Columbia Doesn't Want Ivan Reitman to Direct Ghostbusters 3

March 17, 2010
Source: Vulture

Ivan Reitman - Ghostbusters

Though very little is currently known about the plot of the forthcoming Ghostbusters 3, we do know that the original 'busters will be passing the torch to a new generation of younger 'busters. Apparently this is also how Sony would like to approach the directing side of the project as Vulture reports they don't want to bring back original series director Ivan Reitman to helm the new installment, but rather would like to bring on a younger director a la the same arrangement Sony made to bring on Marc Webb for the new Spider-Man franchise. However, this kind of move could put the possibility of this sequel into serious jeopardy. Read on!

The issue with Columbia's desire is Reitman's old contract, which was made in the golden days of his career, that still gives him creative control over the series, including director approval. That doesn't mean they'll necessarily be forced into making the movie with Reitman, but he can definitely stop them from making the movie altogether. And in case you don't remember, even more sway for Reitman comes from the fact that all three original principal Ghostbusters (Dan Aykroyd, Bill Murray, and Harold Ramis) have a deal that says that if any of the four of them don't like any element of a new Ghostbusters, they can singlehandedly veto it and subsequently kill the project.

Presumably, since Aykroyd and Ramis have been working with writers Lee Eisenberg and Gene Stupnitsky, they're in for the long haul, but if Reitman pitches a fit, I wouldn't be surprised if they decided to just let it go. And of course we all know how excited Bill Murray is about the project. However, if Murray, Aykroyd and Ramis are willing to pass the torch to a team of younger actors, then I sincerely hope Reitman has the foresight, and the hindsight really, to understand that he's not the director he used to be. Did you see My Super Ex-Girlfriend? No. Nobody did. Sony was hoping that a recent greenlight from Paramount for their comedy Friends with Benefits (formerly titled Fuckbuddies which was at #6 on the 2008 Black List) would keep the director busy, but he might be planning to take on both projects at different times. Nice try, guys.

Still, I'm on the fence with this. Reitman is one of the key figures responsible for making Ghostbusters great, but it just doesn't seem like he has the same spark anymore. Meanwhile, his son Jason Reitman is making waves at the box office. It wouldn't be a half-bad to have Ivan hand the reigns over to his son, but I'm not sure a Ghostbusters sequel is his bag. Hell it might not even be Ivan's bag, as he once said: "Ghostbusters II wasn't as much fun to make as the first one. In comedy, the element of surprise is everything. And I think once that element of surprise is gone, once people know there's going to be ghosts, there's going to be big ghosts, and they're expecting something big at the end, a lot of the tools that are at your disposal are gone."

Maybe it really is time to let someone else jump into the game with Ghostbusters and a whole bunch of new "tools." What do you guys think? Without Ivan Reitman, does Ghostbusters 3 have any hope?

Find more posts: Movie News, Opinions



I like the idea of Jason taking over. Could be a nice step forward for him into bigger material and i think he could do it very well.

movie mike on Mar 17, 2010


Starting to sound like a straight to DVD job.

Carl on Mar 17, 2010


Starting to sound like a straight to DVD job. Carl on Mar 17, 2010 It sounded like a straight to DVD job when the announcement of Venkman's death was leaked. That is when everything started to go DOWNhill.

I rarely use my real name online on Mar 17, 2010


Commenting on: Starting to sound like a straight to DVD job. / Carl on Mar 17, 2010 --------------------- It sounded like a straight to DVD job when the announcement of Venkman's death was leaked. That is when everything started to go DOWNhill Read more:

I rarely use my real name online on Mar 17, 2010


Dont think his son would touch this.

People's Champ on Mar 17, 2010


I'm cool with Columbia Pictures wanting a younger director. The second Ghostbusters was a really bad sequal.

last son on Mar 17, 2010


Jason > Ivan

ryderup on Mar 17, 2010


I am still (hesitantly) looking forward to this. Back when there were still rumors that it would be a remake, I had picked out who I wanted to play Winston: Craig Robinson from The Office. And even though it's a sequel and not a remake, I think he would still be great as one of the new Ghostbusters. I think Seth Rogen would be good too, but only if the rest of Apatow's crew stays far, far away. If Jonah Hill became a Ghostbuster, I'd probably have to stab someone. #3 Assuming it's true and not an elaborate trick... I too am bothered by the death of Venkman. But since it's reportedly the only way Bill Murray would return for the movie, that softens the blow somewhat. Bill Murray as a ghost is better than being informed by the other characters that he died years ago off-screen.

Craig on Mar 17, 2010


Sony doesn't want Ivan Reitman to direct Ghostbusters 3? Maybe WE don't want Ghostbusters 3! And anyone who truly wants to see a crappy sequel where a new bunch of hip, young Ghostbusters take over the reigns need to get their braincells examined. The original films work because of the CAST and CREW! Leave it alone. This so-called third installment (nicknamed, 3D, which it will be) has horribifuckus written all over it.

