Author Topic: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All  (Read 4949 times)

Tiny Poster

  • Dr. Cod will see you now
Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #30 on: February 08, 2010, 08:52:46 PM »
Who Framed Roger Rabbit was better.

samadriel

  • I`m not a shining wit, I`m a whining shit
Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #31 on: February 08, 2010, 10:52:56 PM »
However, if they can capture what makes the Office US work so well, we could be in for a surprise, but hopefully without the 'cringe comedy' aspect.
Normally I'd protest that the US Office doesn't routinely use cringe as a crutch, but those two wrote "The Dinner Party" and "Scott's Tots", two US Office episodes with nothing but 'cringe' to them; not great...

...I hope Ramis hasn't lost too much weight lately, his portliness is just too perfect an opportunity for a "that's a big Twinkie" reference...

Rev

  • A Manufacturing Concern
Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #32 on: February 09, 2010, 01:27:22 AM »
Why are we assuming that the ghostly Bill Murray would be a CGI affair?  A bit of CGI wispiness is to be expected, of course, but there's no reason why it couldn't be a mainly live-action role.

There's also no reason why it couldn't be the pivotal element that such a sequel needs in order to stop it being a limp re-tread.  The idea of him being dead and working with them as an 'insider' affords loads of possibilities.  Many of them covered by Randall & Hopkirk, admittedly, but there's plenty of fun to be had with that concept.

We will of course get an influx of 'new guys', because this film wouldn't even have reached this stage without an eye to another sequel if it's a success.  That one will be shit, but this one could be quietly great.

Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #33 on: February 09, 2010, 06:34:45 PM »
If Murray is to play a ghost, I can just hope the effects used are along the same lines as The Frighteners.

Vitalstatistix

  • Photocopies are not admissable as memories
Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #34 on: February 09, 2010, 06:37:42 PM »
Why are we assuming that the ghostly Bill Murray would be a CGI affair?  A bit of CGI wispiness is to be expected, of course, but there's no reason why it couldn't be a mainly live-action role.

Yeah, I would assume it'll be live-action Bill, with a little CGI to make him a bit invisible and white. The fact that his voice-over work is rubbish seems pretty irrelevant.

CaledonianGonzo

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • No Cheeses For Us Meeces
    • DEC Syria Appeal
Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #35 on: February 09, 2010, 06:39:45 PM »
I was picturing something a little more:



If Murray is to play a ghost, I can just hope the effects used are along the same lines as The Frighteners.

Poor man's Rentaghost.

Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #36 on: February 10, 2010, 01:07:57 AM »
Yeah, I would assume it'll be live-action Bill, with a little CGI to make him a bit invisible and white. The fact that his voice-over work is rubbish seems pretty irrelevant.

From what i have heard, he wants to play a ghost so he doesn't actually have to be in the film for all that much time. He'll film for a week or so, then go into ADR and record his lines and sod off. Considering that he is doing GB3 at all is great, but i doubt he's going to agree to be a ghost and then put himself through a load of Dr Manhatten style complicated CG work... He's a proper actor now you know!

Thi slooks like a 'phone in' role (see the video game for details)

Vitalstatistix

  • Photocopies are not admissable as memories
Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #37 on: February 10, 2010, 09:50:19 AM »
Well if that really is the case, then yes sounds pretty pony!

Glebe

  • So here we are, then.
Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #38 on: February 13, 2010, 09:07:45 AM »
If I may diverge from GB3 for a moment... I was thinking of picking up Ghostbusters on Blu-Ray, but while the picture is meant to be a big improvement on the 2005 DVD (which is generally regared as a mess - the 1999 DVD release is supposedly more natural looking), it's still not entirely tip-top, apparently. Plus, as with the 2005 DVD release, the picture is slightly cropped. More here, for any fellow tech spec nerds.

Replies From View

  • Rubbing linseed oil into the school cormorant.
  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • Gargoyles have milk bags.
Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #39 on: August 02, 2012, 02:28:09 PM »
Sorry to revive an old thread, but it seemed more reasonable than starting a new one.

Update:  Bill Murray won't be appearing.

http://movies.uk.msn.com/news/aykroyd-bill-wont-do-ghostbusters

Mister Six

  • Half-masted, bass-boosted, sling-backed
Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #40 on: August 03, 2012, 02:35:31 AM »
Which means you'd get your great moment half way through the film where the 4 classic characters suit up one last time etc.

