New Ghostbusters movie is coming, 2019

[Wildcat]

As far as I saw the only “catch” was that Bill Murray could only refuse 1 more time, I think, and his rights would either be given up or they could just go on without him. I don’t think they were actually going to sue him. That’s ridiculous.

Unless someone links me directly to an email or article specifically stating or implying that. I’ve tried to keep up with every single update over the years.

Anyway I really hate when Ghostbusters get brought up now. It’s just fuel for people to continue to hate on the reboot, which was just ok at worst, and argue over how the franchise should or shouldn’t go on.

I’ve seriously read and been in multiple discussions since like 2006. Some are fine and just want a proper passing-of-the-torch style movie (which is what I wanted) and of course there’s always the hardcore naysayers just shooting down every idea.

It’s one of the worst fanbases around. Regardless of the 2016 movie. Bill Murray is partially to blame because the more time passed the more stubborn and critical certain fans grew and started taking sides.

Ghostbusters should have had at least 5 movies by now and grown to the level of other sci-fi franchises.

[TigerClaw]

The only way to do Ghostbusters 3. Is if they introduce a new generation. Have the original Ghosbusters who are alive show up to pass the torch. And then move on from there.

That's what I'm hearing about in regards to the script for GB3. They want Oscar. The baby from GB2 all grown up and taking over the Ghostbusters.

[Panda_Kahn_fan]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Wait, how has he lost his veto? Did that just apply to a third movie -- any movie -- which ended up being Feigbusters?



I'm assuming you're talking about Bill now.



Murray never outright shot down the possibility of him doing GB3. I think at a certain point he got sick of being asked about it. He always entertained all of Aykroyd's scripts... he just never signed onto any of them. I don't discount the possibility of all of the Aykroyd scripts being bad, but I doubt Bill was particularly helpful about things either in trying to help steer him in the right direction.





Very true. And it can't be coincidence that Bill's grudging agreement to cameo in FeigBusters amounted to just him entering the scene, immediately sitting in a chair for the duration of the scene and then quickly dying.

We don't really know where Bill's head is at after the Feig movie and it's failure. Maybe he even feels a little bit responsible for that, in a roundabout way. Would there be enough to counteract everything in the past enough to do one more movie in the hope of redeeming things/turning things around, and now even the loss of Ramis? I dunno. I hope so, but I dunno.

After Harold Ramis's death, Amy Pascal and Sony got the remaining ghost busters actors and Ivan Riteman to each sign over their creative control/stake to the franchise in exchange for large payouts (and Riteman becoming the head of ghost corps.) so they could move ahead with thier plans with a GB movie franchise/universe. If they wanted to do a GB3 without Murray, he is now powerless to stop them.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by TigerClaw

That's what I'm hearing about in regards to the script for GB3. They want Oscar. The baby from GB2 all grown up and taking over the Ghostbusters.

Meaningless. There's been like 4 scripts that've involved Oscar.

[Leo656]

To paraphrase Marsellus Wallace... the Ghostbusters reboot was "Pretty F*CKING far from 'Okay'."

It's not even a good movie if you completely ignore the original films.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Leo656

To paraphrase Marsellus Wallace... the Ghostbusters reboot was "Pretty F*CKING far from 'Okay'."

It's not even a good movie if you completely ignore the original films.

Are you writing that from your parents' basement? You misogynistic man-child!

[Leo656]

From work, as it's a relatively slow day. But also why I cut that reply short.

It's legit one of the all-time worst movies I've ever seen. Biting off the name of a successful and popular movie is about the only "positive" it has. It's marketed as a "comedy", but it is PAINFULLY not funny. Visually, it's terrible. The colors are needlessly over-saturated to the point where it literally bleeds color; between that and the terrible CGI, the thing could pass as a Scooby-Doo cartoon better than it could anything else. And the entire cast was f*cking dreadful. Part of it could easily be blamed on the writing - which was atrocious - but some of these people are actors who I'm not familiar with; after seeing this film, I can safely say I NEVER want to watch any of them in anything again, ever. Even Chris Hemsworth; liked him enough as Thor, but my goodwill for him completely dried up after seeing this sh*t.

Luckily, these people seemingly go out of their way to make movies I'd rather die than sit through, so I probably don't have to worry about much.

There's SO much bad about it, separate from how it ruined the Ghostbusters franchise. Even ASIDE from that it's a horrible, stupid, pointless movie that isn't funny, looks like sh*t, and actively grates on the nerves of any normal person. The fact that it ALSO ruins Ghostbusters is just a bonus.

The only people I've met in real life who had anything positive to say were generally of the man-hating/"Grrl Power" persuasion, and they wouldn't care at all about the movie's quality so long as it pushed the "correct" social agenda.

Like the BayTurtles movies, it's undeniably a piece of sh*t with no redeeming value, EXCEPT to those who love their Brand Name Stickers so much that they'll accept anything. But it's definitely not "okay". Nothing about it is okay. Remove "Ghostbusters" from the equation and it's STILL a sh*t movie; the logo is the only thing that gives it a .0001% value so as not to be completely worthless altogether.

