Harold Ramis and Ivan Reitman Talk Ghostbusters 3 Again
Just about every day there's a new quote from someone about Ghostbusters 3 - usually from one of the original four - Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis, Ernie Hudson - or the director of those first two movies, Ivan Reitman. Most of these quotes don't bring anything new to the table. Especially since we already know about as much as we will know until Sony wants to officially announce a director or a cast. But as far as we can tell, the script isn't even finished (or ready) anyway. But there are two good updates, one from Harold Ramis at Movieline, the other from Ivan Reitman at MTV, that I thought I'd feature today.
First up is this great quote from Ramis about how hard it will be for them moving forward with this sequel. He references two great modern day sequels (or reboots, per se) and really puts all of this into perspective.
"The problem with any sequel is that you're using the original as a template, and no one would be doing a sequel if the audience didn't love the original. It's good news and bad news: It's good marketing news, and bad news for the creators. How can we capture what people loved about the first movie without being the first movie, or just being a rehash of it? The Star Trek reinvention worked great because they able to project back in time. We're not going to tell an origin story of who the Ghostbusters were before you met them in the first movie. But I would hate to do Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull. It didn't seem like there was a lot new going on there — just more of the same and not as interesting."
Additionally, the only interesting things Reitman mentioned to MTV were about the writers of the new Ghostbusters 3 - Lee Eisenberg and Gene Stupnitsky. When asked if he was pitched, Reitman explains: "They had a pitch and Harold Ramis and I met with them. I kind of liked the idea and suggested some ways that it could improve further. My biggest problem is that it's taken them so long… We've frankly been delayed by almost a year from the moment that we met them until now." And as for the original pitch - it was about five new Ghobusters with a few women. "That was certainly in the outline they proposed. I don't know if that's the way the script will finally turn out. I would just take everything with a grain of salt."
So there you have it. That's the latest from the Ghostbusters 3 front and it's nothing really new. We're all waiting anxiously for Sony to announce a director or a cast or something else besides just rehashing quotes from Reitman and Ramis. Hopefully that wait isn't too much longer, because we're getting impatient!
I trust that Harold Ramis will deliver on this, besided I'm sure that he is just making Year One as a way to fund Ghostbusters to where he will have full control over the eventual outcome of yet another amazing Ghost Busters film.
xerxex on Jun 17, 2009
seth rogen for this and paul rudd and jason segal!!!! 🙂
zach on Jun 17, 2009
If they make this they should have to promise to keep the Rogen / Apatow crowd a million miles away from it.
Dave Lister, JMC on Jun 17, 2009
take your time as long as it turns out well. And i guess the recently released videogame will have to hold me over until a GB3 movie is made. p.s. the game is a really great fan service and fun! Very true to the source material.
Unit on Jun 17, 2009
Fuck Rogan and them. They have no fucking talent.
REAL6 on Jun 17, 2009
They act like people loved the second that's why they're making a third. No, this is JP all over. Like JP, a sequel sucked and they want to revive it. Never the less, I am curious what they will do.
w00t!!! on Jun 17, 2009
#1 i am doing a same opinion with you .Agreed .!
led panel on Jun 17, 2009
Yeah, I'm with w00t on this one. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one uninterested with this entire project. The first Ghostbusters was an 80s classic but the 2nd one didn't do much else. I think poor Dan Aykroyd got tired of promoting tequila, so he moved to wine only to realize that he now needs some cheese. Enter - Ghostbusters 3. Women cast... who cares. It seems to be the most prevalent thing they've got going. Oh yes, let's make G3 with full sex appeal. That will make it a better movie.
Dan the Fan on Jun 17, 2009
dan the fan, actually his latest venture is his new brand of vodka called Crystal Head Vodka, served in glass bottles shaped like skulls. But I liked the way your wine and cheese joke played out so thumbs up.
