comedy purposes only.
Hmm. I don’t quite know what you’re trying to say with the “void your own ideas” thing. You said GB wasn’t made as an excuse to make a comedy(as far as Aykroyd is concerned), right? Then I mentioned Dan’s quote of bringing the old comedy team ghost chasing movies with modern FX and verisimilitude to highlight that yes, it was made as an excuse to make a comedy. So I guess my confusion stems from the fact that you know he wanted to make a modern ghost chasing comedy team movie but you also think the movie wasn’t made primarily for purpose to make people laugh? Those two things seems to be at odds with each other. Either he intended to make a comedy or he didn’t. Again, it seems your confusing believability with seriousness. I don’t think that’s semantics. Or maybe it is. I duno. All I know is Aykroyd wanted to make a *credible* paranormal comedy where the GB’s don’t use something like a vacuum to catch ghosts, like in the old movies. He wanted to do a movie where the vernacular was based on established principles(pseudo science tho it may be).

And “I seemed to claim the movie nothing to do with his interest in the supernatural/paranormal“. Nope. Didn’t say that. That would be a little silly considering everyone and their grandma knows Dan is a paranormal nut. But he dudes entire career has been in comedy.

So just to recap to make sure everyone is on the same page. Ghostbusters is a comedy, Dan Aykroyd wanted to make a comedy. The ghosts were meant to be funny but also scary and the idea was to make the audience believe that this could all theoretically happen. Those are established facts. So long as we can all agree that’s the case, we are copacetic. Cool? Cool.
#4968374
mrmichaelt wrote: March 27th, 2022, 6:19 pm
RichardLess wrote: March 27th, 2022, 9:19 am Afterlife had humour the way Marvel movies have humour. I wouldn’t call those movies comedies.
I think what the new cast had going against them in Afterlife was that in GB1, Bill, Dan, and Harold were all Second City and/or SNL alums, the experience that goes with that, and were familiar working with each other. Even ATC had that going for itself. So going forward, inevitably when new teams of adult Ghostbusters enter the picture, they should focus on casting those who are friends/workmates. Not to say the new cast had no chemistry with each other, but there's something about actors having already worked with each other for years.
Kingpin wrote: March 27th, 2022, 7:07 amLIES.:)

As I said, I liked SG1, but if it helps explain what I mean, just compare the Cheyenne Mountain complex set in the movie against the one featured in the show (though the one element present in the TV version that I wish was in the movie were the chevrons illuminating) - the set felt more physically real.
I knew it'd be down to the chevron. It always is. :P
Yeah that’s a good point. Plus Ivan, Dan & Harold were all at their comedy zenith. That’s why I wish Jason would’ve co-wrote the movie with someone who has a comedic background.

Here are some names that I think could write a brilliant Ghostbusters comedy: Armando Ianucci, Mike Schur, Greg Daniels, Taika Waititi, Dan Goor. Maybe James Gunn. Yeah. I think James Gunn could do Ghostbusters well. I think might even add him to my directors list.
#4968377
Kingpin wrote: March 26th, 2022, 2:25 pm I'll admit I'll be greedy in wanting more Ghostbusters movies after Afterlife, so many other franchises have been given reboots, and Ghostbusters is as deserving, if not more-so than some. After having just had a reasonable successful outing... And at the risk of the next installment maybe not being so good, I'm not ready to see the fire of the live-action franchise go out so soon after it was reignited.

...

If we do see a new movie, I feel very certain we won't see Venkman in it - his character was given a happy ending, and given how much trouble it's been to get Bill involved, I'd be happy to sacrifice Venkman to a life off-screen than to have the rest of the production have to go through the Murray runaround to get him in another movie.

I feel that for the next film, if there is one... It may be tricky to have the focus return to Manhattan and for all the kids to return. Phoebe would probably be the most willing to make the move, as she'd be fully-immersed in Egon's legacy and lab.
I'm definitely not advocating for Afterlife to be the last Ghostbusters movie (not that you said I did). It was well received, and seemed to leave the possibility of a sequel open. However, while I agree that Ghostbusters is, in theory, more deserving of sequels than other franchises, I believe that there's a bit of a Catch 22. Part of what makes Ghostbusters such a great movie is that it has a really strong story, and the story doesn't feel the need to setup sequels (although GBII is also great). However, while there are definitely great series (Harry Potter and the original Star Wars trilogy come to mind), many movies that get sequels do so because they're written to spawn sequels (or at least that's what it feels like), and not because their story was particularly good. I can think of one Marvel movie (Avengers 2) that, to me, felt like it was written solely to setup sequels, and was held together by a lackluster plot.

I'm not sure if you can have a lot of great Ghostbusters movies without a great overarching plot (I'd argue that Rocky is a series that played out like this), and if they do come up with a great overarching plot, how are filler movies avoided? I dunno, I could be off base on this one.