[Autbot_Benz]

Akroyd blames Feig for the 2016 movie for failing because he didn't listen to budget cuts

https://comicbook.com/movies/2018/11...etting-sequel/

"I was mad at him because he cost too much," explains Aykroyd. While the actor was hesitant to "slag a fellow artist," he ultimately said that things might have gone down differently if "it cost a little less". According to Aykroyd, Feig did not listen to budget suggestions, which was ultimately the movie's undoing.

[Leo656]

That's a super-old quote already. Also, nonsense.

If anything, the CGI may have been cut down to "acceptable" levels if they shot it with less money. If every single other thing was the same, it would still be terrible.

"Cost too much money" wasn't the problem. That shouldn't be the conversation. "Conceived in sin," "Made for all the wrong reasons", "Openly hostile towards pre-existing fans", "Slapped together without any competence or care"... those are the things they should be talking about.

There are lots of reasons this thing was in the $5 bin at Target less than a year after it came out; "They spent too much" was NOT one of those reasons.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by TigerClaw

The only way to do Ghostbusters 3. Is if they introduce a new generation. Have the original Ghosbusters who are alive show up to pass the torch. And then move on from there.

That's what I'm hearing about in regards to the script for GB3. They want Oscar. The baby from GB2 all grown up and taking over the Ghostbusters.

I don't really agree with the "GB3 needs to pass the torch!" crowd. I mean, it CAN, but does it need to? No matter how it ends up I'm sure we'll see younger comedic actors as supporting cast... but an actual torch passing? Why can't it be Ghostbusters' "Logan," or at least their version of "Grumpy Old Men"? These things can and have worked.

[Xav]

Originally Posted by Leo656

:There's SO much bad about it, separate from how it ruined the Ghostbusters franchise. Even ASIDE from that it's a horrible, stupid, pointless movie that isn't funny, looks like sh*t, and actively grates on the nerves of any normal person. The fact that it ALSO ruins Ghostbusters is just a bonus.

I dunno but I don't see how the franchise is ruined after one bad movie. It's not like the other films don't exist.

[Wildcat]

Originally Posted by Leo656

From work, as it's a relatively slow day. But also why I cut that reply short.

It's legit one of the all-time worst movies I've ever seen. Biting off the name of a successful and popular movie is about the only "positive" it has. It's marketed as a "comedy", but it is PAINFULLY not funny. Visually, it's terrible. The colors are needlessly over-saturated to the point where it literally bleeds color; between that and the terrible CGI, the thing could pass as a Scooby-Doo cartoon better than it could anything else. And the entire cast was f*cking dreadful. Part of it could easily be blamed on the writing - which was atrocious - but some of these people are actors who I'm not familiar with; after seeing this film, I can safely say I NEVER want to watch any of them in anything again, ever. Even Chris Hemsworth; liked him enough as Thor, but my goodwill for him completely dried up after seeing this sh*t.

Luckily, these people seemingly go out of their way to make movies I'd rather die than sit through, so I probably don't have to worry about much.

There's SO much bad about it, separate from how it ruined the Ghostbusters franchise. Even ASIDE from that it's a horrible, stupid, pointless movie that isn't funny, looks like sh*t, and actively grates on the nerves of any normal person. The fact that it ALSO ruins Ghostbusters is just a bonus.

The only people I've met in real life who had anything positive to say were generally of the man-hating/"Grrl Power" persuasion, and they wouldn't care at all about the movie's quality so long as it pushed the "correct" social agenda.

Like the BayTurtles movies, it's undeniably a piece of sh*t with no redeeming value, EXCEPT to those who love their Brand Name Stickers so much that they'll accept anything. But it's definitely not "okay". Nothing about it is okay. Remove "Ghostbusters" from the equation and it's STILL a sh*t movie; the logo is the only thing that gives it a .0001% value so as not to be completely worthless altogether.

Sorry but that’s just extreme hyperbole. No movie is that awful. At least not mainstream movies.

I’ve actually seen some pretty fair criticism though. Some things I agree on. The humor is hit or miss. There’s too much improv moments. I know the original had some (don’t know how much) but you couldn’t tell so it seemed natural.

The plot is very generic. Although the original was kinda too I guess. It’s just disappointing that all 3 movies have had basically the same storyline.

Again the biggest thing it was so easy to make some continuation but Fieg insisted doing a reboot when the studio was going to let him do a sequel. Given the history of a third movie connecting them would have taken very little effort and would have meant more.

On its own I’d say the 2016 movie is a decent action/ghost movie. As part of the overall franchise it feels held back. I like it but I’m not satisfied.

No movie, or even 2, ruins a franchise. That would mean fans just stop liking whatever it is altogether, originals and all. That’s impossible.

