Author Topic: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed  (Read 8605 times)

Twed

  • I need you so, Medieval Zone, you don't need me
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #210 on: January 24, 2019, 03:25:58 PM »
Go Spusters! (2025) - Absolutely everybody is encouraged to go "spusters".

Replies From View

  • Rubbing linseed oil into the school cormorant.
  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • Gargoyles have milk bags.
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #211 on: January 24, 2019, 06:40:56 PM »
Goat Basters (2027) - Dan Aykroyd reclaims the franchise again, and if you ask me this one has some kinky overtones.

St_Eddie

  • *The Patron Saint of Scallywags*
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #212 on: January 25, 2019, 05:11:30 AM »
Ghost Plasterers

♫  When you need a plasterer, ♫
♫ 'Cause your walls look shed.  ♫
♫  But you want those fuckers to be dead.  ♫

♫  Who you gonna call?  ♫






No, that's shit.  I have nothing.  "Ghost Plasterers".  Honestly!  Pathetic.  Desperate, in fact.
« Last Edit: January 25, 2019, 05:21:50 AM by St_Eddie »

Mister Six

  • Half-masted, bass-boosted, sling-backed
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #213 on: January 25, 2019, 06:08:48 PM »
Busting that edit bug.

St_Eddie

  • *The Patron Saint of Scallywags*
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #214 on: January 25, 2019, 10:25:06 PM »
Busting that edit bug.

I have some dust bunnies that a-need a-busting, if you're interested?  £4.50 an hour.

Bad Ambassador

  • Sit down, Mario!
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #215 on: January 26, 2019, 01:15:57 AM »

Glebe

  • Cheers, thanks mate, nice one.
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #216 on: April 06, 2019, 02:53:54 AM »
I don't have a 4K TV/player, but blimey, this sounds nice:

‘Ghostbusters’ Getting a 4K Steelbook Release with New Rare Deleted Scenes & More.

Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #217 on: April 06, 2019, 04:11:03 AM »
Isn't it peculiar when anything released online or disseminated as a special feature on something like a blu-ray is described as "rare".

Dex Sawash

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Upphängningspunkterna
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #218 on: April 06, 2019, 01:34:36 PM »
Under-done

St_Eddie

  • *The Patron Saint of Scallywags*
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #219 on: April 06, 2019, 05:24:55 PM »
Quote
6 Rare & Newly Unearthed Deleted Scenes, including the long-requested Fort Detmerring scenes!

Coo.  I never thought that we'd get to see this scene in full.

St_Eddie

  • *The Patron Saint of Scallywags*
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #220 on: May 23, 2019, 06:52:52 AM »
There's a new interview with Dan Aykroyd over at 660 City News...

Quote from: 660 City News
Canadian Press: Several beverage companies are partnering with licensed cannabis producers to infuse their alcoholic beverages with cannabis. Are you interested?

Dan Aykroyd: The products have yet to be really tested well. I’ve tasted some of the beverages and they’re not that tasty because the CBD oil overrides. If they can get the flavours right, there may be a value there.

CP: Can it work with your vodka?

Aykroyd: With our vodka, we would be adding an oil and that would compromise our purity story so we don’t add oils. We go to distribution houses all over the world and they say: “Are you going to do flavours?” And when you say, “No,” they get up and cheer.

CP: Will cannabis cut into the beverage market?

Aykroyd: Everyone in the industry is anticipating that there’s going to be some kind of hit so at some point you’re going to have to marry the CBD and indeed the THC and the beverage, alcohol into something, perhaps a beer that has both in it — a legal level of THC and a legal level of alcohol. Or fruit drinks or something.

CP: Your “Ghostbusters” reboot has taken a long time to come to the screen.

Aykroyd: (Original director) Ivan Reitman’s son Jason has written a beautiful script, I can’t say too much about it but it’s going to get made and hopefully there’ll be some familiar faces…. But I don’t want to discount the work that the girls did with Paul Feig. I kind of got mad, but I realized I should have blamed myself as a producer, the costs were out of control, I should have been watching as a producer a little more, but you don’t dispute with your director.

You hire a director, you trust a director, you trust their vision. But the job that (stars) Kate (McKinnon), and Kristen (Wiig), and Leslie (Jones) and Melissa (McCarthy) did and indeed Paul did on that movie was superior, or superb. We would have done another one but, again, the cost overruns prevented the studio from looking at it and doing another ladies’ movie….

Now we’re going to do it in a sensible way. Costs will be under control and it’ll be brought in for a sensible budget without waste and that’s what’s important now in getting it made.

CP: What’s the budget?

Aykroyd: It’s definitely going to be way under $100 (million). I would think. Movies cost a lot today. It can’t be $30 (million), $50 (million) would be stretching it. I don’t know. Listen, it’s going to be as little as we can spend.

CP: Do cost concerns mean less effects or a more naturalist approach?

