Ghostbusters 3 - Part 1

[Webhead2006]

Ok I get that but come on just cause its this person and not the other simular name guy shouldn't kill the chance bill may actually like this script.

Also I thought he did garfield due to being friends with the original voice actor who passed away.

 

[Shifty]

Ok I get that but come on just cause its this person and not the other simular name guy shouldn't kill the chance bill may actually like this script.

Also I thought he did garfield due to being friends with the original voice actor who passed away.

Were they ever friends?

He revealed in an interview a couple of years ago that he only did Garfield because he thought one of the Coen Bros. wrote it, they had filmed all the live action scenes before he recorded his voice and couldn't believe that the script was so bad. It's a funny interview, go search it out.

 

[iamlegend]

Were they ever friends?

He revealed in an interview a couple of years ago that he only did Garfield because he thought one of the Coen Bros. wrote it, they had filmed all the live action scenes before he recorded his voice and couldn't believe that the script was so bad. It's a funny interview, go search it out.

I've read the interview, but it's really suspect (considering he ALSO did the sequel). Sounds more like a comedian just tryin to get a few laughs and get the topic off of a relatively unimpressive performance.

 

[iamlegend]

Ok I get that but come on just cause its this person and not the other simular name guy shouldn't kill the chance bill may actually like this script.

Also I thought he did garfield due to being friends with the original voice actor who passed away.

I don't think there was a personal connection between he and Lorenzo Music. The joke there was that Murray allegedly complained to the studio that made 'The Real Ghostbusters' because he didn't think Music (voicing Peter) sounded like him at all.

... And then years later, with Music dead, they cast Murray as Garfield specifically because they thought his voice sounded a lot like Lorenzo Music's.

 

[8wid]

Is anyone in favor of simply rebooting this franchise based on how long its taking just to get through preproduction?

 

[Kar]

I know I am.

 

[Soapy]

I am as well. I know deep down that a new movie with the original cast will simply never be as good I want it to be.

 

[8wid]

^I don't think they were that good in the first place. The franchise would benefit from a new take on it. The story doesn't even have to be about the haunting Dana Barret's apartment etc.

 

[Rodrigo90]

^I don't think they were that good in the first place.

Blasphemy right there!

 

[Webhead2006]

I don't want a reboot and like I said before I doubt a reboot would happen with dan/harold/ivan owning rights and all that. And since we just got a new writer on board let's see where this draft goes first. For all we know this guy may make a script all parties agree on and we can get to shooting it next yr for a 2014 release.

 

[RetrogradeOrbit]

I love Ghostbusters, but I think that the guys are just a bit too long in the tooth now to play a major part in any new GB film. And this is coming from someone who has wanted to see a new Ghostbusters movie for years.

I threw together a quick comparison image...

 

[DarkKnight88]

^I don't think they were that good in the first place.

Get out.

 

[ShredderX]

^I don't think they were that good in the first place. The franchise would benefit from a new take on it. The story doesn't even have to be about the haunting Dana Barret's apartment etc.

 

[bubbadoom]

^I don't think they were that good in the first place. The franchise would benefit from a new take on it. The story doesn't even have to be about the haunting Dana Barret's apartment etc.

While I think the first was great, the second was just crap.

I would rather see the original cast, but I do agree that if they rebooted, then there is no reason to redo the same story from the first, they could take it in any direction!

 

[iamlegend]

Is anyone in favor of simply rebooting this franchise based on how long its taking just to get through preproduction?

No.

 

[8wid]

After the first crappy sequel, I don't see any better of one being done with the original cast 25 years later. It makes more sense to reboot with a new story and cast or to cast a new generation of actors to carry on the franchise like TNG.

 

[Majik1387]

The sequel wasn't crappy.

 

[bubbadoom]

After the first crappy sequel, I don't see any better of one being done with the original cast 25 years later. It makes more sense to reboot with a new story and cast or to cast a new generation of actors to carry on the franchise like TNG.

MIB had a disappointing sequel in MIB2, but bounced back nicely with MIB3 - I think the same thing is possible for GB3 - and it's coming off of a much worse part 2...

 

[8wid]

^Not really MIIIB was the same quality as the previous sequel critically despite its large financial gain. Plus the last movie in that franchise only came out ten years prior and was still in recent memory. Plus it had Will Smith and let's face it no one in the Ghostbusters is gonna top Will Smith. Ghostbusters is more likely to go the way of the Blue Brothers sequel or Revenge of the Nerds.

 

[The Guard]

I've never really understood why people think GHOSTBUSTERS was a great movie...but GHOSTBUSTERS 2 was crap.

 

[ShredderX]

I've never really understood why people think GHOSTBUSTERS was a great movie...but GHOSTBUSTERS 2 was crap.

Well not speaking for everyone, I liked GB2 and loved the soundtrack, but I think what made GB better than GB 2 was the whole concept , story, comedic timing, f/x, were totally original in 1984. By the time GB 2 came out, the story and characters were somewhat " toned down" because of the popularity of the cartoon with kids. I even heard that Actors gave up smoking for the sequel because of the influence it had on kids. The whole movie seemed to try to cash in on the animated series, and kinda lacked originality to me. That, and the whole Statue of Liberty coming to life thing

 

[bubbadoom]

My problem with GB2 was that it was such a rehash of the first, down to the giant in the streets of NY at the end - and there was NO reason for Segorney Weaver to be back in it...

 

[Majik1387]

Of course there was a reason for Sigourney Weaver to be back in it, she did start a relationship with one of the Ghostbusters. I will agree there was no reason she nor her random son had to be the target/host for the new baddie again.

 

[DyeLorean]

I'll admit Ghostbusters 2 isn't as good as the first one, but I think it's still a good sequel. It could've gone much worse.

What I didn't like about the sequel is that we didn't spend time in the Ghostbusters building as much as in the first movie. It was a big element in the original film, and the fact that most of the movie takes place somewhere else, it makes me feel like there's something missing. Like, for example, Winston isn't as prominent as it should be in #2. He's a full member now, why not having him in the first 'busting' during the trial?

 

[8wid]

I used to be a big fan of both the Ghostbusters movies, but they don't date well with age. There is something decent about the first one, but the sequel was completely forced. The subplot about the team breaking up for five years and then being hated and forgotten by the city was pointless and not likely. After thousands of calls to get rid of paranormal activity across New York City one would think someone would believe them and they would have empirical evidence that ghosts exist, especially after destroying a giant marshmallow man attacking a skyscraper in Manhattan.

Why does Ghostbusters still have to be set in New York anyway? It could go to Washington D.C., Las Vegas, LA, Paris, London, Moscow etc. Don't the Ghostbusters ever go on vacation and fight the paranormal overseas? Anyone want to go after the ghost of Elvis, Frank Sinatra, Napoleon, Julius Caeser, Hitler, Abraham Lincoln?