I agree that we probably won't be seeing Venkman again. Bill wanted II to be the Last of the Ghostbusters, so hoping he'll come back for a fourth time is wishful thinking.

That's a very good point. I have trouble seeing Afterlife sequels set in Oklahoma (assuming they don't do another Shandor based movie), but you're right that it would be hard to get the whole gang to New York. Perhaps it will be split between the two... The kids have to solve something in Oklahoma, while a new team is trained in NY.
Kingpin wrote:I agree that the characters need to be one of the high priorities... But you need to have enough going in the ghost plot to get people's butts in seats. The continuation needs to avoid what is frankly the problem with The Walking Dead TV series, and even to some degree the comic: focusing so much on the humans, the antagonists, and the problems they experience and forgetting about the zombies that are the other big threat. It doesn't have to be a Gozer or Vigo-level villian, nor a world-threatening event, but it needs to be enough of a problem to provide for an interesting story and some degree of spectacle that's appropriate to the Ghostbusters universe.
That's true. My fear is that either you have the Ghostbusters characters return, or you have the villains return. If you have neither, maybe it will work, but it'll be the equipment holding it together. That might be what the franchise needs--to mostly ignore the original movies while staying in the same universe. The originals can be a passing mention, the way Ghostbusters was in II.

Am I just rambling incoherently? I kinda feel like I am...
#4968379
RichardLess wrote: March 28th, 2022, 8:16 am
WCat2000 wrote: March 28th, 2022, 12:34 am
Of course they can. Plenty of things draw inspiration from other things. It doesn’t void your own ideas.

Obviously there was going to be cute and goofy characters given the comedy angle. Even so they don’t hurt the overall theme.

This is what I’ve been saying. He wanted to make his own movies while still treating it with a certain level of authenticity because he believes in this type of stuff.

What you seemed to claim is that it had nothing to do with his interest in the supernatural/paranormal. That the entire concept was for comedy purposes only.
Hmm. I don’t quite know what you’re trying to say with the “void your own ideas” thing. You said GB wasn’t made as an excuse to make a comedy(as far as Aykroyd is concerned), right? Then I mentioned Dan’s quote of bringing the old comedy team ghost chasing movies with modern FX and verisimilitude to highlight that yes, it was made as an excuse to make a comedy. So I guess my confusion stems from the fact that you know he wanted to make a modern ghost chasing comedy team movie but you also think the movie wasn’t made primarily for purpose to make people laugh? Those two things seems to be at odds with each other. Either he intended to make a comedy or he didn’t. Again, it seems your confusing believability with seriousness. I don’t think that’s semantics. Or maybe it is. I duno. All I know is Aykroyd wanted to make a *credible* paranormal comedy where the GB’s don’t use something like a vacuum to catch ghosts, like in the old movies. He wanted to do a movie where the vernacular was based on established principles(pseudo science tho it may be).

And “I seemed to claim the movie nothing to do with his interest in the supernatural/paranormal“. Nope. Didn’t say that. That would be a little silly considering everyone and their grandma knows Dan is a paranormal nut. But he dudes entire career has been in comedy.

So just to recap to make sure everyone is on the same page. Ghostbusters is a comedy, Dan Aykroyd wanted to make a comedy. The ghosts were meant to be funny but also scary and the idea was to make the audience believe that this could all theoretically happen. Those are established facts. So long as we can all agree that’s the case, we are copacetic. Cool? Cool.
Ok believable/credible might be better words. Ya he intended for it have legitimacy. That the supernatural and paranormal should not be considered dumb or total fantasy.

What I meant about “voiding ideas” is you can take inspiration from other material and still make your own thing. It does not mean GB owes it’s creation to those old movies. It was just part of what inspired it.
#4968381
I’ve always wondered if in some alternate universe Frank Price didn’t go to Universal & get the “Ghostbusters” name cleared & instead they made a movie called “Ghostbreakers” or “Ghostchasers”. Can you imagine? In that other universe they are all “can you believe they wanted to call this movie ‘Ghostbusters’ instead of (insert alt title here)? Thank god that never worked, what a horrible title!”

To think in some alternate reality we all are on a website called gcfans.com

Maybe in that universe we got “Ghostchasers 3; Ghostchasers go to hell” and it was a huge hit back in 1999.

Instead of Ghostbusters Afterlife there’s “Zack Snyder’s Ghostchasers”
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 281
Proton Props UK

Classic ‘whataboutery.’ This ban is l[…]

Hasbro Ghostbusters

While you're 100% correct about the function[…]

Uniform Tips

It does rain frequently here in London, but not to[…]

The yellow parts are raw 3D prints, unsanded and u[…]