DA: I’m always urging to use puppets. I’m always urging to go back to the mechanicals. But CGI is so efficient and easy to use but I think that all of us are on board with the idea of maybe doing mechanicals and puppets where we can.

CP: Like the original.

DA: We were harnessed by the technology then. That was all you could do, was puppets and mechanicals and basic opticals. Now you can just do anything.

CP: Could this new one not incorporate the women’s story?

Aykroyd: It’s so different from even the first and second (film)…. This just takes it to a new generation and a new direction that is so warm, heartfelt and indeed, quite scary when you confront some of the issues that are being discussed.

CP: When did you first discuss this with Jason Reitman?

Aykroyd: Just within two years. Although I’ve written “Ghostbusters High,” where they meet in New Jersey in 1969 and we’re looking to do that as probably a glorified feature or pilot within the next maybe five years…. And it would lead to a television project and I thought of him immediately for that.

It’s on his desk but that’s years away from the current project. But it’s a neat idea for a prequel. Imagine casting the three characters as teenagers!

CP: So this is a feature for the theatre?

Aykroyd: Way, way down, though we have other stuff after the Jason Reitman-helmed movie. We have at least one or two other concepts for the “Ghostbusters” and then we’ll look at doing the prequel, which will be a perfect button on all we’ve done up to that point.

That prequel idea is horrible.  It's pretty clear in the first movie that the librarian spirit is the first full on ghost that the team have ever seen...

Quote from: Ghostbusters
PETER: "As a friend I have to tell you: you've finally gone round the bend on this ghost business. You guys have been running your ass off meeting and greeting every schizo in the five boroughs who says he has a paranormal experience. What have you seen?"

RAY: "Of course you forget, Peter, I was present at an undersea, unexplained, mass sponge migration."

PETER: "Ooh, Ray, those sponges migrated about a foot and a half."

Quote from: Ghostbusters
ALICE: "I don't remember seeing any legs, but it definitely had arms because it reached out for me."

RAY:"Arms?! I can't wait to get a look at this thing!"

Quote from: Ghostbusters
RAY: "A full torso apparition, and it's real!"

Quote from: Ghostbusters
RAY: "Wasn't it incredible, Pete? I mean, we actually touched the etheric plane."

Furthermore, even if they could somehow handwave that away (an all-powerful ghost that causes memory loss or some such bollocks), who would want to watch a Ghostbusters TV series without the iconic logo or the titular heroes wearing their outfits and wielding proton packs?

FerriswheelBueller

  • Golden Todger or
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Less tired. Still sorry if my posts are shit.
    • I am antsy for baseball in the off-season.
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #221 on: May 23, 2019, 10:32:46 AM »
The only ghost I want to see is the ghost of the Ghostbusters franchise. Sick of it, and it wasn’t even that good.

St_Eddie

  • *The Patron Saint of Scallywags*
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #222 on: May 23, 2019, 10:36:47 AM »
I wish that they'd leave it be too but the first movie is outstanding, so says I.  The problem is that it was lightning in a bottle; all of the right people coming together at the right time, when they were at the apex of their creative talents.  You can't replicate that kind of magic, much less decades after the fact.

Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #223 on: May 23, 2019, 10:51:14 AM »
I reckon I'd watch a series that was just Venkman, Stantz and Zeddemore living together as grumpy old men with Slimer. Absolutely nothing to do with ghosts except that Slimer happens to be living with them. Slimer is just treated like a perfectly normal pet. Just to be clear, it's not about Slimer in the slightest, he just happens to be there.

St_Eddie

  • *The Patron Saint of Scallywags*
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #224 on: May 23, 2019, 10:55:23 AM »
Absolutely nothing to do with ghosts except that Slimer happens to be living with them. Slimer is just treated like a perfectly normal pet.

So, The Real Ghostbusters then?

Just to be clear, it's not about Slimer in the slightest, he just happens to be there.

Oh, so not The Real Ghostbusters then.

Replies From View

  • Rubbing linseed oil into the school cormorant.
  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • Gargoyles have milk bags.
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #225 on: May 23, 2019, 10:59:01 AM »
I'll take the first film, the handful of good Real Ghostbusters episodes and the toys I collected as a kid.

Beyond all that, there is no "franchise".

Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #226 on: May 23, 2019, 11:06:56 AM »
The IDW comics have been alright. Maybe not enough meat on the bones on some of the stories, but there's some good character development for Janine and Winston in particular and some really nice fan service going on.

If you want more Ghostbusters and for it to not be utter shit, I'd suggest checking those out.

thecuriousorange

  • WELCOME THRILLHOU
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #227 on: May 23, 2019, 11:15:47 AM »
i put Slimer in the same category as Orko and Snarf. They should me a spin-off with those three.

St_Eddie

  • *The Patron Saint of Scallywags*
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #228 on: May 23, 2019, 11:37:33 AM »
The IDW comics have been alright. Maybe not enough meat on the bones on some of the stories, but there's some good character development for Janine and Winston in particular and some really nice fan service going on.

