PDA

View Full Version : Ghostbusters 3



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

Alf
May 27th, 2009, 5:41 AM
YUS!


Dan Akroyd recently gave an interview to The Guardian in which he spoke at length about the upcoming Ghostbusters videogame. At the tail end of the piece, Akroyd drops a quick hint about some of the new characters and gadgets that fans might see in the upcoming film.

And now for the supernatural bit: after coming together for the game, all the players have stated their intentions to go back, and a script is being written by Gene Stupnitsky and Lee Eisenberg, writers on the US Office. According to reports the original cast will act as mentors, handing the company over to a new generation, likely to be from the Seth Rogen and Steve Carell class of actors who are filling up just the same space in Hollywood as Aykroyd and Murray once did. "There'll be a whole new generation that has to be trained and a leader that you'll all love when you meet her," says Aykroyd. "There'll be lots of cadets, boys and girls who'll be learning how to use the neuron splitter and the inter-planet interceptor - new tools to enable them to slip from dimension to dimension."

We'll just have to wait and see as rumor has the treequel filming sometime this Winter.

http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/986/986647p1.html

I would prefer it if it was Murray and Ackroyd, the idea that they are training a new team has potential but it might be cringe-worthy.

Steve Carrell would be aces.

RFF Champ
May 27th, 2009, 5:45 AM
This is terrific news. Carrell would be fantastic but I'm not such a fan of Rogen. I don't imagine it'll be either of them really though. I think them training people up is the next logical step, I like the idea.

I don't want you to think I'm being aggressive Alf but...

http://forums.rajah.com/showthread.php?t=133957&highlight=ghostbusters

Marlon Dingle
May 27th, 2009, 6:22 AM
There is an interview with Aykroyd and Ramis in this months issue of Empire. Bought it on my break will give it a read at lunch time and let you know what I got from it.

I fucking love Ghostbusters. The idea of a new gang is probably the obvious route to go down since it would be slightly ridiculous having the old busters running about New York. It would still be good though to have them in major roles in the film. I didn't realise that Ramis plays Seth Rogen's dad in Knocked Up until I read up on it. He's looks totally different.

El Capitano Gatisto
May 27th, 2009, 6:23 AM
The old guys are a bit too fat these days realistically to do it all themselves. I bet they'll eventually save the day or something.

Plus there's probably some studio nonsense about a film not flying with guys who haven't really been on the scene for years (apart from Bill Murray). I love Ghostbusters, you love Ghostbusters but alot of the film-going public now weren't children in the 1980s. They were babies or possibly embryos and foetuses.

The Rosk
May 27th, 2009, 6:24 AM
All you need to do is throw on the music on shitloads of adverts and you're already guaranteed $50 million.

Marlon Dingle
May 27th, 2009, 6:26 AM
Plus there's probably some studio nonsense about a film not flying with guys who haven't really been on the scene for years (apart from Bill Murray). I love Ghostbusters, you love Ghostbusters but alot of the film-going public now weren't children in the 1980s. They were babies or possibly embryos and foetuses.

The same could be said about Transformers, and we all know how thats turned out.

El Capitano Gatisto
May 27th, 2009, 6:31 AM
The same could be said about Transformers, and we all know how thats turned out.

Not really. It's not the same thing at all. You are talking about old, fat actors in comparison to enormous CGI robots.

Even then Transformers underwent a radical overhaul.

Alf
May 27th, 2009, 6:40 AM
And transformers has had numerous cartoons and other shizzle since then too.

El Capitano Gatisto
May 27th, 2009, 6:42 AM
So has Ghostbusters really but that's what I mean, to make a film of it you probably couldn't just sell the original 4 guys as leads nowadays. You have to re-vamp it. Crap attitude to have I know, I'd be happy to see it about them all, but it's not realistic. Where has Rick Moranis even gone to? I haven't seen him in anything in about 15 years.

The Rosk
May 27th, 2009, 6:44 AM
Moranis did the Honey I... movies and The Flintstones. I think he retired after his wife got sick or something. Either that or he's in porn.

Marlon Dingle
May 27th, 2009, 6:45 AM
Yeah I think he peaked with 'Honey, We Shrunk Ourselves!' And then decided to just work in voice acting.

El Capitano Gatisto
May 27th, 2009, 6:47 AM
Moranis did the Honey I... movies and The Flintstones. I think he retired after his wife got sick or something. Either that or he's in porn.

Those were about 15 years ago.

Marlon Dingle
May 27th, 2009, 6:48 AM
I pulled out of making movies in about '96 or '97. I'm a single parent (Moranis' wife[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Moranis#cite_note-0) died in 1991 of liver cancer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepatocellular_carcinoma)), and I just found that it was too difficult to manage raising my kids and doing the traveling involved in making movies. So I took a little bit of a break. And the little bit of a break turned into a longer break, and then I found that I really didn't miss it."

I didn't know that quite sad really. :(

The Rosk
May 27th, 2009, 6:48 AM
Those were about 15 years ago.

Yeah and his wife died 15 years ago you cunt. Maybe that's the reason he hates you/hasn't worked since. Because he RETIRED.

El Capitano Gatisto
May 27th, 2009, 6:51 AM
That is bad news. Bad News Brown.

Hulkamaniac
May 27th, 2009, 7:14 AM
Cant believe that Rick Moranis has been posting here.

Guy
May 27th, 2009, 7:43 AM
I want to believe it ("we're ready to believe you!!") and I'm happy for them to continue to talk about the project.

But personally I won't believe it until I'm sat in the cinema with popcorn in hand and a bit of jizz in my pants


Copied over from the last thread

Also I'm pretty sure I had a Ghostbusters thread years ago in here, but it doesn't come up in the search function...hmm

Marlon Dingle
May 27th, 2009, 7:51 AM
Copied over from the last thread

Also I'm pretty sure I had a Ghostbusters thread years ago in here, but it doesn't come up in the search function...hmm

Did you not make a Video Game one?



...and a bit of jizz in my pants.

A bit of Jizz? Where's the rest of it?

Guy
May 27th, 2009, 7:59 AM
Did you not make a Video Game one?



A bit of Jizz? Where's the rest of it?

Yea I made the video game one also.

The rest of the jizz was pre-cinema, I changed my pants

Alf
May 27th, 2009, 8:11 AM
Oh look, Blood the naysayer has popped up.

You say so much nay.

Guy
May 27th, 2009, 8:14 AM
Who's naysaying?

I'm optimistic about a third film if were to actually come about. If production actually starts I'll be flying Ghostbusters flags everywhere I go.

What you have to understand is that this isn't the first time in those passing 15 years that these sorts of stories have been reported, I should know, I've been keeping tabs on them every single time they do.

Simmo Fortyone
May 28th, 2009, 3:40 AM
Steve Carrell, Michael Cera, Will Arnett and Jason Segel. Sarah Silverman as Janine's modern equivalent.

Get them and it'll be a fucking winner.

Guy
May 28th, 2009, 5:52 AM
Not Michael Cera....never Michael Cera. Booo Michael Cera.

Dodgy Browne
May 28th, 2009, 2:23 PM
So Blood, that's a NAY for Michael Cera?

Guy
May 28th, 2009, 3:29 PM
The others I'm cool with, especially Steve Carell who I feel fits a 'Ghostbusters mould' perfectly, if there ever was one

KorruptJustice
May 29th, 2009, 2:08 AM
Steve Carrell, Michael Cera, Will Arnett and Jason Segel. Sarah Silverman as Janine's modern equivalent.

Get them and it'll be a fucking winner.

I'm okay with that cast with the exception of Will Arnett. Never been a fan of him.

I agree with Blood on Steve Carrell, though. He seems like he'd be a perfect fit in a Ghostbusters movie.

Guy
June 2nd, 2009, 12:58 PM
Steve Carell and Paul Rudd would fit Ghostbusters quite well if I had to cast some of the current funnymen

BIGFEETS
June 3rd, 2009, 2:59 AM
I had wrote this in another GB3 thread here:

I have mixed emotions because having the original cast make cameos at the most just seems wrong; however, knowing two of the four original Ghostbusters are in their sixties also seems farfetched – but it’s still doable. Really, Ghostbusters 3 with the original cast is nearly ten years too late. It would have been nice to do around the late 90s/early 2000.

Basically, I am just worried the studio will screw up this franchise beyond belief. My personal preference is to see the original cast, including the ever hiding Rick Moranis, with a great script that makes sense.

Seeing the original cast with a crappy story will only further tarnish the franchise. I have no desire to watch a next generation of Ghostbusters either because there is no way the chemistry can be recreated.

Overall, if they can make a new Rambo, Rocky and Indiana Jones with the original casts, then they can make another Ghostbusters. But can they make a good sequel?

Now, if Ray and Egon would hit the treadmill, I think the original four could work one last time.

At the same time, it could easily become a clusterfuck to have a bunch of new recruits and the original four sharing the screen because the original four would become secondary characters more than likely. Furthermore, I don't think Bill Murray would like that.

Seriously, do you all really want to see Steve Carell, Adam Sandler and Jack Black (or whoever-I'm picking names at random) make another five Ghostbusters films?

*I would love to see those guys make a film together, just not Ghostbusters.

Morrison
June 3rd, 2009, 3:15 AM
yeah, i wouldn't mind, if the casting is good and the third film ends up being enjoyable. plus, it's not like the first two films will somehow be erased, and i have no personal stake in what they do with the franchise, because the part of it i have an emotional attachment to will be left unaltered, and i can easily ignore the new stuff if it sucks.

some people take shit like this too seriously.

BIGFEETS
June 3rd, 2009, 3:18 AM
yeah, i wouldn't mind, if the casting is good and the third film ends up being enjoyable. plus, it's not like the first two films will somehow be erased, and i have no personal stake in what they do with the franchise, because the part of it i have an emotional attachment to will be left unaltered, and i can easily ignore the new stuff if it sucks.

some people take shit like this too seriously.

But Morrison, bustin' makes me feel good.

Morrison
June 3rd, 2009, 3:19 AM
and it can continue to make you feel good...

I FABULOUS BLU-RAY!

BIGFEETS
June 3rd, 2009, 3:23 AM
When you think about that lyric, it makes you wonder what Ray Parker Jr. was really talking about.

KorruptJustice
June 7th, 2009, 4:51 PM
yeah, i wouldn't mind, if the casting is good and the third film ends up being enjoyable. plus, it's not like the first two films will somehow be erased, and i have no personal stake in what they do with the franchise, because the part of it i have an emotional attachment to will be left unaltered, and i can easily ignore the new stuff if it sucks.

some people take shit like this too seriously.

Yeah, I don't agree with the people who are against sequels or remakes of their favorite films, because, as you said, you can still go back and watch the films that you fell in love with. These new films don't erase that, but there's always the chance they could add to it, so there's no point in getting angry about it.

I'll admit that I'm a little hypocritical on the subject, because I was pissed when I left the theater after watching Rob Zombie's Halloween. But after five minutes, I said fuck it, and went home and ended up watching the original later that night. And it was still just as great as it's always been. Seeing Rob Zombie's piece of shit didn't make John Carpenter's any less of a classic in my eyes. Hell, it made me appreciate it all the more.

And really, that's the worst case scenario I see happening with Ghostbusters 3. I'll leave the theater, go, "Well, that was dissapointing.", and then I'll go home and watch the first one again. And the best case scenario is a great comedy that I'll enjoy watching again and again, with the establishment of a new crew of ghostbusters who can continue the franchise and make even more great movies. To me, it's worth the risk of dissapointment.