But that means that audience would spend half the movie waiting for the characters they've actually paid to see turn up.

I think Ghostbusters 3 is like Spaces series 3 - something that I would have loved to see if it had come out at a specific time, but everyone's now too old to revisit those characters without it being a bit depressing.

thecuriousorange

  • WELCOME THRILLHOU
Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #41 on: August 03, 2012, 09:33:55 PM »

BlodwynPig

  • Throwing two dogs at a goblin
Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #42 on: August 03, 2012, 10:37:44 PM »
But that means that audience would spend half the movie waiting for the characters they've actually paid to see turn up.

I think Ghostbusters 3 is like Spaces series 3 - something that I would have loved to see if it had come out at a specific time, but everyone's now too old to revisit those characters without it being a bit depressing.

Spaces 1 and 2 were not much cop - there was certainly a lot of empty threats regarding series 3 but I am glad nothing came of it.

Cerys

  • Bionic-Arsed
  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • Cyber Engineered Ravaged Yakking System
    • The Brainwrongs of Cerys
Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #43 on: August 03, 2012, 10:44:18 PM »
Do you mean Spaced?  Because otherwise I'm confused.

Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #44 on: August 04, 2012, 04:20:28 AM »
But that means that audience would spend half the movie waiting for the characters they've actually paid to see turn up.

See also: The Dark Knight Rises.

If Ghostbusters 3 has any chance of being remembered as a worthwhile follow-up, even in comparison to the almost universal derision that Ghostbusters 2 gets (which I think is unfair, but sadly is true) then it has to be taken seriously as another story in the same universe, not as a stepping stone to another 3 films with all new Ghostbusters, as if anyone gives even the first part of a shit about "the new team".

I'm glad Murray, at least, hasn't forgotten that the Ghostbusters are not a franchise - they're characters from a 1980s comedy film. It would be like doing Stripes: The Next Generation.

Fuck Aykroyd for this, and fuck Ramis too. I'll let Ernie Hudson off since he's always been the token black of the series and has really run with it despite how badly he's been treated by the films and the audience since. If he's not in it though, they can seriously eat a bag of dicks.

Old Nehamkin

  • Dance, Jimmy!
Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #45 on: August 04, 2012, 01:49:15 PM »
They already came the closest they're ever going to get to a satisfactory follow-up with the video game, and Ackroyd should've just left it there. They managed to get the old cast together, did a story that felt pretty close to what a Ghostbusters 3 made circa. 1992 would've probably been like, and indulged in the requisite level of nostalgia for the original films, with the added bonus that the game itself was actually pretty decent. Even Murray seemed pretty enthusiastic about it at the time, presumably because he understood that going into a booth and recording some new lines as a young, animated Peter Venkman was a much better prospect than strapping on proto packs with his 60 year-old mates and trying to recreate the on-screen chemistry they had thirty years ago.

As has been echoed above, if Ackroyd wants this film to stand on its own as an introduction of a new team then the inclusion of the original actors will only harm it. He might as well just do it as a straight-up remake. But even then, the appeal of the first film was based on the unique chemistry of the lead actors, and to a lesser extent the novelty and originality of the premise. If Ackroyd wants to recreate that, he'd be much better off trying to produce an original supernatural comedy film with a new group of young comedians. But he won't do that, because he'd much rather drag out an old 80s property just so the audience can get all nostalgiac when that logo comes up at the beginning, before being disappointed.

Quote from: The Region Legion
flip Aykroyd for this, and flip Ramis too. I'll let Ernie Hudson off since he's always been the token black of the series and has really run with it despite how badly he's been treated by the films and the audience since. If he's not in it though, they can seriously eat a bag of dicks.

Yeah, the treatment of Ernie Hudson is really the most awful aspect of the whole thing. He's such an essential part of the first film and they didn't even put him on the poster with the other titular Ghostbusters (I think I also read an interview where he said he had to audition for his own part in the cartoon series and it was then given to someone else). Apparently one of Murray's conditions for doing the game was that Hudson's part be rewritten to give him an equal role with the other cast, so credit to him.

Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #46 on: August 04, 2012, 03:35:16 PM »
They already came the closest they're ever going to get to a satisfactory follow-up with the video game, and Ackroyd should've just left it there..