Huh, well at least Winston wasn't shortchanged in the comics, like he was in the movies.  I just hope that Ernie Hudson got paid for the use of his likeness.

Replies From View

  • Rubbing linseed oil into the school cormorant.
  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • Gargoyles have milk bags.
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #229 on: May 23, 2019, 12:14:53 PM »
How accurate was the likeness?  If "not very" then I imagine he'd have been paid about as much as he got from the Real Ghostbusters one.

Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #230 on: May 23, 2019, 12:20:31 PM »
I wish that they'd leave it be too but the first movie is outstanding, so says I.  The problem is that it was lightning in a bottle; all of the right people coming together at the right time, when they were at the apex of their creative talents.  You can't replicate that kind of magic, much less decades after the fact.

I think its one of those films that exploits a comic concept to the full as well not leaving much room for a sequel to do anything that original, Austin Powers and Men In Black being similar situations(if lesser films). Different to something like say Bill and Ted that left more room for the sequel to play around with the concept and characters.

Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #231 on: May 23, 2019, 12:27:20 PM »
How accurate was the likeness?  If "not very" then I imagine he'd have been paid about as much as he got from the Real Ghostbusters one.

They didn't use the actors' likenesses at all. They drew the characters close enough to be recognisable, but not close enough to need to pay anyone any money.



There were also guest covers where they drew them in a more realistic style and, again, they didn't go anywhere near the actors.


St_Eddie

  • *The Patron Saint of Scallywags*
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #232 on: May 23, 2019, 12:58:15 PM »
State of those fucking subtitles.

How accurate was the likeness?  If "not very" then I imagine he'd have been paid about as much as he got from the Real Ghostbusters one.

They didn't use the actors' likenesses at all. They drew the characters close enough to be recognisable, but not close enough to need to pay anyone any money.

Poor Ernie Hudson.  He just cannae catch a break.  He auditioned for the role of Winston in The Real Ghostbusters.  Yes, they actually made him audition for the role which he had already played in the movie.  In their infinite wisdom, they then decided not to cast him.  Ernie ain't earning much.

He's a great actor.  His performance in this scene in The Hand that Rocks The Cradle never fails to make me well up.

Mister Six

  • Half-masted, bass-boosted, sling-backed
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #233 on: May 23, 2019, 02:23:22 PM »
Poor Ernie Hudson.  He just cannae catch a break. 

Hey, he got to appear in Twin Peaks: The Return, aka the greatest televisual achievement of the 21st century.

St_Eddie

  • *The Patron Saint of Scallywags*
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #234 on: May 23, 2019, 03:00:25 PM »
Hey, he got to appear in Twin Peaks: The Return, aka the greatest televisual achievement of the 21st century.

Aw, that's nice to hear.  I haven't got around to watching the third season yet.  I'm saving it for a special occasion, so that I can truly savour it.

Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #235 on: May 23, 2019, 03:06:13 PM »
Aw, that's nice to hear.  I haven't got around to watching the third season yet.  I'm saving it for a special occasion, so that I can truly savour it.

Ooh, do watch it Eddie, we all reckon it's good and nice.

St_Eddie

  • *The Patron Saint of Scallywags*
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #236 on: May 23, 2019, 03:12:08 PM »
Ooh, do watch it Eddie, we all reckon it's good and nice.

Oh, I absolutely will but I've got to choose the right time because it's going to be a huge timesink, as I need to give myself a refresher course on seasons 1 and 2 first, given that I haven't watched them in donkey's years.

Mister Six

  • Half-masted, bass-boosted, sling-backed
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #237 on: May 25, 2019, 02:20:20 AM »
Honestly, the links to the first two seasons are fairly minimal (though almost all the classic cast make appearances) and it's very different in tone (full-bore post-Lost Highway David Lynch, rather than slightly compromising for network TV Wild at Heart-era Lynch) so you could probably get away with just watching the last couple of episodes of season two and Fire Walk With Me.

That said, the first season and the first half of the second season are magnificent, and Fire Walk With Me (which is essential) is even more so, so yeah - maybe wait till you have the time. I watched a couple of episodes a week in the run up to The Return; it works nicely like that, I think.

Some day I'll find the time to make a fan edit of the second half of season two that cuts out or trims down the shit.

Shaky

  • I drink your thread
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #238 on: June 08, 2019, 07:19:25 AM »
Not a massive surprise after that recent casting leak but Sigourney Weaver has just confirmed her participation in the new sequel... and it's sounding like Murray is probably on board as well.

Chances of this working are pretty slim yet I'm excited.

Golden E. Pump

  • Basically Morris Day.
Re: Ghostbusters 3: No Chicks Allowed
« Reply #239 on: June 08, 2019, 01:22:23 PM »
Ernie Hudson's best role was Leo Glynn in Oz. He was superb in that.