Chris
October 10th, 2009, 6:15 AM
http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/17643


I've been sitting on this news for a few days now as I can't seem to figure out what's new at this point. So I figured I'd just throw it out there and see how it goes. Why not, right? Anyways, I have straight up confirmed, 100%, without a shadow of a doubt that Ivan Reitman, director of Ghost Busters and Ghostbusters II, is in fact attached to get behind the camera for Ghostbusters 3. While he's attached, the word is that he hasn't decided whether or not he really wants to direct, yet. So, yeah, is that news? But here's a little something else we conjured up. Apparently, the sequel takes place when the paranormal researchers "reopen" their ghost removal service after it has been closed for quite a few years. As previously reported, Harold Ramis, Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson, Rick Moranis and Sigourney Weaver have all confirmed their involvement (in various interviews on the web).

So it appears Reitman is on-board, but he isn't confirmed as director just yet. Still, having him involved in some capacity gives me hope that he, along with the original cast, can recapture some of the magic from the first film.

takerson
October 10th, 2009, 7:41 AM
:hyper:

I never thought I'd see the day, but now it seems like a reality!

BIGFEETS
October 11th, 2009, 4:23 AM
I just wish Aykroyd and Ramis were writing the script, but a fresh perspective with input from Aykroyd, Ramis, Reitman and Murray (the script has to work for Murray; otherwise, he will walk away and that's well known) leaves a lot of hope.

I have mentioned this several times before, but my fear is that the main characters will become secondary characters in order to reboot the franchise with new characters.

Does anyone truly want to see that?

In order for that concept to have a chance at being successful:

A. the new actors would have to have as good or better chemistry Aykroyd, Ramis, Murray, Hudson, Weaver, Moranis, and so on.

B. the plot would have to work

C. two words: character development

Anyway, if Ghostbusters 3 actually happens, I believe it is either going to be really great or really shitty based off factors already discussed. I just can't see it being a middle of the road film.

Shadowless Films
October 11th, 2009, 6:21 AM
Ghostbusters 3

Starring...

Seth Rogen
Paul Rudd
Johah Hill
Jay Baruchel
Danny McBride

Guy
October 11th, 2009, 9:42 AM
I just wish Aykroyd and Ramis were writing the script, but a fresh perspective with input from Aykroyd, Ramis, Reitman and Murray (the script has to work for Murray; otherwise, he will walk away and that's well known) leaves a lot of hope.

To be honest, as much as I'dve loved a Ackroyd/Ramis script....having their input on someone else's script worked wonders for Ghostbusters: The video Game.

Admittedly though, it being written by the guys responsible for Year One doesn't sound too hopeful. That and Ramis/Ackroyd/Reitman not making anything worth watching in almost ten or so years....

Mark84j
October 11th, 2009, 3:08 PM
That and Ramis/Ackroyd/Reitman not making anything worth watching in almost ten or so years....

That changes nothing.

BIGFEETS
October 13th, 2009, 3:50 AM
To be honest, as much as I'dve loved a Ackroyd/Ramis script....having their input on someone else's script worked wonders for Ghostbusters: The video Game.

Admittedly though, it being written by the guys responsible for Year One doesn't sound too hopeful. That and Ramis/Ackroyd/Reitman not making anything worth watching in almost ten or so years....

I do not want Office Ghostbusters or Year One Ghostbusters either to say the least. Aykroyd, Ramis, Murray and so on do not need help writing the comedy aspect of the film as much as I think they need help with the actual plot.


Ghostbusters 3

Starring...

Seth Rogen
Paul Rudd
Johah Hill
Jay Baruchel
Danny McBride

Not the same chemistry. They might be able to remake Stripes in a halfway decent manner, but that is it. However, I would rather see them than Jack Black dancing around.

Darkoke
January 14th, 2010, 10:24 AM
Ivan Reitman Will Direct Ghostbusters 3

There's still no green-light, so it's still not officially definitely happening, but momentum is slowly building on Ghostbusters 3, and now Ivan Reitman, the director of parts one and two, has weighed in by confirming he will be on-board, when and if the threequel gets up and running.

Reitman also told MTV that the first draft of the script by US Office writers Lee Eisenberg and Gene Stupnitsky, has been completed, and the second draft is now being worked on. "Good work is being done," he says, "and all of us have our fingers crossed: there are some very cool things in the new draft." But he wouldn't be drawn on Sigourney Weaver's recent suggestion that Bill Murray's Peter Venkman might feature in a supernatural capacity, or that one of the next generation of ghostbusters would be Dana Barrett's son Oscar: all grown up in the twenty years since Ghostbusters 2.

Reitman says he hopes to start shooting sometime in 2010, which chimes with Harold Ramis' recent statement that the film will be released during 2011. Surely that definitive announcement can't be far off?


http://www.empireonline.com/news/feed.asp?NID=26708

takerson
January 14th, 2010, 11:14 AM
:hyper:

Marlon Dingle
February 9th, 2010, 5:15 AM
Ok I dont know how much a spoiler this is but because it contains possible plot information, so I'll stick it in tags.

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=26953



Oh, Venkman. Oh, Venkman, we’re sorry…
It’s been floating around the interweb for a while now – mainly because Sigourney Weaver let the cat out of the bag when she was doing Avatar press duty back in December – but Bill Murray has confirmed that he will be appearing as the glorious sleazeball, Dr. Peter Venkman, in Ghostbusters 3. And yes, Virginia, he will be a ghost.

“I’ll come back in Ghostbusters 3 only if I get to be a ghost,” Murray told The Mail On Sunday in an exclusive interview. “I said to them, 'I'll do it if you kill me off in the first reel.' So now they are going to have me as a ghost in the film.”

Now, bear in mind that this interview probably took place in October, when Murray was in the UK for Fantastic Mr. Fox, and a lot could have changed in Ghostbusters 3 World since then. But if we were a gambling website, we’d be Bet365.com. And we’d also put money on the story proving true.

On one level, we’re disappointed. We’ve never been huge subscribers to the school of thought that Ghostbusters 3 needs a new, young, sexy team of hot comedians (even if the likes of Paul Rudd do end up wielding the proton chargers) to replace the Murray-Aykroyd-Ramis-Hudson team. And this would seem to indicate that Murray will only be making an extended cameo in the film, while the New Ghostbusters get the lion’s share of screentime.

However… if Ghost Venkman sticks around, and becomes an integral part of the film’s storyline, this could be comedic gold. In life, Venkman was an incorrigible hounddog with an eye for the ladies, a world-weary quip for every occasion, and a ‘that’ll do’ attitude that set him apart from a thousand cookie-cutter heroes. In death, there’ll be no limitations to what Venkman can say or do. If he’s allowed to interact fully with the other Ghostbusters – old and new – then this could be an inspired decision for Murray. After all, he garnered some of the best notices of his career as Zombie Bill Murray (kinda) in Zombieland. So why not tackle Ghost Bill Murray?

Simmo Fortyone
February 9th, 2010, 5:31 AM
I would like to see one or two comedians who aren't big movie stars already get a jersey in this one.

Imagine Ross Noble as a Ghostbuster

Repo
February 9th, 2010, 12:26 PM
Imagine Ross Noble as a Ghostbuster


No actual Ghostbusting would get done

He would see 1 ghost and riff about it for the length of the movie

takerson
February 9th, 2010, 1:26 PM
That really COULD be comedic gold. Can't wait. :hyper:

BIGFEETS
February 15th, 2010, 3:49 AM
http://scifiwire.com/2010/02/will-bill-murray-be-a-spo.php?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Will Bill Murray be a spook in Ghostbusters III?

Ivan Reitman ain't afraid of no sequels! But the legendary Ghostbusters director-producer admits it took the unexpected success of a video game tie-in and a bit of not-so-subtle maneuvering by the studio to resurrect the once-huge comedy franchise from the dead—and he addresses Bill Murray's professed desire to play a more ethereal version of Dr. Peter Venkman in Ghostbusters III.

"Certainly Sony has been all over us for about two decades now, trying to get this going," Reitman told us at the Santa Barbara International Film Festival. "We have this sort of very interesting deal in which we really control the forward progress of the movie. [Sony] did a very interesting thing: They actually hired these two writers on their own, without consulting us, and basically said, 'We're going to start.'"

Reitman said screenwriters Lee Eisenberg and Gene Stupnitsky—best known for their work on NBC's The Office and the film Year One—are "very good writers, fortunately, and they wrote a first draft that was pretty good, considering that they didn't really talk to us that much. And I've since then been working with them for the last four or five months, just trying to get more of the kind of spirit of the film into it."

Reitman added: "There seems to be a lot of enthusiasm from everybody" about the return of original stars Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis and Sigourney Weaver. "We'll see. It's still not a reality. There are no deals. There's no real finished script."

Murray was long assumed to be the lone holdout from the original cast, sliming plans for sequels for years. But the actor recently suggested that he'd return to the role under one condition: that he gets to play a ghost.

"We're well aware of his interest," Reitman said with a chuckle when asked whether Murray's Venkman will be going ectoplasmic. "I've had some wonderful conversations with him—and that's all I'll say.

"It was really such a special part of my life, and such a turning point, really, in my career," recalled Reitman. "I love working with those men. I've worked with Bill Murray five times and Dan Aykroyd a few times and Harold Ramis five or six times, and Sigourney Weaver I worked with three times. So the fact that they put out this video game that turned out to be one of the biggest video games of the year sort of reminded us how much resonance the story still seems to have."

---

Now, I think we are seeing that Sony wanted to get some other people to write the third film as opposed to going back to Aykroyd and Ramis.

Keep in mind that Aykroyd wrote at least one GB3 script several years ago. In fact, Aykroyd was heavily pushing for GB3 to be made over ten years ago but Sony wouldn't budge.

Basically, I sort of wonder if Sony wanted to reboot the franchise with all new players, but the deal that Reitman mentioned possibly put a stop to that. Granted, this is just my speculation.

So, really, nothing has been confirmed.

BIGFEETS
October 19th, 2010, 2:23 AM
Interesting...

http://www.spike.com/event/scream/page/highlights?video=3486284&epIndex=&viewOption=

http://protoncharging.com/gb/2010/10/17/bill-murray-accepts-zombieland-honors-at-scream-awards-in-gb-gear/

Cubed-Sphere
October 19th, 2010, 8:55 AM
Fits like a glove.

Bill Casey
October 19th, 2010, 4:03 PM
Peter Venkman as a ghost...

I love it...
What a great idea...

Chris
October 18th, 2012, 2:01 PM
It's coming....

http://www.cinemablend.com/images/news_img/16339/ghostbusters_16339.jpg


Ghostbusters 3 will reportedly begin production next year.

The third instalment in the comedy franchise is to go in front of cameras in summer 2013 with director Ivan Reitman back at the helm, says Deadline.

As previously reported, Bill Murray is not expected to reprise his role as Peter Venkman.

"No, I can tell you he won't be involved," Dan Aykroyd said in August. "It's sad but we're passing it on to a new generation. Ghostbusters 3 can be a successful movie without Bill."

Etan Cohen (Tropic Thunder) is currently writing the script for Ghostbusters 3.

If the sequel goes into production in 2013 to make a 2014 release, its cinema debut will coincide with the 30th anniversary of the original Ghostbusters from 1984.

This is the strongest indication yet that the movie is finally seeing the light of day. It'll be a real shame if they can't get Murray on-board. I've gone back and forth on whether I want to see a new film, but it's still a great concept and I'd be interested in seeing how other actors approach it. Plus it'll have the lovely nostalgia of seeing most of the originals play some sort of role in it.