[LeotheLateBloomer]

Originally Posted by Leo656

From work, as it's a relatively slow day. But also why I cut that reply short.

It's legit one of the all-time worst movies I've ever seen. Biting off the name of a successful and popular movie is about the only "positive" it has. It's marketed as a "comedy", but it is PAINFULLY not funny. Visually, it's terrible. The colors are needlessly over-saturated to the point where it literally bleeds color; between that and the terrible CGI, the thing could pass as a Scooby-Doo cartoon better than it could anything else. And the entire cast was f*cking dreadful. Part of it could easily be blamed on the writing - which was atrocious - but some of these people are actors who I'm not familiar with; after seeing this film, I can safely say I NEVER want to watch any of them in anything again, ever. Even Chris Hemsworth; liked him enough as Thor, but my goodwill for him completely dried up after seeing this sh*t.

Luckily, these people seemingly go out of their way to make movies I'd rather die than sit through, so I probably don't have to worry about much.

There's SO much bad about it, separate from how it ruined the Ghostbusters franchise. Even ASIDE from that it's a horrible, stupid, pointless movie that isn't funny, looks like sh*t, and actively grates on the nerves of any normal person. The fact that it ALSO ruins Ghostbusters is just a bonus.

The only people I've met in real life who had anything positive to say were generally of the man-hating/"Grrl Power" persuasion, and they wouldn't care at all about the movie's quality so long as it pushed the "correct" social agenda.

Like the BayTurtles movies, it's undeniably a piece of sh*t with no redeeming value, EXCEPT to those who love their Brand Name Stickers so much that they'll accept anything. But it's definitely not "okay". Nothing about it is okay. Remove "Ghostbusters" from the equation and it's STILL a sh*t movie; the logo is the only thing that gives it a .0001% value so as not to be completely worthless altogether.

My thoughts exact! To call the latest GB film "okay" is an understatement.

[Leo656]

Originally Posted by Xav

I dunno but I don't see how the franchise is ruined after one bad movie. It's not like the other films don't exist.

They're gonna have a MUCH harder time making anyone care going forward.

They can only re-release those movies in new collector's cases so many times. The reboot effectively killed off any goodwill for future projects. Nobody trusts the brand-holders anymore, nor should they.

No, the two good films aren't going anywhere, but they really need to keep developing new stuff if they want to maintain relevance. And they blew it.

[Vegita-San]

exactly. these movies ruin the good will of the originals, with attack on the fans, and all the other crap that comes with it.

it took me a long time before i could appreciate ghostbusters again,because i followed all the trashy stuff coming out of the new reboot too closely.

the good movies may be there, but your good will to them can be destroyed.

[TigerClaw]

Originally Posted by Leo656

They're gonna have a MUCH harder time making anyone care going forward.

They can only re-release those movies in new collector's cases so many times. The reboot effectively killed off any goodwill for future projects. Nobody trusts the brand-holders anymore, nor should they.

No, the two good films aren't going anywhere, but they really need to keep developing new stuff if they want to maintain relevance. And they blew it.

they recently launched a new mobile game called Ghostbusters World. Its like Pokemon Go. But you catch Ghosts.

[LeotheLateBloomer]

Originally Posted by TigerClaw

they recently launched a new mobile game called Ghostbusters World. Its like Pokemon Go. But you catch Ghosts.

I'm not sure that's really relevant to what he's saying.

[Coola Yagami]

Originally Posted by LeotheLateBloomer

I'm not sure that's really relevant to what he's saying.

I guess he means the GB franchise is still trickling along.

[Leo656]

I was gonna say, "Wake me up when that's a thing more than a few people know or care about."

It's like whenever I gripe about everything TMNT-related being lousy right now, and how bad that is for the long-term health of the brand, and people try and talk about the comics, and I'm like, "Dude, I've been a hardcore comic book guy for long enough to know that nobody but me and ten other people still read comic books."

For any brand to not just survive, but thrive, the MAIN stuff that people actually SEE has to be good; not just the peripheral stuff that only caters to the hardest of hardcores.

They can print comics nobody reads, and make mobile games that everyone forgets about in a week, and they can be solid gold and it won't make any difference. People only care about movies and TV; if your brand has a sh*tty presence in movies and TV, then your brand sucks.

They could have tried to market towards both the aging original fans and their kids; for some reason, they bet the entire farm on the "Angry Militant Feminists Living On Fanboy Tears" demographic, and apparently they don't care about Ghostbusters, because the movie didn't make any money.

It's whatever. By this point, so many things I liked as a child have gotten horrible reboots, I really don't want them to bring ANY of it back.

"Sometimes, dead is better." Apropos.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Leo656

It's whatever. By this point, so many things I liked as a child have gotten horrible reboots, I really don't want them to bring ANY of it back.

"Sometimes, dead is better."

It's been a rough couple of years and the tally keeps going up. RIP to Star Wars, Star Trek, most of the DCEU, Alien, Predator, Independence Day.

We really need a win, at this point.