Ghostbusters 3

1
[youtube][/youtube]
“I’ve always thought of myself as the first Ghostbusters fan, when I was a 6-year-old visiting the set. I wanted to make a movie for all the other fans,” Reitman told EW. “This is the next chapter in the original franchise. It is not a reboot. What happened in the ‘80s happened in the ‘80s, and this is set in the present day.”

Rather than be a reboot like the unjustly maligned 2016 female-driven film, Reitman’s movie is said to be a direct sequel to Ghostbusters 2. “I’ve always thought of myself as the first Ghostbusters fan, when I was a 6-year-old visiting the set. I wanted to make a movie for all the other fans,” he said. “This is the next chapter in the original franchise. It is not a reboot. What happened in the ‘80s happened in the ‘80s, and this is set in the present day.”

Re: Ghostbusters 3

4
The 2016 film was the unfunniest, least creative film I think I've ever seen given the "talent" behind the production. Absolute trash. I guess this could be fun, but I'd rather they just let the franchise go completely at this point.

Re: Ghostbusters 3

5
_Marcus_ wrote:The 2016 film was the unfunniest, least creative film I think I've ever seen given the "talent" behind the production. Absolute trash. I guess this could be fun, but I'd rather they just let the franchise go completely at this point.
They probably should have done that after the first film. Even the second one didn't really measure up. Fully agreed about the 2016 film. They might as well just filmed someone pissing on a copy of the original film and it would have had the same impact. And saved Sony a lot of money.
Just cut them up like regular chickens

Re: Ghostbusters 3

6
darkness wrote:
_Marcus_ wrote:The 2016 film was the unfunniest, least creative film I think I've ever seen given the "talent" behind the production. Absolute trash. I guess this could be fun, but I'd rather they just let the franchise go completely at this point.
They probably should have done that after the first film. Even the second one didn't really measure up. Fully agreed about the 2016 film. They might as well just filmed someone pissing on a copy of the original film and it would have had the same impact. And saved Sony a lot of money.
Yeah, GB2 wasn't up to the same level as the first but I still thought it had charm. Something GB 2016 was sorely lacking, amongst a thousand other things.

Man, that film pisses me off every time I think about it.

Re: Ghostbusters 3

7
even though the youtube title has "bill murray" in it, i haven't seen anything officially attaching him to it. i figured it was clickbait.

i liked GB2. not as much as the original, but i liked it. except the kumbaya message and ending. but like has been said, it had a certain charm.

2016 GB, well as i've continually said, leslie jones ruins everything she touches. she is one of the most unfunny human beings ever yet people somehow continue to give her work. it's inexplicable. the film isn't solely her fault of course, but her character represented everything that was wrong with it. and man does melissa mccarthy know how to wear out a welcome. she makes what, ten movies a year? i loved her when she first started getting known. she was great in, say, bridesmaids. but holy shit take a vacation.

anyway, we talked the other GB3 into the ground over here: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=4479

this, who knows? we'll see what the actual plot is.

Re: Ghostbusters 3

9
comicbook.com wrote:'Ghostbusters': Ernie Hudson Claims "Everybody Is in" for Sequel
Since news broke earlier this week that a new Ghostbusters film would be coming that is set in the universe of the first two films, fans have been wondering if any of the original cast would return to reprise their roles. Star Ernie Hudson recently noted that, with original director Ivan Reitman on board as a producer, he and the other original stars are in for whatever the film might have planned.

"Ivan Reitman is there and everybody is in. Now whether the studio will do it, I'm the guy who sits by the phone and waits for the call," Hudson shared with the Daily Mail. "So if they call, I'll answer. If not, I've got other stuff that I'm doing."

The new film will be directed by Jason Reitman, son of Ivan, who also co-wrote the script with Gil Kenan. Other than being set in the original universe, it's unclear if the film will focus on the familiar characters or merely take place in a universe where the events of those films took place.

Sadly, one original member of the team who won't be in the film is Harold Ramis, who passed away in 2014.

"We miss Harold, because Harold was really the glue that I think held everybody together,' Hudson shared. "He was always my go-to point and anything that was a little bit weird, or whatever, Harold was the guy who would sort of say, 'Ernie, just…' and explain the world to me. And I miss him, but his spirit is there."