They should hurry up and get Ghostbusters 2 on Blu-ray. Yes, I'm one of those people who like the film, even if it wasn't as good as the original.

lotjx
October 18th, 2012, 3:11 PM
I am not sure I want to see Ghostbusters without Venkman. I'll probably see it, but I already get the feeling that it will be on the cheap like GB2.

blackening
October 18th, 2012, 6:11 PM
So is it gonna be a sequel or reboot?

One Man Gang
October 18th, 2012, 6:52 PM
It's not worth it without Murray.

The_Mike
October 18th, 2012, 6:59 PM
Agreed. I'll probably watch it once because it's Ghostbusters but it's not really Ghostbusters without arguably its most memorable character. This would be like making a new Turtles film without Leonardo.

The Doc
October 18th, 2012, 7:27 PM
I didn't realize that GB 2 was considered bad by so many people. I liked it just fine but maybe not having seen it since I was twelve has it's advantages. I recently had the immense dissapointment of watching Ghostbusters on an HD tv though and. . .man. It looked like something bored college students throw up on youtube. It sucks I'm torn between I want an HD tv because apparently Capcom (amongst other game companies) think I have one and as a result they write really tiny shit that I can't read on my shit tv and not wanting everything made before 2008 to look so bad that I should stimulate the economy by gathering up all the local children and telling them to perform Terminator for me.

Part of me can't imagine Ghostbusters without Venkman. He's kinda the best thing about the series. But I admit that I REALLY liked the Extreme Ghostbusters and would love to see one based mostly around that. Though minus the wheel chair guy, or at least he gets a desk job. I'm willing to buy a lot of crazy, but a paraplegic ghostbuster ranks up there with black presidents. It just can't happen.

The_Mike
October 18th, 2012, 7:37 PM
I actually really liked the Extreme Ghostbusters. I hate the name, and when I first saw commercials for it I was pretty annoyed at what looked like a crappy cash-in based on the Burger King Kids' Club, but it turned out to be a pretty solid show with some great episodes. Without Venkman, it would probably be the smartest direction to take the film, but they'd have to write and cast the new GBs really, really well and maybe not try quite so hard with the artificial diversity.

Fro
October 18th, 2012, 7:53 PM
Hopefully it's just a fake out and Venkman will pop up as a ghost as previously thought. I mean why the fuck wouldn't he?

Whether or not I get psyched for this will ultimately depend on who they cast as the new crew though. Also I really wish that said Aykroyd and Ramis were writing instead of that nobody.

Jimmy Zero
October 18th, 2012, 8:17 PM
I mean, I'll see it because it's the fucking Ghostbusters, but it won't be the same without Venkman.

I guess Bill Murray would rather spend his time doing boring ass Wes Anderson movies.

ReDPath
October 18th, 2012, 11:06 PM
The original was very good but feels very dated now. The sequel didn't really do a good job of capturing the feel of the original all that well either.

The good news is if the 'passing of the torch' cast along with the absence of Bill Murray tanks this movie no matter its name recognition. That will hopefully keep it buried though it might just come back again with a michael bay reboot.

vic vega
October 18th, 2012, 11:21 PM
hopefully murry is in just as a cameo, even if he does get killed off in the first 10 seconds

blackening
October 31st, 2012, 3:33 PM
Ghostbusters 3 Production Delay

This was buried in a Hollywood Reporter article about Sony Pictures: "Any decision on Ghostbusters III, the long-, long-gestating sequel, has been postponed until the end of March -- this after Men in Black 3 writer Etan Cohen was paid a huge sum for a script. Shooting was to begin next summer but now couldn’t start before fall at the earliest."

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/10/31/yes-another-ghostbusters-3-production-delay

VanillaJello
December 4th, 2012, 1:35 PM
Bill Murray just signed on.

Guy
December 4th, 2012, 2:25 PM
Nope, the news originally came from a parody site and the internet has just skipped on that 'slightly' important detail.

Matty C
December 4th, 2012, 2:57 PM
No Bill, no Matty C. It's not Ghostbusters without Venkmen.

Chris
December 6th, 2012, 3:26 PM
Dan Akroyd has spoken at length about the production woes of Ghostbusters 3 in an interview with Esquire - if they don't get the ball rolling soon, he and Ivan Reitman will consider walking away from it altogether.



http://www.esquire.com/blogs/culture/dan-aykroyd-interview-14813380

ESQ: Are you disappointed about the recent setback of filming on Ghostbusters 3, until 2013?

DA: I'm as deeply inside Ghostbusters 3 as anyone involved in the project — that includes the executives at Sony, who have to go to sleep at night and have to decide to do it. Ivan Reitman, the director, who travels from Santa Barbara to L.A., and has for the last three years, working with writers to put it together. [The Office writers] Gene Stupnitsky and Lee Eisenberg, who worked on one of the drafts.

ESQ: But that draft isn't being used anymore, right?

DA: I've worked on every draft in the last three years, as Ivan has, and now we have a story and a draft that everybody seems to agree would make the third movie. At this point, I think we're closer than we ever have been. And because of the ever-shifting sands and nature of the motion-picture business, I will just say that hopefully, at some point, it will be morphing into what is known in the business as a [Aykroyd mimes air quotes] "production number XP39789." Then I will begin to rent cars, get hotel rooms, and bill for writing. But that point hasn't come. All my work has been gratis to this point, as Ivan's has, and I'm hoping that I can get that production number set up in L.A. and help everyone bring the movie to fruition, as the originator and creator of the concept. If it does not happen, the life of Dan Aykroyd and his family and friends will be quite full without Ghostbusters 3.

ESQ: People have been waiting for this for a long time.

DA: And I've been the cheerleader!

ESQ: You have been the cheerleader.

DA: And I read every draft that's been turned in. When Gene and Lee, and Etan [Cohen, writer of Men in Black 3, hired last summer], and Ivan — when they've turned in drafts, I hand drafts right back. And at this point, we have a script that we like. And I'm hoping for it —

ESQ: With those three gentlemen involved?

DA: Oh, yeah.

ESQ: Because the last I heard was that the second script had been tossed.

DA: You know, they did great work. There will be arbitration on it. And I hope that the arbitration may yield some kind of credit for them, but I don't know what the final, final draft is gonna be. That's to be determined.

ESQ: Do you have sign-off on that?

DA: Well, I have one-fifth of the voice, along with the partners and the other owner of the property, the picture company, and Ivan, Billy [Murray], and myself, and Harold [Ramis]. We all have to sign off on it unanimously — uh, I'm not sure Billy does anymore, since he abrogated his rights by sort of, by saying, two years ago he said, "I don't want to be involved," and the picture company I think had some clause in there that if he actually passed on the third of fourth offer, he no longer has a view of the franchise. So, that's for the lawyers to decide. Of course, I'd love to have Billy call me tomorrow and say, "Let's go to work and start writing."

ESQ: Right. And you've said before that it doesn't affect your friendship. That's one thing and the business is another. But it seems like the production has been held up because of his reluctance.

DA: Well, let me say this: Had Billy chosen to do the Eisenberg/Stupnitsky script of two years ago, it would be out this summer, and it would be a massive hit. If Billy had said yes, it would have satisfied his performance and what he wanted in the movie, it would have satisfied his performing skill and how he wanted to be depicted in the movie, it would have satisfied the studio, the writers who wrote it, everybody — Ivan, me, Harold, we were all happy with it. Then when he said, "Absolutely not, I'm not in this," we had to go and really rethink things. He abrogated his say in the project, abrogated his rights to have any say in it by refusing the third offer from the picture company, which his lawyer put before him, and Billy said, "No, I can't respond." Now we have to move on, but we'll always leave a hole for him. He's always there. He can always come back at any time and be rebuilt into it, as far as I'm concerned. That's up to his lawyer and the picture company to work out, but creatively, he will always be a part of it.

Now, this would add quite a bump to Sony's bottom line, quite a bump. If they make this movie, in its current shape, they would be looking at a pretty hefty, nine-figure return. And so I'm hoping they get on to move it, but if they don't, I have multiple trains. I've got tracks six, seven, and nine, and that's four. I'll be moving on to other things, as will Ivan, by the way. We can't wait forever. And now's the time to tell the picture company, and I'd say this quite publically, it's time now to sit down and make this movie, or you will lose your main principals, and you won't be able to make it without us, because we have rights, and now is time to make the movie... You don't take advantage of that in the next three or four months, I'll see you in Australia, where we'll be selling Crystal Head.

ESQ: If it does happen, will it be a sequel or a reboot? The talk was a sequel for a long time, featuring the next generation of Ghostbusters, but Ivan has made comments about a reboot.

DA: Next generation. Dealing with a problem, as the first movie did, but I think we would have to hand it off to the young.

ESQ: Anything you can reveal about the script as it stands now?

DA: Pretty solid, pretty neat, and incredible images.

ESQ: Are you still working with the "Ghostbusters in hell" concept?

DA: Listen, I tell ya, after this movie gets made, and maybe the next one: Man-hell-ttan.

ESQ: Man-hell-ttan.

DA: Man-hell-ttan, and the Ghostbusters in hell, would be so solid, but we gotta get maybe one or two made before that. But, oh, wow... I wrote that with Tom Davis, my writing partner, recently deceased, who wrote Coneheads with me and stuff on Saturday Night Live. There's classic Tom Davis lines and funny stuff in there, really it's probably the most humorous of all the Ghostbusters scripts that have generated in that last little while. But we'll put the humor into this next one. It's gotta be funny, or it's not worth doing. It can be scary, it can be Ghostbusters, it can be the new franchise, the new people, but if it's not funny … Wait a minute, it started as a comedy. Let's make sure there's laughs and no laugh unturned and that we really make that our priority, to make it funny and exciting, but mainly funny.

ESQ: So if it's the nine-figure success you predict, would you do more?

DA: Uh, well, my role as an actor would diminish, as the next one came, and I would work as a writer, of course.

ESQ: Was it originally conceived to be more than two or three movies?

DA: Oh, yes, the one that Etan has written now — with Ivan strongly collaborating with him, and with me doing revisions as needed, and studio input — totally leads to a next one. It feeds into it very organically.

ESQ: And would you let Bill come back as a ghost?

DA: I originally had him as a ghost in the Stupnitsky/Eisenberg draft. Because he said, "If I do this, I want to be dead, and I want to be a ghost." So I said, well, we'll build you in there. And had he said yes two years ago to the ghost concept, I'm telling you, we'd be making the movie this summer, and it would be massive.

It's a shame that things have been held up; Akroyd clearly has a vision for not just a third movie, but an entire franchise. And the door continues to remain open for Murray, despite his on-going hesitation.

Hlebsfall
December 6th, 2012, 3:55 PM
I'm on the side of Bill Murray here. MIB 3 was a pile of shit, and they've got the head writer from the film in to do the script. Don't really like the idea of passing it on to the bunch of new guys either. I couldn't deal with some fuckhead like Jack Black being a ghostbuster.

ReDPath
December 6th, 2012, 4:34 PM
I'd worry more about the Apatow entourage getting their hands on the franchise more than anyone else really.

Jonah Hill
Seth Rogen
Elizabeth Banks
James Franco
Emma Stone
Katherine Heigl
Paul Rudd
Michael Cera

Are all people I want nowhere near Ghostbusters.

Now if it were...

Robert Englund - Yes he's old but he could pull it off
Sarah Michelle Gellar - She's sort of that whole scooby thing going back to Buffy
Samual L Jackson - Why not really
Joe Pesci - He could make the movie all by himself
Daniel Stern - To reunite with Pesci
Christopher Lloyd - Another old guy but he's dynamic

I'd take that crew over the Apatow crew every time.

