Ghostbusters 3 - Part 1

[SoulManX]

That's what I'm talking about. No one wants to see their favourite GB's return to be wheelchair bound, or eye-patch wearing or so overweight they can't strap the packs on anymore. 1-- It's not funny and 2-- It's a disservice to the fans and characters. If the movie isn't shooting until 2012 then that means they've got 4-5 months to whip themselves into shape. That's plenty of time to lose some weight and look good for the celluloid.

thank you!

 

[Webhead2006]

Well you are forgettingm the characters are older. So of course they wouldnt be in the best of shape any more. And that would play into reason they decide to hand the business over to younger hands. So giving the old guys injuries isn't a bad thing. And more so if it was dan/harold idea. Plus who's to say they wouldn't in the end make one last save with the gear.

 

[Ponyboy]

So was Harrison Ford in Indy 4 and he got along just great. My point is that there's no reason to make these characters "invalids"... it makes no sense, it's not remotely humorous, and I feel it's a crappy thing to do to the characters. I think the "hand over" to a younger generation is also not only a bad idea but something that needs to be handled differently. Have the "ghost situation" get so out of control that they are forced to recruit. Then maybe Dana can suggest to Peter that her son is out of work... or something (maybe she knows Oscar is really Pete's son?)... and then because the original GBs have to recruit, then they do it. They don't just recruit because they are older and can't get around. That's just... wrong... all sorts of wrong.

 

[Webhead2006]

well you got to thik in the line of business with kcatching ghosts they had many close calls/brushs with death. So whos to say they couldnt have gotten injuries from many yrs of busting. No different if you were a metal worker and gone deaf or stuff like that.

 

[Ponyboy]

No, no I understand that. It just seems a crap thing to do to the characters that people love. It's unnecessary. It's almost as if they're using that as a gag because the plot sucks. Ray losing an eye could be funny... if they explained what happened. Even then..?

 

[BeserkerHilf]

But at the same time, it's not far off from the tone of the series. They ALWAYS start off at the lower end of the spectrum. first movie they were kicked out of the university, second movie they were sold out by the entirety of NYC. I'd personally rather them become so inundated by the life style they chose that they have to give up the packs rather than watch them go from unemployed to heroes again.

And frankly, I'd rather have a more...grimy (only because gritty with get me into a "realism" argument)...tone because that's what the first movie was: a very grimy environment with beaten down guys. I'd rather see it return to that kind of mindset when they make the movie rather than the approach they took with the second movie. Same thing happened with Men in Black. The first movie stood on its own to find it's audience then the second movie was made with a more kid-friendly mindset.

 

[Ponyboy]

But at the same time, it's not far off from the tone of the series. They ALWAYS start off at the lower end of the spectrum. first movie they were kicked out of the university, second movie they were sold out by the entirety of NYC. I'd personally rather them become so inundated by the life style they chose that they have to give up the packs rather than watch them go from unemployed to heroes again.

I would agree with you generally... except on one point. Can the Ghostbusters never really win? Because by the time the 3rd film opens up, if we go by the pattern, you've still got characters who haven't thrived at all in life. Maybe that's part of the funny, or the charm. So if that's the case perhaps its best to have them damn near debilitated and this 3rd film be their comeuppance. I dunno. *sigh*

 

[Webhead2006]

I don't really see what wrong with it. They can still play the characters as they where but they would have to play around any shortcummings they got now. It makes for a logical story progression on them.

 

[scifiwolf]

I'm fine with the characters being old, broken, and worn down. The basic premise was always that these were blue collar ticket-punchers who just happened to catch ghosts. They do a hard job, and I expect that kind of work to take a physical toll. In fact, they're probably more susceptible to injury because they're flabby academics playing action hero. The only one I expect to be in decent physical shape is Winston, because he always seemed the more durable.

 

[terry78]

The whole thing is basically a pretty dark comedy in essence when you think about it, considering the subject matter. I figure it would get a little dreary in places, but it varies. You already know how many tv shows and movies have kind of aped Ghostbusters since 1984 with the whole horror/comedy angle.

 

[CurlehMustachio]

But at the same time, it's not far off from the tone of the series. They ALWAYS start off at the lower end of the spectrum. first movie they were kicked out of the university, second movie they were sold out by the entirety of NYC. I'd personally rather them become so inundated by the life style they chose that they have to give up the packs rather than watch them go from unemployed to heroes again.

And frankly, I'd rather have a more...grimy (only because gritty with get me into a "realism" argument)...tone because that's what the first movie was: a very grimy environment with beaten down guys. I'd rather see it return to that kind of mindset when they make the movie rather than the approach they took with the second movie. Same thing happened with Men in Black. The first movie stood on its own to find it's audience then the second movie was made with a more kid-friendly mindset.

I'm fine with the characters being old, broken, and worn down. The basic premise was always that these were blue collar ticket-punchers who just happened to catch ghosts. They do a hard job, and I expect that kind of work to take a physical toll. In fact, they're probably more susceptible to injury because they're flabby academics playing action hero. The only one I expect to be in decent physical shape is Winston, because he always seemed the more durable.

^This. Go back to what it was before, which should be somewhat easier considering that they don't have a cartoon out at the moment.

 

[Gold Samurai]

That's what I'm talking about. No one wants to see their favourite GB's return to be wheelchair bound, or eye-patch wearing or so overweight they can't strap the packs on anymore. 1-- It's not funny and 2-- It's a disservice to the fans and characters. If the movie isn't shooting until 2012 then that means they've got 4-5 months to whip themselves into shape. That's plenty of time to lose some weight and look good for the celluloid.

It's going to take more than 4 to 5 months for Ackroyd and Ramis



It would be funny to see them take the Tom Hardy/Superman/Spider-man workout routine.

