New Ghostbusters movie in OG movie universe Jason Reitman directing 2020

[Wildcat]

I still think the original characters are gonna have a bigger role than you think. Maybe not the focus but big enough. Like I mentioned about Rick Moranis in the first. Jason wouldn’t go through all this just to have them pass by.

I don’t know if the kids/teens thing was his idea or not. Even if he wasn’t the son of the original director I’d still put some faith in him for going back and making a proper 3rd movie. That takes effort. I don’t think he’s Sony’s “pawn”. He willingly/purposely took the position.

[Leo656]

What was he gonna do, say no? The last thing I read about him said that his career's basically on the rocks and he desperately needs a successful movie. A huge studio walks up and hands him a project that will definitely get him attention even if people don't universally love it. What would any of us do? There may be more than a little nepotism involved but I doubt he's an idiot.

Unfortunately, this puts him in the unenviable position of, if the movie does poorly, he may never get another shot at the Big Leagues. But I'm sure he's willing to take the risk. Again, what's he gonna do, say "No, thank you?" His phone wasn't ringing off the hook before, apparently.

As for what roles the originals will play, I'm just being realistic. The film won't be more than two hours, and probably less. Within that timeframe of 90-120 minutes, the movie will have to:

- Catch up Brand New Viewers as well as old school fans as to what's been going on in this universe for the last 30 years, both with the original cast as well as just in general
- In SOME way establish that this isn't the same universe as "Answer The Call", because people are generally that stupid and will need it spelled out for them
- Introduce FOUR (4) new "main characters" and establish how they fit into things
- Establish the New Characters' relationship with the original characters
- Evolve that relationship to a point where the originals can gracefully Exit Stage Left and comfortably leave the franchise in the hands of the newcomers from now on
- Wrap up ALL of the original characters' stories in a meaningful and memorable way, because let's face it, they're likely never coming back after this one
- Introduce something about each of the FOUR (4) new characters to make them compelling both individually and as a group, since whoever we get are who we're "stuck with" going forward, most likely
- Find SOME way to make a team of Ghostbusters who can't legally drive, and probably don't have pubes yet, seem like it's NOT just the absolute dumbest idea anyone's ever had for this franchise, and yes, that includes the "Give 'em all a vagina" idea from last time

That's a LOT of work to do, and we haven't even gotten to Plot; those are just boxes that the movie needs to check off so that it isn't a failure at executing its premise. And it's not Star Wars; they're NOT getting three hours and all the money in the world to pull it off. And even then, the new Star Wars movies have failed abysmally to create that balance between Old and New characters, to the point where anyone is either 1. Satisfied with how much we got to see of the older characters, 2. Satisfied with how their stories ultimately ended, or 3. More excited about the New Characters than the old ones. The entire POINT of the Prequel Trilogy was to do, essentially, what this movie aims to do, and even with THREE movies, an all-star cast, a warehouse full of 'Member Berries and all the money in the world in their arsenal, they STILL botched it horribly.

Sony ain't Disney, and this thing ain't no Star Wars. They've given themselves an incredibly difficult job to do, and I'm sorry, looking at the Big Picture I just don't think it can be done in an ultimately satisfying way. Within the restrictions of a two-hour film, I don't see THAT many characters sharing the screentime equitably. If they're gonna get the new cast over to the degree that is necessary, the originals will have to be bit players. That's math, that's physics, that's just plain common sense. Besides, they know that even if the originals are in it for all of 5 minutes, people will still go see it.

I'm just basing my expectations on what we actually know. I'm NOT expecting anything life-changing, or even ultimately satisfying. It might simply not be terrible, and we may have to just settle for that. Again, at this point, I could live with "Not Terrible"; I just wish that better than that was even realistic to hope for.

[Wildcat]

I thought Jason decided to do a ghostbusters movie on his own. Was it offered to him? From what he’s said it sounds like he changed his mind about following his dad’s work. I’m sure he needed to the studio’s permission to go ahead though.

I agree with all those bullet points but I don’t think it’s that hard to include them in 2 hours or so. Mostly typical stuff. Story and characters are usually well established midway through. I mean it’s not going to be a mystery movie.

If they get the age range they want at least 2 of the new members could legally drive. Plus I would not be surprised if Dan did come back for the movie after this as a manager/teacher type character. Someone who sticks around the firehouse.

I love the term member berries. I always think about it when something old is revived. Not because I’m against it. I just find it funny. South Park really created a catchphrase.

[Andrew NDB]

Mr. Stranger Things/It himself, Finn Wolfhard is in talks for a part. I kind of sensed they were going to go after him. Him or someone like him.

https://deadline.com/2019/03/carrie-...ny-1202568194/

Also the movie "will center on a single mom and her family."

[Leo656]

How can anyone deny that they're chasing a trend when they're going after the exact same kid from the stuff they're ripping off? Oy! Like I get it, but that's just as transparently desperate as when WB said, "Hey, let's just get the 'Avengers' guy for this." Maybe not "desperate" but they definitely put about two minutes worth of thought into that decision.

As one person pointed out on the comments, "ghosts haunt a single mom and her kids" was kind of already the plot of Part II. That's not really bad in and of itself, but it's not going to win over anyone who's main criticism of part II was, "It's like a repeat of Part I."