Beer-Belly
December 6th, 2012, 4:45 PM
What a random selection of people.

Paul Rudd is good in everything. He's one of the most likable comic actors around.

Ghostbusters 3 shouldn't be made. Every idea I've heard sounds terrible.

The Rogerer
December 6th, 2012, 5:11 PM
What about Clive Owen and Rebecca De Mornay

Fro
December 6th, 2012, 5:43 PM
Not to rain on the anti-apatow parade but I actually think Seth Rogen would be perfect as one of the new generation. And James Franco as the nerdy Ramis type. That would be grand.

The suggestions you guys made above are horrendous.

Guy
December 6th, 2012, 6:17 PM
What an utterly mad list of completely un-related actors.

Gary J
December 9th, 2012, 6:10 PM
What about Clive Owen and Rebecca De Mornay

They'd be too expensive to get after the success of The Love of Two Brains.

VHS
December 9th, 2012, 6:28 PM
Paul Rudd - could be the new Ray.
Ryan Reynolds - quippy.
Simon Pegg - nerd.
Terry Crews - haha.

And I agree with the notion of keeping Apatow away from Ghostbusters, otherwise we'd have an empty 2nd act chalk full of ad-libbed conversations that serve no purpose whatsoever. And the movie would be 4 hours long.



Robert Englund - Yes he's old but he could pull it off
Sarah Michelle Gellar - She's sort of that whole scooby thing going back to Buffy
Samual L Jackson - Why not really
Joe Pesci - He could make the movie all by himself
Daniel Stern - To reunite with Pesci
Christopher Lloyd - Another old guy but he's dynamic


I don't normally say this, but those are all terrible choices. :wtf:

John Wilkes Telephone Boo
December 11th, 2012, 11:43 AM
Well, since people are throwing out suggestions for the next Ghostbusters:

Joel Mchale
Azisz Ansarie (SP)
Rain Wilson
Iron E. Singleton
Zoe De Channel (SP)

Sure ...it isn't bustling with star power but you got some variety in there but still all comedic (well not Iron E. but he can play the "straight man" well.

Fro
December 11th, 2012, 11:57 AM
Seth Rogen
Simon Pegg (good shout)
Jay Pharoah
James Franco
With Kristen Wiig as the secretary.

Would be amazing.

blackening
March 19th, 2014, 6:23 PM
So it looks like this is really going to happen. It's set to start filming next year.

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/mar/19/ghostbusters-3-ivan-reitman-harold-ramis-bill-murray

Ivan Reitman is out as director and will instead produce the movie.

Reitman said the new version of the script by Cohen, himself and Aykroyd "has the originals in a very minor role," though it appears Murray is not part of the equation. An earlier draft had featured Venkman, but "it became clear that Bill really didn't want to do another Ghostbusters and that it was literally impossible to find him to speak to for the year or two we tried to get it going," said Reitman. He added: "When Bill finally … well, he never actually said no, but he never said yes, so there was no way to make that film."


From Dan Aykroyd's Facebook page today:

Packs on! Will have Ivan’s back as I help him produce a GB 3 that Harold would be proud of.

The_Mike
March 19th, 2014, 6:30 PM
So no Egon, no Peter, Ray in a very minor role and possibly a little Winston if they remember he counts. What are we going to be watching? It might not suck but at this point it feels like just another empty resurrection of an old property to milk the name.

lotjx
March 19th, 2014, 6:40 PM
Ugh! I don't like this at all. I kinda hope they go into the franchise rights think Venkman talked about and they are not near New York at all. Make it LA or London or some place where we are not reminded how awesome the first one movie was.

VHS
March 19th, 2014, 6:45 PM
So no Egon, no Peter, Ray in a very minor role and possibly a little Winston if they remember he counts. What are we going to be watching? It might not suck but at this point it feels like just another empty resurrection of an old property to milk the name.

What do you mean it "feels?" It hasn't even started filming... there's nothing TO feel yet.

ReDPath
March 19th, 2014, 7:38 PM
Don't have good feelings about this one at all.

I feel like its something that's being forced regardless of fan interest.

Jimmy Zero
March 19th, 2014, 7:45 PM
I have no interest in this. No Murray, no Reitman, no thanks.

The_Mike
March 19th, 2014, 7:49 PM
Ugh! I don't like this at all. I kinda hope they go into the franchise rights think Venkman talked about and they are not near New York at all. Make it LA or London or some place where we are not reminded how awesome the first one movie was.

I'm fairly sure it'll be set in New York, Aykroyd was very attached to his 'Manhellton' idea and New York City was basically a primary character in GB 1 and 2.


What do you mean it "feels?" It hasn't even started filming... there's nothing TO feel yet.

Aside from all the stuff we already know and all the ideas that have been sifted through and talked about as they have struggled to get the project to even start over the past decade. We have a franchise that has been dead in the water for over twenty years that is finally starting to get traction immediately after it loses 50% of its core cast and its director, and has remarks from its co-creator about the rest of the core cast only having 'very minor roles', plus all the background talk about some new generation of Ghostbuster. I do not get why you feel the need to object to someone saying what they feel about what has been said about the film so far.

VHS
March 20th, 2014, 1:37 PM
I say... let's just wait. A little longer.

The_Mike
March 20th, 2014, 1:59 PM
No.

lotjx
March 20th, 2014, 2:15 PM
See, Ghostbusters maybe one of the great New York movies of all time. If they are going with a new cast, it should be a new location, its going to feel like a kid dressing up in his parents' clothes.

Miotch
March 20th, 2014, 2:58 PM
We get it. You hate the idea.

VHS
March 20th, 2014, 3:16 PM
Y'all are a bunch of bitches that wouldn't be excited if Scarlett Johansson was straddling you bareback.

http://i.imgur.com/BXNa6JO.png

Beer-Belly
March 20th, 2014, 3:47 PM
What part of a Ghostbusters sequel that barely features any of the original cast sounds promising to you? The ship sailed around twenty years ago.

VHS
March 20th, 2014, 3:54 PM
Ghost busting.

Beer-Belly
March 20th, 2014, 4:25 PM
Ghost busting.

Which isn't cool without Murray and the rest of the original cast.

VHS
March 20th, 2014, 4:28 PM
Winston might make a cameo.

:dunno:

The_Mike
March 20th, 2014, 4:38 PM
Just watch Ghost Adventures.

Atty
March 20th, 2014, 6:07 PM
I have almost negative interest in this now. It would be like when they did Blues Brothers without Belushi.

Bill Casey
March 20th, 2014, 6:40 PM
It's being written by the guy who wrote Tropic Thunder and Idiocracy...
So that's something...

Beer-Belly
January 27th, 2015, 5:52 PM
‘Ghostbusters’ Female Cast Taking Shape at Sony

Justin Kroll
Film Reporter
@krolljvar

After years of trying to spin off one of its most popular properties, Sony looks to be getting closer to getting a “Ghostbusters” movie off the ground.

Sources tell Variety that Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones are in early negotiations to star in the “Ghostbusters” reboot.

Paul Feig is directing with Katie Dippold penning the script. Feig tweeted a photo of Wiig, McCarthy, McKinnon and Jones on Tuesday.

pic.twitter.com/LBtv2YXfv6

— Paul Feig (@paulfeig) January 27, 2015

Story details are unknown other than this film centers on the next generation of Ghostbusters, who happen to be female.

Rumors have swirled for awhile of who Sony had met with for starring roles following the leaked Sony emails that said actresses such as McCarthy, Wiig and Emma Stone had met for roles.

Ivan Reitman is producing.

Scheduling still has to be worked out among the actresses, but if deals make, this marks the closest the studio has come to rebooting the franchise in quite some time. It is also unknown who each woman would be playing.

Wiig’s latest pic “Diary of a Teenage Girl” just premiered at Sundance and she is currently filming the Fox sci-fi pic “The Martian” alongside Matt Damon. She is repped by UTA and Odenkirk Entertainemnt. McCarthy is repped by CAA and can be seen next in Fox’s “Spy.”

McKinnon and Jones can still be seen on “Saturday Night Live.” Jones is repped by APA and Integral Entertainment and McKinnon is repped by UTA.I foresee this not ending well.

Fro
January 27th, 2015, 6:16 PM
McCarthy and Wiig are obviously great (even though people seem to be down on McCarthy because a fat woman can only get so popular before the masses turn on her). McKinnon is a great nod to break into the movie world - she is hands down the best cast member of SNL currently, male or female. Jones? Not sold at all. From what I understand, she was hired on SNL as a writer, made a few appearances on Weekend Update which were well received, and has only recently started to slip into a few sketches and from what I've seen, she is not very natural or all that funny in front of a camera. That seems like an odd choice for a reboot of this magnitude.

MikeHunt
January 27th, 2015, 6:24 PM
all comedy films with a female cast are bollocks. This will be no different

LOCONUT
January 27th, 2015, 6:42 PM
all comedy films with a female cast are bollocks. This will be no different

Correct.

LOCONUT
January 27th, 2015, 6:52 PM
McCarthy isn't great, she just happens to be the best of the recent wave of fat female comics who have "made it".

I have never really understood the "lol she is _____ and talented so we should root for her" brainwashing that happens whenever a comic who is super fat or retarded or particularly ugly, or extra gay happens to catch a trend.

Melissa McCarthy, Aidy Bryant and Rebel Wilson just aren't funny. They are literally only popular because they are fat.

Rosanne and Lisa Lampenelli are the only fat women I can ever recall giving me a smile.

Beer-Belly
January 27th, 2015, 6:55 PM
I thought Bridesmaids was pretty great.

Leslie Jones is fucking obnoxious. I'm sure her character will be the sassiest gal that's ever sassed.

LOCONUT
January 27th, 2015, 6:56 PM
Hated Bridesmaids. The only decent character was the guy from Mad Men. Also I love Rose Byrne.

MikeHunt
January 27th, 2015, 7:01 PM
Bridesmaids was shit.

Its definitely not aimed at me though so I can understand why I would hate that.

However, ghostbusters is pretty universal and I imagine a lot of people in my demographic (18-35 male) probably won't see this for the same reasons as that I've said.

Beer-Belly
January 27th, 2015, 7:19 PM
Ghostbusters is such an odd franchise to go all female with. It feels like a gimmick.

Fro
January 27th, 2015, 7:21 PM
there are a ton of comedies that have pulled off the all-male gimmick though

Beer-Belly
January 27th, 2015, 7:27 PM
I never said all-female comedies are a gimmick. I just think an all-female cast for a Ghostbusters movie is a weird direction to go in.

MikeHunt
January 27th, 2015, 7:37 PM
Why don't we make sex in the city with men. That's a great idea.

MikeHunt
January 27th, 2015, 7:38 PM
Oh wait, it's shit.

Fro
January 27th, 2015, 7:42 PM
isn't that called Entourage?

MikeHunt
January 27th, 2015, 7:51 PM
It may be similar in content but it isn't called sex in the city.

if this was called lady's smash ghosts I don't think anyone would give a fuck. It's the association with the franchise that people have the problem with.

VHS
January 27th, 2015, 8:05 PM
Great, now we get to see Melissa McCarthy fall down and be an unfunny fat ass piece of shit.

http://images.yuku.com.s3.amazonaws.com/image/gif/1f3258b49a635e28caba1be9ec5ec7c98e9f98c.gif

MikeHunt
January 27th, 2015, 8:13 PM
Fatist

The_Mike
January 27th, 2015, 8:29 PM
I'm a little torn on this. I recoil at the idea of being all "boo, women aren't funny" or "boo, women need to stay away from my beloved interest" because that's ridiculous, but these women don't seem funny to me at all. And I get that it's a bit unfair to ask why we need an all-woman Ghostbusters when we had an all-male one without anyone batting an eye, but that was the 80s, where it was progressive just to have a token black guy on the cast even though he was literally the hired help. But jumping straight to an all woman cast really does come off as gimmicky, artificially redressing the balance just to say it was done. Still, not the biggest deal in the world.