Soviet Russia on Mar 18, 2010


They should leave it to rest, The Ghostbusters game was a great installment and is easily my ghostbusters 3.

Tom Dearsley on Mar 18, 2010


Keep the original cast, I don`t want to see Lautner, Pattison and Zac efron Singing and dancing with the ghosts and Vanessa Hudgens as the love interest.

Loser on Mar 18, 2010


If they were to bring in a new director they should go with Todd Philips (The Hangover), or Edgar Wright (Hot Fuzz, the upcoming Scott Pilgrim vs. The World), or a very long shot J.J. Abrams (Star Trek).

The_Kid on Mar 18, 2010


Right right... cause the first one SUCKED right?! RIGHT?! Fucking idiots.

bozo on Mar 18, 2010


Such kill-clauses w/everyone involved kinda has some security for a quality project....or at least I'd like to think so

Voice of Reason on Mar 18, 2010


first spiderman now ghostbusters,sony is starting to fuck everything up now

Spider94 on Mar 18, 2010


dont matter who directs is going to fail and lose tons of $$$ that could have been better spent...thsi well has long ago run dry and a cast of has-beens simply wont make it off their names alone...I'll pass...

slopshoe smith on Mar 18, 2010


Jason style is differnt from his dads style. the studios need to pull their head out of thier asses and not try to find a hip new director. Its amazing they get anything done being such a bunch of D-bags

D on Mar 18, 2010


I liked my super ex girlfriend "expletive deletion"

Jimmy Love on Mar 18, 2010


losers, all of them. it's trash, trash.

Kalladin on Mar 18, 2010


"What do you guys think? Without Ivan Reitman, does Ghostbusters 3 have any hope?" Actually, the question applies to all those associated with the first "Ghostbusters" who are involved with "Ghostbusters 3". My answer, look at "Ghostbusters 2"; it stinks on ice, as are all sequels! While I'm here, there's a Ghostbusters-related item that has been an irritation since not too long after the release of "Ghostbusters": Why do people hate Winston Zeddemore? In everything--so far--that I've seen, read, and listened to, when anyone mentions Team Ghostbusters only three members of the team are acknowledged and named, none of them being Winston Zeddemore. The only kinda-sorta exception to this "rule" of which I'm aware, is the entry above posted by Craig: He likes Zeddemore, but wants to get rid of Ernie Hudson. As far as I'm concerned, the FOUR members of the original team are Venkman, Stantz, Spengler AND Zeddemore.

S. P. M. Man on Mar 19, 2010


The more I hear about this movie the less I want to see it. I still haven't forgotten how bad Ghostbusters 2 was...

that's gotta be some cockroach on Mar 19, 2010


The original Ghostbusters is one of the all-time classics of the 1980s; a terrific movie. But even as a fan, GB2 was disappointing back in 1989 -- it just didn't have the fun and magic of the first film (probably for some of the reasons mentioned quoted in the article).

you're more like a gameshow host on Mar 19, 2010


Some, of the gentlemen here are purposely being childish and silly How can you guys say that Ghostbusters and Ghostbusters II sucked. You, guys must have been away from the television for a long time. Ghostbusters 1 and 2 were both, epic films and the thought of Sony/Columbia Pictures not wanting Ivan Reitman back as director, for Ghostbusters III is wrong on all counts. He, made the film series what is today and replacing him with a new younger director is disrespectful and discriminating as if Ivan doesn't have rights and can't give GB fans what they want. Columbia needs to stop being so controlling and start doing what's right. They, already fired Sam, Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, Bryce Dallas Howard, J.k Simmons, Rosemary Harris and the rest of the cast and crew from Spiderman 4, 5 and 6 and will reboot the franchise for 2012. Please, Columbia don't embarrass the fans like that trying to get rid of Ivan Reitman originals alway's work no matter how old they get the talent in them is still strong.

Kevin on Mar 19, 2010


You also have to remember aside from the cast when you watch it your like how cheesy the effects were. We are now in the era of CGI and all kinds of special effects. I do think a younger cast will make a difference because they are tying to reach a younger generation. As fas as the director goes they can still keep him but more on a consultant aspect. I mean dont get me wrong I for one love the original cast but can you see actor which are in the sixties trying to keep up it wouldnt even be practicul.

Hector on Mar 20, 2010


Studio heads are idiots and they aren't even moguls anymore, just lawyers and investors. What a joke. I can't tell you how many younger directors, aka 'less expensive' directors I've had the mispleasure of working with. They waste time and money on a set, which ironically is what the studios hire them to save. I've even had to watch actors set up these idiot's shots because they don't know enough... I did have the pleasure of working with Reitman. The man has an amazing comedic instinct. Experience counts for a lot in film making. In spite of the 'over 40' writers winning a discrimination lawsuit, ageism is alive and well in Hollywood.

Hailey on Mar 28, 2010

New comments are no longer allowed on this post.



Subscribe to our feed -or- daily newsletter:
Follow Alex's main account on twitter:
For the latest posts only - follow this one:

Add our updates to your Feedly - click here

Get the latest posts sent in Telegram Telegram