Perhaps that's because the script for the game was developed from a script for Ghostbusters 3.

If Ghostbusters film is made, it's not the decision of Aykroyd - and I don't believe that he's been involved in the project all of the time. Quite a while ago, it was reported that he had brought in to rework the script by the studio, because the one that had been produced wasn't great by any stretch of the imagination; with various reporting about that, it certainly sounded that he had been kept at arm's length but how much that was the case, who knows - perhaps they were trying to get some positive PR.

It could be argued that Aykroyd could keep away, but if the damn thing is going to be made, it could be argued that by being involved he has some influence in what the finished project is.

........But even then, the appeal of the first film was based on the unique chemistry of the lead actors, and to a lesser extent the novelty and originality of the premise. ..

That's a matter of opinion.

Replies From View

  • Rubbing linseed oil into the school cormorant.
  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • Gargoyles have milk bags.
Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #47 on: August 04, 2012, 05:11:55 PM »
Apparently one of Murray's conditions for doing the game was that Hudson's part be rewritten to give him an equal role with the other cast, so credit to him.

Murray is roughly the exact opposite of Eric Idle.

thecuriousorange

  • WELCOME THRILLHOU
Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #48 on: August 06, 2012, 07:22:33 PM »
This film must not get made because the new Ghostbusters will almost certainly include Jonah Hill.

Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #49 on: August 13, 2012, 03:33:11 AM »
This film must not get made because the new Ghostbusters will almost certainly include Jonah Hill.

Jonah Hill, Michael Cera, Zack Galifinakis and a black one. Called it.

SteveDave

  • My LPs are still for sale in all good record shops
    • BUY BUY BUY
Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #50 on: August 13, 2012, 10:06:13 AM »
I say- Seth Rogen (as Oscar), Paul Rudd, Jonah Hill & the black one from 40 Year Old Virgin.

Jumble Cashback

  • I bet you never expected to find ME in your urine!
Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #51 on: August 15, 2012, 08:57:55 PM »
Don't forget the token woman.  I'd have no problem with a female Ghostbuster if they hired her for the same reasons as they would a male actor (i.e. that she was funny), but, being the lead actress, she would, of course have to bring the 'sex appeal'.  Someone like Sara Gilbert could be great, but they'd probably cast Christine Taylor.  I don't mind Christine Taylor and she can be quite funny, but she's very definitely the 'Hollwood compromise'; the woman in a comedy who's sorta funny but who executives feel is also credible as a 'love interest', a 'role model for girls' or 'eye candy'.  Obviously they wouldn't just cast Angelina Jolie, because even stupid people would be asking what she's doing playing a Ghostbuster, but, as always, the female member of the team would still have to be characterised by her gender.  She's the girl one. 
  Ernie Hudson might sometimes be seen as 'the black one', but at least he wasn't rapping, talking about what it's like coming from 'the streets' or making comments about 'crackers' and 'white boys' (although his "I've seen shit that'll turn you white" remark is an obvious instance of 'look - he's black!  That's the joke!' mentality).  A female Ghostbuster would probably have to be a bit 'sassy' and roll her eyes at the stupid male male mentality of the rest of the group.  And in one preconception-shatterting scene, she'd even prove to be PHYSICALLY STRONGER than the other members - by lifting something heavy, breaking down a door or unscrewing a jam jar that the men had failed to conquer - imagine that!  She might even prove to be BRAVER, going fearlessly into dangerous situations which the men are trying to avoid with an exasperated "oh, for god's sake".  She'll probably be far more organised too and very hard working, but she'll still have her little guilty pleasures like wearing DIRTY CLOTHES WITH FOOD ON THEM in her apartment whe nobody's looking!  Or EATING A PIZZA!  It's just that kind of playing with, yet constantly refrencing, gender stereotypes that makes for hilarious comedy.  I can't wait.

