Ghostbusters 3 - Part 2

[The Guard]

...grit?

 

[BeserkerHilf]

Realism is too synonymous with Dark Knight for the internet nowadays so the closest thing to describe Ghostbusters' charm is "grit". Ghostbusters has a very accessible explanation of the science that makes it work, but by "grit", it had this attitude about it that it was a bunch of guys making a movie they wanted to make and hopefully the great idea that came up with worked out. It's got this attitude that they've got everything to prove on this unproven project, so you can feel the effort and the passion everyone puts into the movie.

Add that to them using so much of NYC that you connect with just 4 guys making it big in a living breathing city. That's grit. Unpolished, unrefined, which is my issue with II.

 

[KenK]

So, are you saying New York is too clean now to make a new Ghostbusters movie?

 

[DyeLorean]

I think Ghostbusters was lightning in a bottle in the way it mixed big special effects with comedy. It's a very hard thing to do, and it often goes terribly wrong (*coughcough*TheWatch*cough*).
It also became a cultural phenomenon, with the entire iconography surrounding the suits, the Ecto 1, etc etc. It really was unique.

 

[Octoberist]

Yeah Ghostbusters and Back to the Future are rarities. They somehow can mix genres together that can appeal to the average person, families, critics, and geeks alike.

 

[BeserkerHilf]

So, are you saying New York is too clean now to make a new Ghostbusters movie?

No, I'm saying the movie as a whole was very rough around the edges, it's grainy, dirty, and bleak looking with a score to match. The cinematography and score of II undercut any stakes and in general played into the kid crowd they had gained I the 5 years prior. It's not hard to replicate the look of the first movie, using the gray and smog ridden city as your playground. That's what we want to see.

 

[TheDreamMaster]

No, I'm saying the movie as a whole was very rough around the edges, it's grainy, dirty, and bleak looking with a score to match. The cinematography and score of II undercut any stakes and in general played into the kid crowd they had gained I the 5 years prior. It's not hard to replicate the look of the first movie, using the gray and smog ridden city as your playground. That's what we want to see.

You know, I know we're talking cinematography, but considering Ramis and Aykroyd delivered a good script on the video game, and the entire cast did fantastic (even if Murray phoned it in a bit), it brought back the feel of the first Ghostbusters. Don't get me wrong, until a few years ago I had no idea Ghostbusters II was so hated, and the first is probably my favorite movie ever. But given things, and the task involved with getting a new cast with chemistry together, I definitely see the concerns, but I'm willing to bet a good third film can be delivered.
On the topic of discussion now, I will admit GBII didn't have as bleak an atmosphere, in a place it really should have considering we were supposed to believe New York was just the most awful place and that's why Vigo had manifested through his painting there. In my honest opinion though, I think the fact the movie was played too straight is what hurt GBII the most. As much as I do still enjoy it, it drops a lot of the humor, the mild adult and normal humor, and actually plays it too straight. A lot of people forget these were supposed to be comedy first, and the second film kind of forgot it itself.

 

[The Guard]

No, I'm saying the movie as a whole was very rough around the edges, it's grainy, dirty, and bleak looking with a score to match. The cinematography and score of II undercut any stakes and in general played into the kid crowd they had gained I the 5 years prior. It's not hard to replicate the look of the first movie, using the gray and smog ridden city as your playground. That's what we want to see.

I feel like some of this is the 80's effect.

 

[BeserkerHilf]

What 80s effect?

 

[BeserkerHilf]

You know, I know we're talking cinematography, but considering Ramis and Aykroyd delivered a good script on the video game, and the entire cast did fantastic (even if Murray phoned it in a bit), it brought back the feel of the first Ghostbusters. Don't get me wrong, until a few years ago I had no idea Ghostbusters II was so hated, and the first is probably my favorite movie ever. But given things, and the task involved with getting a new cast with chemistry together, I definitely see the concerns, but I'm willing to bet a good third film can be delivered.
On the topic of discussion now, I will admit GBII didn't have as bleak an atmosphere, in a place it really should have considering we were supposed to believe New York was just the most awful place and that's why Vigo had manifested through his painting there. In my honest opinion though, I think the fact the movie was played too straight is what hurt GBII the most. As much as I do still enjoy it, it drops a lot of the humor, the mild adult and normal humor, and actually plays it too straight. A lot of people forget these were supposed to be comedy first, and the second film kind of forgot it itself.