Miotch
January 27th, 2015, 8:46 PM
McCarthy isn't great, she just happens to be the best of the recent wave of fat female comics who have "made it".

I have never really understood the "lol she is _____ and talented so we should root for her" brainwashing that happens whenever a comic who is super fat or retarded or particularly ugly, or extra gay happens to catch a trend.

Melissa McCarthy, Aidy Bryant and Rebel Wilson just aren't funny. They are literally only popular because they are fat.

Rosanne and Lisa Lampenelli are the only fat women I can ever recall giving me a smile.

You're saying in your 40 years on this planet your mother never made you smile one time?

Beer-Belly
January 27th, 2015, 8:52 PM
I'm a little torn on this. I recoil at the idea of being all "boo, women aren't funny" or "boo, women need to stay away from my beloved interest" because that's ridiculous, but these women don't seem funny to me at all. And I get that it's a bit unfair to ask why we need an all-woman Ghostbusters when we had an all-male one without anyone batting an eye, but that was the 80s, where it was progressive just to have a token black guy on the cast even though he was literally the hired help. But jumping straight to an all woman cast really does come off as gimmicky, artificially redressing the balance just to say it was done. Still, not the biggest deal in the world.

I'm not saying there aren't funny women. I just think a Ghostbusters film seems like an odd vehicle for an all-female comedy. Doing it for the sake of saying you did it seems like the wrong reason to reboot a franchise.

And Winston was a valued member of the Ghostbusters, damn it!

The_Mike
January 27th, 2015, 10:14 PM
Yeah, sorry, I didn't mean to imply anyone here is specifically saying there are no funny women, just that it's a thing people seem to latch on to. I definitely agree Ghostbusters seems like the wrong thing to bolt on some women for the sake of it, though I'm not sure there's a right thing to try that with. It's just so shallow, on the face of it. Maybe the script will surprise us but I can't help but get the impression they came up with "let's stick women in the boilersuits" and characters and plot came later. And you just know they're going to make those boilersuits into catsuits because womens.

Beer-Belly
January 27th, 2015, 10:49 PM
It's being directed and co-written by Paul Feig who created Freaks and Geeks, so at least that's promising. Granted, he's made some underwhelming movies as well.

Rancid_Planet
January 27th, 2015, 10:52 PM
I'm a fan of all these women and their work and I can't wait for this film. I loved the original GB and I'm so glad they're going a whole new way with the franchise. Trying to remake it with different actors would be a let down. This will be a whole new type of film inspired by the concept of GB. I think its a great concept.

lotjx
January 27th, 2015, 10:54 PM
It feels a little too forced. It would be fine if they had a Rookie female or another female taking over Egon's spot or shit promote Annie Potts. I also don't like the idea of Peter Venkeman going against them.

Atty
January 27th, 2015, 10:56 PM
Can this be subtitled "What's the Point?"

I absolutely adore Ghostbusters, it's one of my favorite movies, but I just don't see any appeal in a reboot. Just do something original. Men In Black is really the perfect example to me: a lot was similar (in a way) to Ghostbusters, but it was its own concept and never felt like a retread to me. I'd rather see these four in some movie that's similar in some ways to Ghostbusters, but is an original idea. The comparison is only going to hurt the film.

The_Mike
January 28th, 2015, 12:15 AM
Can this be subtitled "What's the Point?"

I absolutely adore Ghostbusters, it's one of my favorite movies, but I just don't see any appeal in a reboot. Just do something original. Men In Black is really the perfect example to me: a lot was similar (in a way) to Ghostbusters, but it was its own concept and never felt like a retread to me. I'd rather see these four in some movie that's similar in some ways to Ghostbusters, but is an original idea. The comparison is only going to hurt the film.

Men in Black was based on an obscure comic rather than an original idea, but yeah, I see what you mean and I'd also rather see a new 'franchise' attempted (even if it borrows from GB) than just slapping the name on something strung together with some SNL players.

G-Fresh
January 28th, 2015, 3:15 AM
It should be about alien ghosts.

Atty
January 28th, 2015, 3:24 AM
Fuck yeah.

Jimmy Zero
January 28th, 2015, 11:18 AM
I wasn't super interested in this when the idea was first announced. There's no fucking way I'm going to pay money to go see a Melissa McCarthy movie.

Nash Diesel
January 28th, 2015, 11:26 AM
It's a crime that the original 4 even prior to Ramis' death couldn't do one more movie. I loved the first 2, and while I think this one will be good, especially if Akroyd has something to do with it whether it's the script, as an advisor, it'll be at least on my list of movies to rent.

Bert
January 28th, 2015, 9:42 PM
They should have went with Bill Murrays list.

Murray then offered The Star his own suggestions for who could play the next generation of Ghostbusters – namely, his St. Vincent costar Melissa McCarthy, along with Bridesmaids star (and co-writer) Kristen Wiig, Murray’s Zombieland costar Emma Stone, and the ER alum, as well as recent Mad Men star, Linda Cardellini.

Stone and Cardellini would have made this. I have zero interest in seeing this in theaters now. Maybe I'll watch the dvdrip.

The Rogerer
January 29th, 2015, 3:54 AM
Wiig is pretty funny and Stone would have made it.

Anyway, yet more brand leveraging franchise nonsense. Maybe one day they'll run out of nostalgia knives to twist for our generation. I'm out like pop up pirate.

VHS
August 4th, 2015, 2:48 PM
The proton packs look like absolute shit... the suits look cheap... fuck this movie.

http://uproxx.com/movies/2015/08/ghostbusters-paul-feig-melissa-mccarthy-childrens-hospital/

Really cool of them to do this though.

(http://uproxx.com/movies/2015/08/ghostbusters-paul-feig-melissa-mccarthy-childrens-hospital/)

The_Mike
August 4th, 2015, 2:50 PM
https://uproxx.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/ghostbusters1.jpg?w=650&h=434

Oh dear.

lotjx
August 4th, 2015, 3:00 PM
Please...Please for the love of God...tell me this some form of Cosplay.

MTR
August 4th, 2015, 3:05 PM
I am not a big fan of reboots but I am actually looking forward to this one. Good cast

Spedizzo
August 4th, 2015, 3:07 PM
I remember seeing this all over Facebook a few months ago.

Sigh

I still have the same feeling toward it.

Why do people love Melissa McCarthy? Is it just because she has a self-deprecating sense of humor? I had to sit through Tammy the other night and I seriously thought it was one of the most annoying movies I have seen in a long time. I have yet to find anything clever in comedy.

Amy Schumer would have been a better cast over her.

The_Mike
August 4th, 2015, 3:27 PM
I've never actually met someone who likes Melissa McCarthy. I have a pet theory that Hollywood pretends her movies are successful solely so they can try to avoid being expected to cast diverse women in any other movies.

Spedizzo
August 4th, 2015, 3:33 PM
I think women really like Melissa McCarthy.

If you ever want to really ruin someone's night, tell them Tammy is a good movie and to watch it.

VHS
August 4th, 2015, 3:54 PM
Melissa's funny and a good actress... she's just booked as this fat, fall-down, pathetic clutz.

I just can't get over how BAD the suits look. They looks so so so cheap.

At least they're not driving a purple, elongated VW Beetle that has flowers on it.

Simmo Fortyone
August 4th, 2015, 6:24 PM
I remember seeing this all over Facebook a few months ago.

Sigh

I still have the same feeling toward it.

Why do people love Melissa McCarthy? Is it just because she has a self-deprecating sense of humor? I had to sit through Tammy the other night and I seriously thought it was one of the most annoying movies I have seen in a long time. I have yet to find anything clever in comedy.

Amy Schumer would have been a better cast over her.
If someone wanted to pay me a lot of money to be an absolute fucking moron in a movie, I'd be three hours early on day one. And you would be too.

VHS
August 4th, 2015, 7:07 PM
I don't think anybody here would pass on that either. Doesn't mean we have to like it though. Her movies have been utter shlock for the most part.

mth
August 4th, 2015, 7:17 PM
I heard her most recent film (Spy? I think it was called?) was pretty good and that it was a departure from her 'lol she's fat' jokes. Never seen anything she's done myself.

As far as this movie goes, it looks fine to me. Feel like the hate is overboard.

Jimmy Zero
August 4th, 2015, 7:44 PM
I'm not exactly excited for this movie, but I'm not really understanding why that photo is causing such a reaction.

Fro
August 4th, 2015, 7:49 PM
The hate is crazy overboard. I've probably said this before but I like the cast besides the black chick (blanking on her name at the moment) who has not even been competent in a limited on screen SNL role. The bigger issue than the cast for you guys should be writer/director Paul Feig, he's the one responsible for most of McCarthy's movies that you're ragging on. Bridesmaids was great though.

TimeSplitter
August 4th, 2015, 8:00 PM
Leslie Jones is her name, Fro. She and McKinnon are hilarious on SNL. I don't understand the hate for this movie. In this era where everything is being rebooted, they are taking a different approach by having an all female cast. We need to stop hating before we see a trailer, or even the films themselves, myself included.

I really enjoyed Spy, and it is quite different from McCarthy's other work.

Atty
August 4th, 2015, 8:00 PM
This is actually brilliant. They're going to make Ghostbusters II a classic at any cost.

Fro
August 4th, 2015, 8:20 PM
Leslie Jones is her name, Fro. She and McKinnon are hilarious on SNL. I don't understand the hate for this movie. In this era where everything is being rebooted, they are taking a different approach by having an all female cast. We need to stop hating before we see a trailer, or even the films themselves, myself included.

I really enjoyed Spy, and it is quite different from McCarthy's other work.

I adore McKinnon. Most of the Jones sketches I've seen (probably 4 or 5) she's been unfunny and there's often been some sort of foul-up where she doesn't hit her mark or looks into the wrong camera or doesn't have the right line. Not sure if that's her fault necessarily or that it means she's a poor actress but even her Weekend Update monologues have been meh to me, though it seems other people like them.

Dream-Evil
August 4th, 2015, 8:41 PM
Yeah, I really liked Spy as well. Mainly because of Jason Statham's role. (I would totally watch a full movie about that character.)

Kate McKinnon is fantastic. Leslie Jones has one character on SNL. The loud-angry black woman that you usually tend to see in parodies with them sitting in cinemas shouting at the screen.

The_Mike
August 4th, 2015, 8:46 PM
I'm not exactly excited for this movie, but I'm not really understanding why that photo is causing such a reaction.

The costumes and car looks completely amateur. On the other hand, it's nice they didn't think "oh yeah, they're women, we should put them in spandex".

lotjx
August 4th, 2015, 10:14 PM
The real problem for this film is that everyone we want to see involved in this film is not high on the studios' list to be in it or they don't want to be it or dead. The costumes look like shit. I hated Bridesmaids and I am a big fan of women in comedy. If this was Amy Schumar, Jen Kirkman, Paget Brewster and the African American girl from the Daily Show, I am in. I don't mind Melissa McCarthy, but its the idea that he had to be an all female cast. Like, why? Why was that such a novel idea. Why not the team be just funny people regardless of race and gender. Its not like Annie Potts and Sigourney Weaver dragged the film down.