Chris H on Jun 17, 2009
Chris H, I can't tell you how amazed I am right now. I had to check out his vodka site, and it's definitely a thing to see. I don't know if I've ever felt so accosted by a website video before in my life. He really lays it on... Even still, good info all the same 😉 And thanks man, lol, I'm glad someone liked it.
Dan the Fan on Jun 17, 2009
STOP WITH THE NEW CAST!!!! The Ghostbusters are BILL MURRAY/DAN AYKROYD/HAROLD RAMIS AND ERNIE HUDSON!!!! That's the reason the previous films WORKED! What's the point of re-casting? You might as well call it 'GhostHunters 2000' because quite frankly, it isn't a Ghostbusters film without the original team in the lead roles. Would you make an Indiana Jones film without the character or actor? Suck my boomstick.
Marshmellow Mecha-Chuck Norris on Jun 18, 2009
I cant wait until the movie comes out.
Chico on Jun 18, 2009
If they can pull off a script as good as the one they penned for the video game, it would definitely be an amazing movie. They knew GB2 wasn't as big of a success as the original, so they played off the original for the game. I don't really like the idea of re-casting. Adding just ONE Ghostbuster worked well for the game, but if you add in too many, especially a bunch of women, it would feel too much like "Extreme Ghostbusters". The "badass chick" routine is too overplayed in Hollywood, and the "whiny girl" schtick wouldn't go over well for the Ghostbusters. Annie Potts does a good job of covering both roles anyway. Also, I am NOT a sexist.
Cody on Jun 18, 2009
All you need is Murray, Aykroyd, Ramis, Hudson, and for the female roles, Weaver, and potts and please, please find Rick Moranis. Dig under every rock, under every leaf and bring his ass back. I want to see Ghostbusters not sex appeal and I definetly don't want to see "The Whack Pack" of Rogen, Rudd, and Segal. If they have anything to do with this movie I will boycott it no matter how bad I want to see another Ghostbusters movie.
clippers350 on Jun 18, 2009
Tim "Cloverfield" on Jun 18, 2009
and #14.....Ditto Dawg!
Tim "Cloverfield" on Jun 18, 2009
I have to admit, I'm with the crowd who aren't looking for a 'passing the baton' film. Ghostbusters *is* the original team. All the fun of a third movie would be the fact that the Ghostbusters are clearly past their prime and but still find they have the chops to save the world. A new team isn't needed and not wanted if you ask me.
Chris on Jun 18, 2009
so we're talking about a release date of 2011. i suppose in keeping with the theme of previous films, we have to have the end-of-the-world premise. what better focus for that than a 2012 doomsday? all we need to know now is who's going to play oscar, and is he secretly peter's kid? i smell side-story!
Nameless on Jun 18, 2009
Akroyd,Murry,Ramis,Hudson,and Moranis,have to be in the movie in one way or another,brought out of retirement, training new recruits,something.And to keep up with all the Ghost hunter reality shows out there, it should have some edgy nightvision scenes.
max on Jun 18, 2009
The only two people that absolutely stay away from this are Rogen and Apatow... Also, I don't know if Jonah Hill would be a good idea either... I happen to like Paul Rudd and I don't put him in with that group. I really just hope this movie doesn't turn out to be absolute crap...
Danjer047 on Jun 18, 2009
Why do i have the feeling that this might be a "Hell Development" and what made me thing about that is what you said, Alex about the need to see something being done like casting people or picking a director instead of words from Reitman and Ramis.
Fisherr on Jun 18, 2009
it was about five new Ghobusters with a few women>>> Sounds like crap already. A team of Eight? How demeaning? The problem with a team of Eight versus four is power. When you say, "There are only four men who can save the world," ..already you've created heroes ,..when you say, "And only Eight Scientists can stop it.." It isn't as exciting. If 4 can do it, ..what's so surprising about 8 Ghostbusters saving the day? Of course there's a happy ending, because you have twice the man-power, morons!
Brandon on Aug 18, 2009
Sorry, new comments are no longer allowed.