 

[SpideyForPrez]

I don't know about Harold Ramis, but I had the privilege of meeting Dan Aykroyd in person a couple years ago and he's in great shape for a man his age. It's possible he's put on a few pounds since then but if he still looks like he did then he wouldn't need to workout for the movie. In fact, I'd say he was in better shape then than he was in the original movies.

The idea that the originals are old, out of shape, and half blind doesn't bug me anyway. Being down on their luck is part of the nature of these characters. They're not Superman, they're regular guys who despite a few triumphs typically have bad luck.

I just hope Aykroyd is moving forward with the film for the right reasons. They'd better have a fantastic script.

 

[Ponyboy]

I just hope Aykroyd is moving forward with the film for the right reasons. They'd better have a fantastic script.

This is what it all boils down to really.

 

[Metallo]

They did it for Rise of the Planet of the Apes. By they time they got ready after starting from scratch on a new script, they technology will have already been out for several years. That's what was created for Avatar.

Apes had good motion capture but the CG itself still wasn't quite there...not for a human face anyway. In Apes there were moments where i was fully aware that i was lookign at a CGI creation and it wasn't because I was "looking for it" or anything like that.

Sure it is. Look no further than Benjamin Button. Forget Tron: Legacy. It can most certainly be done with current technology.

Different situation. In Benjamen Button the effect was necessary because of the very nature of the story...plus as far as I know that wasn't an fx heavy film to begin with. With Ghostbusters there's far more to worry about in terms of the level of special effects needed for the movie.

To de age these guys it would be time consuming and they'd have to make it cost effective. I'm pretty sure the film will have other effects obligations besides making them younger. And its not just one character. We're talking about Egon, Peter, Ray, Winston, possibly Janine, etc. Thats a lot of work to be done AND done cost effective at the same time.

Unless they are going to dedicate a sizable portion of the time and budget just to making them all look younger continuously throughout the movie the rest of the movie's fx work could easily suffer.

 

[Metallo]

I don't really see what wrong with it. They can still play the characters as they where but they would have to play around any shortcummings they got now. It makes for a logical story progression on them.

I agree. They were always presented as normal guys, not action heroes. Its ok for them to age or have a bum knee or bad eyesight. It happens.

Just because Dan says they can't do it anymore that doesn't mean they can't make the save ONCE. They just can't pull off the EVERYDAY grind of being on the street Ghostbusters. That makes perfect sense to me.

 

[the_ultimate_evil]

personally i don't mind the guys getting older, its unrealistic and stupid to expect them to still be the young guys from the previous films, hell even 2 had jokes about it

"suck in the guts guys we're the ghostbusters"

the main point is they don't go overboard, egon being fat isn't going over board but ray being blind is pushing it

 

[Ponyboy]

You know they could have these events occur within the film. Have Ray get blinded in the beginning. I'd rather see it happen... then it gives you a reason to accept that they need to recruit more people. What I ultimately don't want to see if a film where the original 4 guys are overshadowed by a younger team. That does not interest me in the least bit.

 

[Metallo]

Its been over 20 years since the last movie and all these guys are close to or over 60. To me thats more than enough explanation of why they need more help. Even if they STILL do some Ghostbusting I can't imagine them doing it all the time.

The original team can still be in the movie without being overshadowed. That just depends on the writing/story instead of the old guys being active or not.

 

[Ponyboy]

Oh I totally believe (we're ready to believe you!) that the film can be done right. With Murray stating explicitly in the past that he wants to do the film to do a good movie, not "just because"... that left me hopeful. Now that he's still not signed on and they are saying they are going forward with or without him? Doesn't bode well, that's all. The one part of me is going OH COOL because I love GB... then the other half is wary.

 

[Gold Samurai]

You know they could have these events occur within the film. Have Ray get blinded in the beginning. I'd rather see it happen... then it gives you a reason to accept that they need to recruit more people. What I ultimately don't want to see if a film where the original 4 guys are overshadowed by a younger team. That does not interest me in the least bit.

Egon- I told you not to look at the ghost trap directly.

 

[Ponyboy]

Egon- I told you not to look at the ghost trap directly.

Good point.

 

[TheDreamMaster]

You know they could have these events occur within the film. Have Ray get blinded in the beginning. I'd rather see it happen... then it gives you a reason to accept that they need to recruit more people. What I ultimately don't want to see if a film where the original 4 guys are overshadowed by a younger team. That does not interest me in the least bit.

I'll say again what I said earlier, I'd rather have the old guys in at least some capacity and bring in the new guys if that is where the series needs to go because of the actors aging. The new guys may overshadow the old ones, though if the writers know what they are doing they won't, but if they bring back the charm and wit of the previous films, I'd be glad to have a new film that has connections to the franchise versus the studio doing everything in its power to get the rights to reboot it, and cast new actors as our favorite characters, who we know cannot be replaced. I mean if they keep it up and make a 4th film, I'd figure only one or two of the previous guys come back, and if they continue successfully I could surmise a 5th film, depending on the original actors health etc., may not even feature the old crew, but I'd bet they'd reference them.

 

[bullets]

All the original Ghostbusters should be retired from the field by now. Perhaps it would be better to start with a new team and then something happens where Egon , Ray , etc have to get involved one last time. If they do more sequels then at least have some of them come back for small roles.

 

[Webhead2006]

Thhat is how the whole passing torch story can go. We open up with the old gang deciding to retire/can't handle full time bsuting any more due to age/injuries they got from many yrs of busting. So that leads to new guys getting hired. See the train and take out some baddies bu then get in over there heads with the big bad for the film. Which calls upon the old gang strapping on the gear to save the day one last time. Then if its a success. Sequels can move more on stories of new guys. With any minor appearances of dan/harold/winston actor and bill.