Morrison
August 4th, 2015, 10:15 PM
The costumes and car looks completely amateur. On the other hand, it's nice they didn't think "oh yeah, they're women, we should put them in spandex".
and the costumes and car from the original two looks so fucking steeped in artistic vision and arrangement? give me a fucking break.

Fro
August 4th, 2015, 10:25 PM
The real problem for this film is that everyone we want to see involved in this film is not high on the studios' list to be in it or they don't want to be it or dead. The costumes look like shit. I hated Bridesmaids and I am a big fan of women in comedy. If this was Amy Schumar, Jen Kirkman, Paget Brewster and the African American girl from the Daily Show, I am in. I don't mind Melissa McCarthy, but its the idea that he had to be an all female cast. Like, why? Why was that such a novel idea. Why not the team be just funny people regardless of race and gender. Its not like Annie Potts and Sigourney Weaver dragged the film down.

I think there's a certain comradery that comes with a group of same-gendered characters that lends itself to comedy that's somewhat lost if it was a group of, say, 2 men and 2 women. That presents more challenges as a comedy writer in establishing the group dymanic. Not saying it's not possible, but I don't think Paul Feig would be able to make it work well.

mth
August 4th, 2015, 10:29 PM
and the costumes and car from the original two looks so fucking steeped in artistic vision and arrangement? give me a fucking break.

I was going to say, I really don't see much of a difference. These brown jumpsuits have stripes. If I'm not looking at a picture of the old one, the car looks the same to me. Don't get it.

Jimmy Zero
August 4th, 2015, 10:36 PM
The costumes and car looks completely amateur. On the other hand, it's nice they didn't think "oh yeah, they're women, we should put them in spandex".

That's awfully nitpicky.

VanillaJello
August 4th, 2015, 10:54 PM
I adore McKinnon. Most of the Jones sketches I've seen (probably 4 or 5) she's been unfunny and there's often been some sort of foul-up where she doesn't hit her mark or looks into the wrong camera or doesn't have the right line. Not sure if that's her fault necessarily or that it means she's a poor actress but even her Weekend Update monologues have been meh to me, though it seems other people like them.

Agreed on Jones. There were multiple skits where she just stopped talking because she lost her place, or stepped over a line. It was very uneasy to watch. Hopefully she'll be better in a movie.

Rancid_Planet
August 5th, 2015, 12:45 AM
I think this was one of the first, if not the first time Jones appeared on SNL. Since the news of her being cast in the GB remake, I've wondered if she got the job just because of this skit.


https://youtu.be/CwhvJ5B4lYg

Spedizzo
August 5th, 2015, 7:46 AM
So they couldn't get a male cast and use someone like Craig Robinson who is 15 lightyears funnier than her for the black Ghostbuster?

It's hard to look past the "female cast" when:

#1: It's a shit female cast, there are tons of funnier females they could have taken.

#2: It is Ghostbusters, a franchise a lot of us grew up on and was hoping they would remake or make a sequel to over the last 20 years while the remaining cast was of health.

#3: If it isn't about gender and just about having the best cast, again, there are much funnier males and females they could have chosen.

#4: And yes, the costumes and everything else looks cheap and shit. The 80s movies look like they tried harder. The movie looks more to try and make money off the Ghostbusters name, and the buzz of an all-female Ghostbusters cast/Chris Hemsworth as the secretary.

#5: No Rick Moranis.

Pass.

Ghostbusters was a poor franchise to try this shit with IMO. A lot of the old timers who were looking forward to this movie probably won't care to shell out $$ to see this, and people like my girlfriend who actually like Melissa McCarthy but never cared for Ghostbusters probably won't go out of their way to see this either.

It probably won't be a bust, but it won't be a hit. But then again, I don't know why people see many movies out in theaters, so fuck do I know.

Morrison
August 5th, 2015, 7:25 PM
So they couldn't get a male cast and use someone like Craig Robinson who is 15 lightyears funnier than her for the black Ghostbuster?

It's hard to look past the "female cast" when:

#1: It's a shit female cast, there are tons of funnier females they could have taken.

#2: It is Ghostbusters, a franchise a lot of us grew up on and was hoping they would remake or make a sequel to over the last 20 years while the remaining cast was of health.

#3: If it isn't about gender and just about having the best cast, again, there are much funnier males and females they could have chosen.

#4: And yes, the costumes and everything else looks cheap and shit. The 80s movies look like they tried harder. The movie looks more to try and make money off the Ghostbusters name, and the buzz of an all-female Ghostbusters cast/Chris Hemsworth as the secretary.

#5: No Rick Moranis.

Pass.

Ghostbusters was a poor franchise to try this shit with IMO. A lot of the old timers who were looking forward to this movie probably won't care to shell out $$ to see this, and people like my girlfriend who actually like Melissa McCarthy but never cared for Ghostbusters probably won't go out of their way to see this either.

It probably won't be a bust, but it won't be a hit. But then again, I don't know why people see many movies out in theaters, so fuck do I know.
the poor man-nerd tears are so strong here. flash flood warning worthy.

Morrison
August 5th, 2015, 7:36 PM
https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/vmtw2nyuv7c13gisibxn.jpg

look at all the effort they put into those original costumes! they've got NAME TAGS!

lotjx
August 5th, 2015, 9:08 PM
https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/vmtw2nyuv7c13gisibxn.jpg

look at all the effort they put into those original costumes! they've got NAME TAGS!

Yeah, they are not iconic in any way or functional or cosplay worthy at all.

Morrison
August 5th, 2015, 9:50 PM
Yeah, they are not iconic in any way or functional or cosplay worthy at all.

theyre iconic because of the film. theyre not iconic because of a group photo taken during shooting.

and what the fuck do you mean by functional? and what do you suggest these new costumes should've looked like? these ICONIC costumes are the fucking EXACT SAME THING. this fucking cosplay insult is so mind-numbing.

Atty
August 5th, 2015, 10:42 PM
He rocks them in his day to day life trying to kill ghosts, so he knows how functional they are. Jesus, Morrison. Come on now.

Morrison
August 5th, 2015, 10:59 PM
comfortable in all the right places, plenty of ventilation for those hard sweat days.

lotjx
August 6th, 2015, 8:38 AM
The suits are simple that is why it works. They also have the cool utility belts and the proton backs. The film is iconic, because of what is in the film. Even the producer said once he saw them in the suits, he knew that he had hit.

Jimmy Zero
August 6th, 2015, 9:45 AM
The suits the women are wearing are virtually identical to the original suits. Literally the only difference is a few stripes. That's it.

People are going out of their way to find reasons to hate this movie, and, not surprisingly, those reasons are mostly ridiculous.

Beer-Belly
August 6th, 2015, 10:43 AM
I think The_Mike said it at some point, but it really does seem like they went the all female route just to say they did it. To me, that's gimmicky. Kristen Wiig is funny, and McKinnon and McCarthy have made me laugh in the past, so this isn't me boo-hooing and saying women aren't funny either.

Morrison
August 6th, 2015, 10:55 AM
what is wrong with adding a 'gimmick' to a franchise film, exactly? okay, having an all-woman cast was deliberate and calculated. annnnnnnd so what?

does it ease up the butt tears that theyre still trying to do a third film with a male cast?

Beer-Belly
August 6th, 2015, 2:49 PM
Dude, I'm not losing any sleep over it. Paul Feig is directing, and after Freaks and Geeks he gets a lifetime pass to do what ever he wants as far as I'm concerned. If it stinks, it stinks. If the buzz is solid then I'm sure I'll go see it.

VHS
August 6th, 2015, 3:29 PM
My beef w/ the costumes is that they're too slick... to clean... to tailored. Look at any still from the original GB and the suits looks like they've been through a lot. Like they've been used for a long time. Stuff like that makes all the difference in the world between something that looks like it was really used / and something that was just tailored and put on an actor.

MikeHunt
August 6th, 2015, 3:37 PM
Great, now we get to see Melissa McCarthy fall down and be an unfunny fat ass piece of shit.

http://images.yuku.com.s3.amazonaws.com/image/gif/1f3258b49a635e28caba1be9ec5ec7c98e9f98c.gif


Melissa's funny and a good actress... she's just booked as this fat, fall-down, pathetic clutz.

I just can't get over how BAD the suits look. They looks so so so cheap.

At least they're not driving a purple, elongated VW Beetle that has flowers on it.

top idiot.

you're a disgrace.

thats why people think she funny. you dunce.

Beer-Belly
August 6th, 2015, 3:48 PM
She's a female Chris Farley.

Speaking of which, her impersonation of Farley's Matt Foley character on the SNL 40 special was heinous. I like her enough, but that shit was rough.

MikeHunt
August 6th, 2015, 3:53 PM
the most annoying part of the post is him referring to her being cast in those roles as being booked.

Beer-Belly
August 6th, 2015, 4:09 PM
A little silly. Not blood boiling, though.

Beer-Belly
August 6th, 2015, 4:16 PM
I just can't wait until Leslie Jones gets slimed by Slimer and says, "I KNOW YOU DIDN'T JUST SLIME MY NEW JUMPSUIT!"

Leslie Jones sucks.

Jimmy Zero
August 6th, 2015, 4:29 PM
My beef w/ the costumes is that they're too slick... to clean... to tailored. Look at any still from the original GB and the suits looks like they've been through a lot. Like they've been used for a long time. Stuff like that makes all the difference in the world between something that looks like it was really used / and something that was just tailored and put on an actor.

This is a completely ridiculous criticism.

Jimmy Zero
August 6th, 2015, 4:40 PM
I think The_Mike said it at some point, but it really does seem like they went the all female route just to say they did it. To me, that's gimmicky. Kristen Wiig is funny, and McKinnon and McCarthy have made me laugh in the past, so this isn't me boo-hooing and saying women aren't funny either.


I mean, I guess it's gimmicky, but so what? Would having Chris Pratt and 3 other flavor of the week male comedians doing half assed Bill Murray impressions for 2 hours be preferable to everyone? Not when the criticisms are as fucking dumb as, "the jumpsuits don't look dirty enough." Idiots that think that's a valid criticism won't be pleased no matter what they do because they're idiots. They're just looking for reasons to shit on it. I just don't get what the big deal is with the decision to specifically do an all women team of Ghostbusters. At least they're trying something different. Maybe it'll be great, maybe it won't. But the conclusions people are jumping to because of ONE photo and the fact that they don't like Melissa McCarthy are insane.

Honestly, the source material is a movie about pseudoscientists charging people money to trap ghosts and store them in the basement of an abandoned firehouse, and people are complaining that using four women is gimmicky? Come on, that's just fanboy butthurt, "they're raping my childhood," lunacy.

mth
August 6th, 2015, 4:58 PM
My beef w/ the costumes is that they're too slick... to clean... to tailored. Look at any still from the original GB and the suits looks like they've been through a lot. Like they've been used for a long time. Stuff like that makes all the difference in the world between something that looks like it was really used / and something that was just tailored and put on an actor.

Fucking hell. Maybe these stills are from when they just got the damn suits.

Beer-Belly
August 6th, 2015, 5:11 PM
I mean, I guess it's gimmicky, but so what? Would having Chris Pratt and 3 other flavor of the week male comedians doing half assed Bill Murray impressions for 2 hours be preferable to everyone? Not when the criticisms are as fucking dumb as, "the jumpsuits don't look dirty enough." Idiots that think that's a valid criticism won't be pleased no matter what they do because they're idiots. They're just looking for reasons to shit on it. I just don't get what the big deal is with the decision to specifically do an all women team of Ghostbusters. At least they're trying something different. Maybe it'll be great, maybe it won't. But the conclusions people are jumping to because of ONE photo and the fact that they don't like Melissa McCarthy are insane.