Their input on the game has been severely overplayed, even confirmed as such. However, the video game absolutely nailed the atmosphere and humor.

 

[dark_b]

No, I'm saying the movie as a whole was very rough around the edges, it's grainy, dirty, and bleak looking with a score to match. The cinematography and score of II undercut any stakes and in general played into the kid crowd they had gained I the 5 years prior. It's not hard to replicate the look of the first movie, using the gray and smog ridden city as your playground. That's what we want to see.

they will not do this in 2014 or 2015. look at MIB3 . it looked clean and modern compared to the first and second movie.

not even Hobbit could look like LOTR. because its all about clean and bright colors.

 

[DaRkVeNgeanCe]

I don't know about you guys but as a big fan of the original two films I don't know if a third film is something I really care to see especially with modern comedians and that new modern comedy that just doesn't fit the world created in the first two.

I may just be happy having them leave it alone, unless Murray finally decides to jump on board and be a part of it in some way I don't have any interest in seeing the Superbad crew running around pretending to be Ghostbusters.

 

[sueb1863]

I'm a big fan of the first, meh about the second. They should leave it alone. The first movie was the result of a very rare mix of talent that doesn't happen very often and it can't be replicated at will. Unless they have comic actors on par with Dan Ackroyd, Harold Ramis and Bill Murray at hand it'll just be a pale imitation. They'll never be able to go beyond "Well, it was OK - but the original was a lot better."

 

[NewYorkSpider]

Watched the first one the other day. Still love it. I haven't kept up on the news for a third one since every time I look, the script is being re-written.

 

[:eek:]

Ghostbusters 3
Last month came word that both Emma Stone and Jonah Hill were offered roles in Ivan Reitman's "Ghostbusters 3". Now, comes word that one of them has dropped out of the running:
Emma Stone is passing on the role of 'Anna' but Jonah Hill still has an offer out for 'Jeremy'." They also add that Sony wants two major stars signed on or they will not green light the picture. [Source: Schmoes Know]

 

[Donut]

They should just have the original cast voice animated projects & scrap this entirely at this point

 

[Figs]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/chi-harold-ramis-dead-20140224,0,2259309.story

 

[Steyin]

 

[chaseter]

Now it will never happen. Close thread.

 

[Dr. Evil]

at Ramis

 

[SpideyFan866]

Now it will never happen. Close thread.

It can still happen.

But the way Murray wanted it:

With all of the Ghostbusters dead.

 

[Dr. Evil]

The only way Murray was probably going to come back was if Ivan Reitman was replaced by Wes Anderson or Jim Jarmusch.

 

[Teelie]

On top of losing Ramis it does lessen the odds of a movie unfortunately.

 

[GregComicFan]

I still don't know why the studio is having so much trouble with Ghostbusters 3 when movies like Robocop and countless others have been remade with ease (seemingly)....

The last Ghostbusters movie came out like 20 years ago... all the actors have moved on, or are very old, or have unfortunately and sadly passed away (RIP Ramis)...

Ghostbusters 3 should just show that the Ghostbusters are a franchise now spanning the entire country just like police departments and fire departments.

New Ghostbusters should be the focus in the movie... the old Ghostbusters could be mentioned as the founding fathers, mentors, or CEOs of the company (ex: Venkman, Stantz, Zeddemore, if they appear at all in cameos, can just be command staff for the Ghostbusters, like Chiefs of the Ghostbusters Department... they wear white shirts like command officers of police departments, and their roles are administrative)...

There's plenty of talented directors, writers, and actors out there to get Ghostbusters 3 off the ground...

I think Robert Downy Jr would be great in a Ghostbusters movie... I think he could be a good replacement for Venkman, with his talent for improv...

Also, Kevin Hart is huge right now... put him in Ghostbusters 3...

and I'm still a big Will Ferrel fan and think he deserves this too...

 

[Soapy]

Damn. I don't even know if I would want a Ghostbusters 3 now.