In 2016, a reboot of the series debuted starring Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, Kate McKinnon, and Leslie Jones. While has its merits, its box office and critical reception weren't as strong as expected, seemingly killing off all plans of that universe of films to continue. Hudson had a cameo in that film, as did original stars Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd. Additionally, Ramis was featured as a bronze bust in the background of a scene.

"Well I love the ladies who were a part of that movie. I'm a fan of all theirs. I think they did a wonderful job. I don't quite think it was… there's a vibe or feeling that Ghostbusters has; it was a little bit different," the actor shared. "It was uniquely theirs, which I guess it should have been, but I wanted to see something sort of extended from... This was a reboot. I would like to have seen a movie that takes place 30 years into the future, which is where we are. So I loved it, I think they did a wonderful job, I enjoyed the movie, but I'd like to see us bring the real Ghostbusters, whatever that means."

More than merely appearing in a film out of obligation, Hudson also implied he would be excited to revisit his character to depict how he's changed over the years.

"We've grown, we've learned and a lot of really new young talent that I'm sure they'd bring in to it," Hudson noted. "So it would be a lot of fun. I think it would only deepen. And we'll miss Harold."

The new Ghostbusters is slated to hit theaters in summer 2020.
Oh yeah, and fuck that 2016 film.
Just cut them up like regular chickens

Re: Ghostbusters 3

12
I have... issues with this trailer.

- Hey, let's make sure it's as un-funny as possible, 'k?
- How has the kids NEVER HEARD OF ANYTHING THAT HAPPENED IN THE FIRST TWO FILMS?
- Finn Wolfhards face is way too punchable.
- That "fate, luck, carma"-bit from the first film is not mean to be inspiring - IT'S A JOKE. Ffs.

Re: Ghostbusters 3

14
_Marcus_ wrote:I have... issues with this trailer.

- Hey, let's make sure it's as un-funny as possible, 'k?
- How has the kids NEVER HEARD OF ANYTHING THAT HAPPENED IN THE FIRST TWO FILMS?
- Finn Wolfhards face is way too punchable.
- That "fate, luck, carma"-bit from the first film is not mean to be inspiring - IT'S A JOKE. Ffs.
All of this except the kids one. Hell, there are kids today who couldn't even tell you what happened on 9/11, and that was even more recent. My bigger issue is that there are kids period. I was able to enjoy the original Ghostbusters as a kid (even if I didn't get all the jokes at the time) but the film didn't pander down to me. Which is what it looks like they're doing by including a bunch of kids in this. And yeah, where's the humor? Actually this looks like someone has been watching too much Stranger Things and thought, "Hey, let's do that but with ghosts!" I hope this doesn't suck, but this trailer doesn't inspire confidence. Honestly even Ghostbusters 2 was kind of weak. They really should have stopped at one film and called it a day.
Just cut them up like regular chickens

Re: Ghostbusters 3

18
Saw this one yesterday with the family, and that was the best way to watch it. It's basically a love letter to the first film, with many, many nods to the original and cameos, of course. Before the credits they put "For Harold" on the screen, and that pretty much sums it up. It was definitely enjoyable, just don't expect too much. It's basically what Force Awakens was: a reset that cribbed a lot of the script from the original and made you feel good about the franchise again. I did like the new cast members, and they set it up for a potential sequel at the end, so if they move forward I hope it's better than The Last Jedi.

Re: Ghostbusters 3

19
being that TLJ was either the best or second-best sequel (depending on the day) in the SW saga, that's a high target. i'd be happy with "not fuck it up like the knee-jerk Rise Of Skywalker". and if by "feel good about the franchise again" means "ignore whatever the fuck that 2016 abomination was", i'm on board. i liked GB2 a good amount, despite its flaws. i'm not rushing to the theater to see this, but anxious to check it out when it hits streaming. if it's, like you say, essentially remaking the first one in modern times (ala TFA), it should be good. glad you enjoyed it.

Re: Ghostbusters 3

20
Haha, I thought my TLJ jab might provoke a response from you, TC. ;)

This movie completely ignores the "reboot" or whatever that was (not a fan of that one except that Chris Hemsworth was surprisingly funny in it) and doesn't even refer to the 2nd film (which I agree has its moments). It's fun how they incorporate the lore of the first movie into this new one via Youtube clips of the events, etc.

The long beat before the obvious "who you gonna call?" line elicited groans and laughs in the theater.