Honestly, the source material is a movie about pseudoscientists charging people money to trap ghosts and store them in the basement of an abandoned firehouse, and people are complaining that using four women is gimmicky? Come on, that's just fanboy butthurt, "they're raping my childhood," lunacy.

I mean, I did also say that I like most of the people involved with this new movie. I even said I'd see it if the reviews were good. I certainly don't give a turkey about what their fucking jumpsuits look like.

virms
August 6th, 2015, 8:44 PM
I mean, I guess it's gimmicky, but so what? Would having Chris Pratt and 3 other flavor of the week male comedians doing half assed Bill Murray impressions for 2 hours be preferable to everyone? Not when the criticisms are as fucking dumb as, "the jumpsuits don't look dirty enough." Idiots that think that's a valid criticism won't be pleased no matter what they do because they're idiots. They're just looking for reasons to shit on it. I just don't get what the big deal is with the decision to specifically do an all women team of Ghostbusters. At least they're trying something different. Maybe it'll be great, maybe it won't. But the conclusions people are jumping to because of ONE photo and the fact that they don't like Melissa McCarthy are insane.

Honestly, the source material is a movie about pseudoscientists charging people money to trap ghosts and store them in the basement of an abandoned firehouse, and people are complaining that using four women is gimmicky? Come on, that's just fanboy butthurt, "they're raping my childhood," lunacy.

Uh yes. Chris pratt fixes everything.

Morrison
August 6th, 2015, 9:04 PM
I mean, I did also say that I like most of the people involved with this new movie. I even said I'd see it if the reviews were good. I certainly don't give a turkey about what their fucking jumpsuits look like.

no one is talking about you.

Beer-Belly
August 6th, 2015, 10:14 PM
no one is talking about you.

My mom was... at some point.

Bill Casey
August 7th, 2015, 12:08 AM
The original Ghostbusters uniforms were military surplus flight suits, for anyone wondering...

VHS
August 7th, 2015, 12:11 AM
Fucking hell. Maybe these stills are from when they just got the damn suits.

Just saying hey... how about somebody throw some dirt on them or something. Make them look like actual suits. Not costumes.

Bill Casey
August 7th, 2015, 12:28 AM
The women's ghostbusting team visiting sick people...

http://cdn.collider.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ghostbusters-kristen-wiig-leslie-jones-melissa-mccarthy-kate-mckinnon-600x401.jpg
http://cdn.collider.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ghostbusters-leslie-jones-kristen-wiig-kate-mckinnon-melissa-mccarthy-600x401.jpg
http://cdn.collider.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ghostbusters-leslie-jones-melissa-mccarthy-kristen-wiig-kate-mckinnon-600x401.jpg
http://cdn.collider.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ghostbusters-melissa-mccarthy-leslie-jones-kristen-wiig-kate-mckinnon-600x401.jpg

http://collider.com/ghostbusters-cast-kristen-wiig-in-costume-to-visit-hospital/

Tufts Medical Center had to ask people to stop posting profanity on their Facebook page...

MikeHunt
August 7th, 2015, 2:07 AM
Just saying hey... how about somebody throw some dirt on them or something. Make them look like actual suits. Not costumes.

Throw dirt on them. Get a grip bozo.

Why would they not have clean clothes. do you not have a washing machine? Honestly you make me sick with your stupidity.

G-Fresh
August 7th, 2015, 2:15 AM
Fuck this movie. Shit is gonna suck.

Beer-Belly
August 7th, 2015, 3:24 AM
Fuck this movie. Shit is gonna suck.

Did you ever come around on the Bale Batman movies? You should watch those.

Also, have you seen The Burbs before?

Rancid_Planet
August 7th, 2015, 4:16 AM
https://youtu.be/cSyX02ZaXWY

Jimmy Zero
August 7th, 2015, 10:14 AM
The women's ghostbusting team visiting sick people...

http://cdn.collider.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ghostbusters-kristen-wiig-leslie-jones-melissa-mccarthy-kate-mckinnon-600x401.jpg
http://cdn.collider.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ghostbusters-leslie-jones-kristen-wiig-kate-mckinnon-melissa-mccarthy-600x401.jpg
http://cdn.collider.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ghostbusters-leslie-jones-melissa-mccarthy-kristen-wiig-kate-mckinnon-600x401.jpg
http://cdn.collider.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ghostbusters-melissa-mccarthy-leslie-jones-kristen-wiig-kate-mckinnon-600x401.jpg

http://collider.com/ghostbusters-cast-kristen-wiig-in-costume-to-visit-hospital/

Tufts Medical Center had to ask people to stop posting profanity on their Facebook page...

Meh, those kids don't looks sick enough. Maybe they could throw some more cancer on them, or something.

And would you LOOK at those Ghostbusters costumes? Could they be any cleaner? Their cleanliness probably ruined the whole experience for those kids.

The Rogerer
August 7th, 2015, 11:26 AM
Great idea to send a group of people who exterminate tormented souls to visit children in hospital.

mth
August 7th, 2015, 11:30 AM
Just saying hey... how about somebody throw some dirt on them or something. Make them look like actual suits. Not costumes.
And I repeat myself: Fucking hell. Maybe this is the first time they wore the goddamn costumes. Jesus tap dancing ballsacks.

VHS
August 7th, 2015, 12:04 PM
It a bare minimum criticism, but fuck it.

MikeHunt
August 7th, 2015, 12:36 PM
nah its your usual boring fanboy bollocks.

Seanny One Ball
August 7th, 2015, 12:54 PM
Who's the black fella in that photo Bill?

Atty
August 7th, 2015, 1:01 PM
The women's ghostbusting team visiting sick people...

http://cdn.collider.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ghostbusters-kristen-wiig-leslie-jones-melissa-mccarthy-kate-mckinnon-600x401.jpg
http://cdn.collider.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ghostbusters-leslie-jones-kristen-wiig-kate-mckinnon-melissa-mccarthy-600x401.jpg
http://cdn.collider.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ghostbusters-leslie-jones-melissa-mccarthy-kristen-wiig-kate-mckinnon-600x401.jpg
http://cdn.collider.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/ghostbusters-melissa-mccarthy-leslie-jones-kristen-wiig-kate-mckinnon-600x401.jpg

http://collider.com/ghostbusters-cast-kristen-wiig-in-costume-to-visit-hospital/

Tufts Medical Center had to ask people to stop posting profanity on their Facebook page...

That fucking dark. They're trolling sick kids in hospitals so they can bust them the second they day and become ghosts?

The Rogerer
August 7th, 2015, 2:36 PM
https://ghostbustersinc.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/erniepetersigdanharoldposing.jpg

Spedizzo
August 7th, 2015, 2:49 PM
That fucking dark. They're trolling sick kids in hospitals so they can bust them the second they day and become ghosts?

They are trolling sick kids in hospitals in an attempt to lessen the hatred for the cast and shit costumes the movie has been getting. They are essentially there for a photoshoot.

What little boy would be excited for 4 women he has never heard of dressed like garbage men? I'd be more excited to see my nurse.

Fro
August 7th, 2015, 2:59 PM
Holy fuck those costumes are awful. The ones from Ghostbusters 2 that is

Morrison
August 7th, 2015, 3:14 PM
Just saying hey... how about somebody throw some dirt on them or something. Make them look like actual suits. Not costumes.

if theyre brand new, why would they be dirty? what kinda of asinine complaint is this.

Morrison
August 7th, 2015, 3:16 PM
They are trolling sick kids in hospitals in an attempt to lessen the hatred for the cast and shit costumes the movie has been getting. They are essentially there for a photoshoot.

What little boy would be excited for 4 women he has never heard of dressed like garbage men? I'd be more excited to see my nurse.
it's going to be okay, little guy.

Nash Diesel
August 7th, 2015, 3:20 PM
I am really on the fence about this movie. It could be good but we all know that the expectations are going to be hard to live up to, I just don't see it happening. But you never know. When you try to do something like replicate the formula that worked but use women instead of men, or dogs instead of cats, or whatever....It doesn't really work out the greatest and it makes it hard for fans of the original movies to fully accept what is going on. I just think of those 2 Karate Kid movies without Ralph Macchio and how much they fucking sucked and put a shit stain on the originals.

Spedizzo
August 7th, 2015, 3:25 PM
it's going to be okay, little guy.

thanks gimp

virms
August 7th, 2015, 3:49 PM
I can't wait until the feminist latch onto this. I'm surprised they haven't already.

VHS
August 7th, 2015, 4:36 PM
if theyre brand new, why would they be dirty? what kinda of asinine complaint is this.

Bottom line, and final say on this (and I know how silly it is to criticize)... they shouldn't look "brand new." They should look like they've been used before, not like they've just be tailored the day before. Boom, done.


I am really on the fence about this movie. It could be good but we all know that the expectations are going to be hard to live up to, I just don't see it happening. But you never know. When you try to do something like replicate the formula that worked but use women instead of men, or dogs instead of cats, or whatever....It doesn't really work out the greatest and it makes it hard for fans of the original movies to fully accept what is going on. I just think of those 2 Karate Kid movies without Ralph Macchio and how much they fucking sucked and put a shit stain on the originals.

What made you think of KARATE KID? :lol:

(I liked Karate Kid 2. Wasn't bad, it was ok.)

Jimmy Zero
August 7th, 2015, 5:30 PM
Bottom line, and final say on this (and I know how silly it is to criticize)... they shouldn't look "brand new." They should look like they've been used before, not like they've just be tailored the day before. Boom, done.

I know I expect new clothes to be dirty and look used.

G-Fresh
August 7th, 2015, 5:44 PM
Did you ever come around on the Bale Batman movies? You should watch those.

Also, have you seen The Burbs before?

Nah I ain't got around to watching the new Batman movies yet. The Burbs is dope though.

Morrison
August 7th, 2015, 10:31 PM
Bottom line, and final say on this (and I know how silly it is to criticize)... they shouldn't look "brand new." They should look like they've been used before, not like they've just be tailored the day before. Boom, done.



What made you think of KARATE KID? :lol:

(I liked Karate Kid 2. Wasn't bad, it was ok.)
you are an absolute imbecile.

The Rogerer
August 8th, 2015, 4:31 AM
I can't wait until the feminist latch onto this. I'm surprised they haven't already.oooooh I can't wait until the paedos latch on to this.

G-Fresh
August 8th, 2015, 8:34 AM
Why will my people latch on to this?

Beer-Belly
August 8th, 2015, 12:22 PM
The original suits didn't even really look dirty.

http://screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/ghostbusters-3-harold-ramis.jpg

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/51b3dc8ee4b051b96ceb10de/t/540c9037e4b0c01ba3ff7cbf/1410109499107/bill-murray-on-all-female-ghostbusters-film-i-would-watch-it1

http://images.hngn.com/data/images/full/102676/ghostbusters.jpg?w=650

Chris Dolmeth
August 8th, 2015, 12:30 PM
Yeah, but those pants are pretty wrinkly.. Shows character.

VHS
August 8th, 2015, 12:44 PM
The original suits didn't even really look dirty.

http://screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/ghostbusters-3-harold-ramis.jpg

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/51b3dc8ee4b051b96ceb10de/t/540c9037e4b0c01ba3ff7cbf/1410109499107/bill-murray-on-all-female-ghostbusters-film-i-would-watch-it1

http://images.hngn.com/data/images/full/102676/ghostbusters.jpg?w=650

They don't look brand new either.