SteveDave

  • My LPs are still for sale in all good record shops
    • BUY BUY BUY
Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #52 on: August 16, 2012, 10:46:15 AM »
Don't forget the token woman.  I'd have no problem with a female Ghostbuster if they hired her for the same reasons as they would a male actor (i.e. that she was funny), but, being the lead actress, she would, of course have to bring the 'sex appeal'.  Someone like Sara Gilbert could be great, but they'd probably cast Christine Taylor.  I don't mind Christine Taylor and she can be quite funny, but she's very definitely the 'Hollwood compromise'; the woman in a comedy who's sorta funny but who executives feel is also credible as a 'love interest', a 'role model for girls' or 'eye candy'.  Obviously they wouldn't just cast Angelina Jolie, because even stupid people would be asking what she's doing playing a Ghostbuster, but, as always, the female member of the team would still have to be characterised by her gender.  She's the girl one. 
  Ernie Hudson might sometimes be seen as 'the black one', but at least he wasn't rapping, talking about what it's like coming from 'the streets' or making comments about 'crackers' and 'white boys' (although his "I've seen shit that'll turn you white" remark is an obvious instance of 'look - he's black!  That's the joke!' mentality).  A female Ghostbuster would probably have to be a bit 'sassy' and roll her eyes at the stupid male male mentality of the rest of the group.  And in one preconception-shatterting scene, she'd even prove to be PHYSICALLY STRONGER than the other members - by lifting something heavy, breaking down a door or unscrewing a jam jar that the men had failed to conquer - imagine that!  She might even prove to be BRAVER, going fearlessly into dangerous situations which the men are trying to avoid with an exasperated "oh, for god's sake".  She'll probably be far more organised too and very hard working, but she'll still have her little guilty pleasures like wearing DIRTY CLOTHES WITH FOOD ON THEM in her apartment whe nobody's looking!  Or EATING A PIZZA!  It's just that kind of playing with, yet constantly refrencing, gender stereotypes that makes for hilarious comedy.  I can't wait.

It'll be Anna Faris as the "Janine" but towards the end she'll strap on a proton pack & become a real Ghostbuster. Without her you've got nothing but a dead Thanksgiving owl in the street being run over by the public. 

kitsofan34

  • everybody's clever nowadays
Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #53 on: August 16, 2012, 10:47:31 AM »
Tina Fey and Amy Poehler are both talented actors and pretty, I think they'd be a good fit.

Jemble Fred

  • ... And I ain't ashamed.
    • 100% BALLS
Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #54 on: August 16, 2012, 10:50:09 AM »
Nooo, Alison Brie or forget about it. In fact, they should just get the main cast from Community. wholesale. And the actual characters.

Admittedly, not Chevy Chase. I'm sure Aykroyd would have asked him before now if he was welcome...

Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #55 on: August 16, 2012, 10:54:48 AM »
....Admittedly, not Chevy Chase. I'm sure Aykroyd would have asked him before now if he was welcome...

They are meant to be working on a script together, Aykroyd posted this on Facebook:

Quote
Chevy and I are about to start work on a script concept for a comedy movie. Cannot say too much about the concept, but the joy of working with him again is one that I am extremely excited about. Chevy is one of my favourite people, and one of the great anarchistic and physically committed comedians in the business.

Or someone hacked his account.


Jemble Fred

  • ... And I ain't ashamed.
    • 100% BALLS
Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #56 on: August 16, 2012, 10:55:54 AM »
I stand corrected, and am glad to do so. Last I heard, Aykroyd was basically announcing his retirement, so that's a bit of an about-turn.

Tiny Poster

  • Dr. Cod will see you now
Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #57 on: August 16, 2012, 11:01:25 AM »
Gillian Jacobs as the Girl One.

Re: Ghostbusters: A Thread About It All
« Reply #58 on: August 16, 2012, 11:16:52 AM »
I stand corrected, and am glad to do so. Last I heard, Aykroyd was basically announcing his retirement, so that's a bit of an about-turn.

He’s certainly made lots of noises along those lines in the past – e,g, after one costume drama Aykroyd said how great the experience was and wanted to be very selective in what role he picked but IIRC, he was to all intensive purposes, basically retired. However, with some roles he went on to take, suggest he wasn’t tooooo discerning – that said, Akyroyd did go on to make some pretty interesting choices in smaller budget films (including Canadian films), which I suspect had nothing to do with money. What with his weekly music show and getting involved in flogging vodka and wine, he hasn’t been kicking his heels up at home.

Going back to Chase, Aykroyd officiated at one of his daughter’s weddings very recently so the two must get on pretty well.   

Order arrival
« Reply #59 on: August 17, 2012, 09:56:04 AM »
Probably gave them a good deal on the wine and voddie.