Percussion
August 8th, 2015, 12:49 PM
Sure they do. They don't look like they've been folded or pressed, but they look new as shit. They don't have a mark on them.

Beer-Belly
August 8th, 2015, 12:51 PM
They look like what Bill Casey said:


The original Ghostbusters uniforms were military surplus flight suits, for anyone wondering...

Nothing about the original suits look particularly aged or distressed.

I'm not trying to pile on, but the look of the new suits isn't high on the list of things I'm concerned with.

VHS
August 8th, 2015, 12:54 PM
I'll work on not nitpicking this junk here on out. :yes:

virms
August 8th, 2015, 9:14 PM
oooooh I can't wait until the paedos latch on to this.

Did you have doubts on the first joke you made before your edit or did you just change words around to freshen up a piss poor joke?

Morrison
August 8th, 2015, 10:37 PM
Did you have doubts on the first joke you made before your edit or did you just change words around to freshen up a piss poor joke?

you know nothing of humor, though. and rog was probably going less for a joke and more just a reference to your shitty existence.

virms
August 8th, 2015, 10:40 PM
Calm down morrison. Everything's gonna be alright.

Morrison
August 8th, 2015, 11:16 PM
Calm down morrison. Everything's gonna be alright.:rolleyes:

virms
August 8th, 2015, 11:19 PM
:stickpoke:

Rancid_Planet
August 8th, 2015, 11:38 PM
Thanks to this thread, when I eventually see this movie I won't be able to focus on anything but the suits.

Thanks fuckers. :yes:

Atty
August 9th, 2015, 1:13 AM
You'll be happy that it's all you can focus on. So, you are welcome.

lotjx
August 9th, 2015, 3:56 PM
http://nerdist.com/report-bill-murray-to-appear-in-ghostbusters-reboot/

Bill is in GB3! But, he is not going to be Dr. Peter Venkmen. Apparently, this is a total reboot thus the first two movies never, ever, ever happened.

Atty
August 9th, 2015, 3:59 PM
...

Beer-Belly
August 9th, 2015, 4:05 PM
It being a total reboot came out a while ago. There was a rumor that they wanted Murray to play a character similar to Walter Peck from the original.

Seanny One Ball
August 9th, 2015, 4:07 PM
He'd be better as a sleazy version of Rick Moranis

Beer-Belly
August 9th, 2015, 4:09 PM
It's hard for me to imagine a "sleazy" Louis Tully. He's like Butters.

Seanny One Ball
August 9th, 2015, 4:14 PM
That's not what I meant. I meant remove Rick Moranis from your mind and replace his space in the film with a sleazy jerk, like a human Pepe Le Pew and you have a character I'd enjoy from Bill Murray in this sure to be dreadful film.

Beer-Belly
August 9th, 2015, 4:18 PM
That makes more sense.

Seanny One Ball
August 9th, 2015, 4:19 PM
Imagine him and Melissa McCarthy playing off each other's sexually charged performance.

Amazing.

Bill Casey
August 9th, 2015, 7:20 PM
http://nerdist.com/report-bill-murray-to-appear-in-ghostbusters-reboot/

Bill is in GB3! But, he is not going to be Dr. Peter Venkmen. Apparently, this is a total reboot thus the first two movies never, ever, ever happened.

Or the first two movies are a preboot and this one never happened...
I've heard rumors that Old Boy and Robocop are actually preboots of some other movie...

lotjx
August 9th, 2015, 7:57 PM
Imagine him and Melissa McCarthy playing off each other's sexually charged performance.

Amazing.

Or you could watch St. Vincent.

Atty
August 9th, 2015, 9:18 PM
Rick Moranis should play Sigourney Weaver.

Rancid_Planet
August 9th, 2015, 9:33 PM
Or Gozer.

Definitely Gozer.

Atty
August 9th, 2015, 9:59 PM
Gozer should be a CGI Harold Ramis.

Rancid_Planet
August 9th, 2015, 10:07 PM
Gozer should be a CGI Harold Ramis.

Must spread my ectoplasmic slime around on others before slimming you.

mth
August 9th, 2015, 10:13 PM
I hope Murray is playing a ghost of some sort.

ReDPath
August 9th, 2015, 10:30 PM
I don't think this movie will be any good, with or without Murray or even if Ramis was still alive.

Though I do feel him deciding to be a part of this in any capacity now is a bit wrong, especially when he was the constant hold up when Ramis was alive. That doesn't mean I think GB3 would be any good if it were a straight up sequel with everybody back, including an alive and well Ramis. I just think this is something that should be left alone. The entire franchise has been in development hell for so long that I don't really think this is something that's being done with integrity in mind, only the dollar.

It's a lot like the news in recent days of another Nightmare on Elmstreet reboot. I mean...I guess the thing now is if a remake doesn't make enough bank to justify relaunching a franchise...just keeping making more remakes until one of them does....aka throw shit against the wall until something sticks...eventually something will. I don't buy into different visions from different artists anymore. Its all about the safe dollar with no integrity.

Thankfully, they can't erase the original GB or its sequel, nor can they erase the original ANOES franchise or Englund as Freddy. I can still watch those 80s classics.

Strangely enough, I have some faith in Episode 7 of Star Wars, but that's only because I see some visual evidence of some actual care being put into the film, and I know many of the old characters will be back again, the foundation is more believable.

Atty
August 9th, 2015, 10:44 PM
I hope Murray is playing a ghost of some sort.

He should be the ghost that sucks all the Ghostbusters into a tiny box and then houses them in an environmentally friends storage device.

The Rogerer
August 10th, 2015, 1:08 PM
Did you have doubts on the first joke you made before your edit or did you just change words around to freshen up a piss poor joke?
I was asking you to explain whatever your worthless point about 'feminist' was going to be, but I thought better of it.

Seanny One Ball
August 10th, 2015, 4:00 PM
Or you could watch St. Vincent.

I wasn't aware such a film existed.

Cool.

Hero!
October 27th, 2015, 9:19 PM
Since we don't have an official Ghostbusters thread, i'll post these here:

http://i.imgur.com/j7EsWle.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/ZxP6gGy.jpg

So beautiful. Details and price:


Ages 16+. 4,634 pieces.
US $349.99 - CA $399.99 - DE 349.99€ - UK £274.99 - DK 2999.00 DKK
*Euro pricing varies by country. Please visit shop.LEGO.com (http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fshop.LEGO.com%2F&h=9AQHpJH8h&s=1) for regional pricing. (Coming soon)!

Get ready to bust some ghosts at the Firehouse Headquarters!

Recreate iconic Ghostbusters™ scenes with the 2-story Firehouse Headquarters, featuring laboratory, living quarters, containment unit and much more. Capture the ghosts with the proton packs and restore order, or solve other supernatural cases! Includes 9 minifigures: Peter Venkman, Raymond Stantz, Egon Spengler, Winston Zeddemore, Janine Melnitz, Dana Barrett, Louis Tully, Library Ghost and Zombie Driver.

• Includes 9 minifigures: Peter Venkman, Raymond Stantz, Egon Spengler, Winston Zeddemore, Janine Melnitz, Dana Barrett, Louis Tully, Zombie Driver and Library Ghost.

• Also comes with Slimer, Pink Ghost and Blue Ghost.

• Slide the Ghostbusters™ heroes down the fire pole into action.

• Chase the ghosts and secure them in the containment unit.

• Turn the librarian old lady into a scary ghost with the double-sided face and extra wig!

• Run tests on Louis in the lab to see if he’s possessed!

• Suspend ghosts around the building’s exterior with attachable transparent arms.

• Dodge the slime oozing up through cracks in the pavement.

• Accessory elements include an alarm bell, fire extinguisher, computer, phone, toolbox, tools, jars of slimes, magnifying glass, camera, camera rolls, arcade game, toaster with slime, fridge with frozen pizza, milk and cheese, and much more!

• Features opening walls for easy play access.

• Ghostbusters™ minifigures come with decorated arms.

• Measures over 14” (36cm) high, 9” (25cm) wide and 14” (38cm) deep.

• With walls opened out, measures over 14” (36cm) high, 18” (46 cm) wide and 14” (38cm) deep.

• Firehouse Headquarters doors can open to fit the 21108 LEGO® Ideas Ghostbusters Ecto-1 inside!



$350 is insane, but it comes with a lot of stuff.

Fro
March 3rd, 2016, 10:26 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3ugHP-yZXw

MikeHunt
March 3rd, 2016, 10:36 AM
fucking hell, that looks shockingly bad.

Alf
March 3rd, 2016, 10:39 AM
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

mth
March 3rd, 2016, 10:46 AM
...yeah, not sure. I like that piano version of the theme, though.

Nash Diesel
March 3rd, 2016, 10:51 AM
I won't go to the theater to watch this but I will probably rent it just to give it a chance. The first one is the ultimate, the 2nd one was alright. This one definitely screams like they want to just make a little money.

HHHnFoley_Rulez
March 3rd, 2016, 10:55 AM
I .. I ... I don't even know what to think. It seems like a "Scary Movie"-esq film.. but it's ... serious? Serious in the sense that it isn't a deliberate "parody" - despite 'borrowing' the premise and, it seems, parts of plot line (the "winston" joining, particularly.. and the hearse, well, it's a cadillac, the talking to a nice ghost -> evil ghost in the library, the getting slimed..). And despite the opening "title" about "30 years ago bla bla.." it seems like there's a level of ignorance to the original (i.e. where did all the old gear go?) - maybe that's a trailer thing though.

A small part of me wants to see it - just because Ghostbusters. The majority of me wants to never give them money to do this to another film ever again.

Hero!
March 3rd, 2016, 11:03 AM
Well, i....i dunno. It feels like it doesnt really capture the spirit of ghostbusters and is more of a GB fan film.

Clive Plasma
March 3rd, 2016, 11:18 AM
Fuck that

mth
March 3rd, 2016, 11:25 AM
I .. I ... I don't even know what to think. It seems like a "Scary Movie"-esq film.. but it's ... serious? Serious in the sense that it isn't a deliberate "parody" - despite 'borrowing' the premise and, it seems, parts of plot line (the "winston" joining, particularly.. and the hearse, well, it's a cadillac, the talking to a nice ghost -> evil ghost in the library, the getting slimed..). And despite the opening "title" about "30 years ago bla bla.." it seems like there's a level of ignorance to the original (i.e. where did all the old gear go?) - maybe that's a trailer thing though.

A small part of me wants to see it - just because Ghostbusters. The majority of me wants to never give them money to do this to another film ever again.

Stuff like that might be addressed in the movie. The trailer's not going to spell it all out for you. Your comments about borrowing plot elements just makes me think of the much heralded pile of meh, The Force Awakens. So if this movie's subpar, you can just do what the Star Wars fans do and make up a bunch of theories and spin your own ideas to make it seem better than it is.

chatty
March 3rd, 2016, 11:55 AM
Looks like another tribute film - basically steal the plot of the first but don't go as far as a direct remake, they are popular these days - the Force Awakens, Creed, Jurassic World etc. I understand it though, basically gets kids into the franchise and gives adults a nostalgia buzz.

I'll wait till I see it (which will likely be 2018) before casting judgement, its pretty much goosed from the get-go as it just can't compare to the original, they struck gold with that - imagine getting a comedy cast of Bill Murray, Dan Akroyd, Harold Ramis and Rick Moranis with support from Sigourney Weaver and Ernie Hudson. I don't think its even remotely possible at this point in time.

lotjx
March 3rd, 2016, 12:23 PM
And Jesus Wept...

Donald
March 3rd, 2016, 12:25 PM
Gotta see Hellraiser now.