[Xav]

Ghostbusters: Melissa McCarthy Offers Her Support to Jason Reitman's Sequel

[Andrew NDB]

Interesting. Perhaps Finn Wolfard IS Egon's kid. That would be a neat nod to Egon in a movie that obviously can't have him... and if that's true, certainly he would look at the remaining O.G. Ghostbusters as basically 3 uncles.

https://www.aintitcool.com/casting-n...rs-2020-81838/

Pure speculation, though.

[Leo656]

So Egon off-screen banged some faceless, nameless character we'd never met or heard of, and NOW she and her kid are Super Important? Ehhhhh... that's asking one to accept a lot. It's also borrowing kind of a lot from the setup for "Creed".

I also can't get over the fact that some Sony executive simply looked at the picture of the Stranger Things kids dressed like Ghostbusters and immediately said "THERE'S our movie!" Because you know that's exactly the beginning and end of how it came together, and I find that extremely silly.

[Wildcat]

Well it’s been over 20 years so any of the original ghostbusters having had a kid with someone makes perfect sense. Were they supposed to stay single all this time?

The kid thing is trend. It just is. I’m not saying that’s bad. Plus a lot of 80s/90s movies had kids as the lead characters so I don’t see how it’s out of place here.

[Leo656]

Trends by definition are kind of bad. People who chase trends are worse. Also - and I keep having to say this - kids are TERRIBLE and ruin everything they're in.

I wouldn't expect any of them to have lived a life of celibacy, but it sure would have helped if they'd use an established character for this. I know GBII tried to force a Janine/Louis "ship", but nobody really bought that and everyone knows she and Egon were "meant to be". Why not just have Annie Potts be the single, bereaved widow and mother of Egon's kid(s)? OH, RIGHT, because she's "too old" by Hollywood standards. And that's a sh*tty reason Why Not.

Just about any decision can be justified if you try hard enough; that still doesn't make them GOOD choices. Give me an hour, and I'll convince you that TV sitcoms peaked with "The Monkees". That doesn't mean I'm right, it just means I'm persuasive, think fourth-dimensionally, and have too much time on my hands.

[Andrew NDB]

Kind of surprising they didn't just run with Oscar. It's setup by Ghostbusters 2. He'd be about 30 in 2019... right about the prime age of whatever comedic actor they want to cast that could pass as Sigourney's kid. And that'd seem like an organic growth from that movie.

[Leo656]

If you send them an email, they might consider it. Since they're kind of openly just making it all up as they go.

If someone told me that the people making this one hadn't seen GBII in years, if ever, AND totally forgot about Oscar entirely... I would believe it.

[Wildcat]

I know what you mean. Like you can explain anything if you give enough reasons.

Still I don’t think that makes it bad. If it fits it fits. Every story needs to be the sum of parts. If that makes sense. I mean to get to it’s point it needs to put something together.

[Leo656]

As I've said, speaking only for me... watching a bunch of kids run around making "Home Alone face" while Ray and Winston whine about being old and fat holds absolutely zero appeal for me, and pretty much nothing they can do is going to change that. No matter what they use to try and justify it, it's not going to make that premise appealing to me. If they pursue this course, I won't be paying to see it.

I really want to see a Ghostbusters movie in theaters one more time - especially the Last One Ever with what's left of the original cast - but I'm not going to just show up to see a movie I know I'll hate. "Answer The Call" had a terrible premise and terrible trailers, so I stayed home, and when I finally saw it, I was vindicated in my decision. So far, this "just" has a terrible premise... but I highly doubt they can win me over regardless. Yes, I'll look at the trailer when the time comes, but I really expect to be pretty pissed off. I've been pretty pissed off about every single thing that's come out aside from that teaser, which again, only tells us that they realize we like the Library Music and nothing about what the movie will be.

It is what it is. I gave up on ever getting a satisfying conclusion after Ramis died. That should have been the end of this franchise. But Sony execs are jackals, and people nowadays are Nostalgia Junkies high on 'Member berries, so here we are, despite the fact that continuing the franchise without its co-creator is an awful idea.

I loved Ghostbusters more than anyone, but it's dead. It died with Ramis. And I'm okay with that. I don't need them to zap the corpse with a few million volts every few years just so they can sell more action figures. It's in bad taste and nothing good can ultimately come of it. That's how I feel, and it's not going to change no matter what they do. Not with THIS sh*tty premise, at least.

"Yeah, but... we ripped off 'Stranger Things', and 'IT'! Isn't that good?" "No, dumbass, rip off 'Ghostbusters' and I might be interested."

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I loved Ghostbusters more than anyone, but it's dead. It died with Ramis.

Well, let's be clear. Any chance for any sort of true Ghostbusters 3 died with Ramis, absolutely. What there remains the chance for is some kind of continuance of that universe in the here and now, a new beginning with a kind of handshake with the old -- maybe a lasting one. And I think far, far more people want that than don't.

[Powder]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Well, let's be clear. Any chance for any sort of true Ghostbusters 3 died with Ramis, absolutely. What there remains the chance for is some kind of continuance of that universe in the here and now, a new beginning with a kind of handshake with the old -- maybe a lasting one. And I think far, far more people want that than don't.

Yeah, totally. I'm all for this kinda thing. A passing of the torch from the old guard, moving on to new stories/characters, sure, so long as it's done right, go for it. It's a fun property. The original cast are (were?) it's main appeal for me personally, but obviously the universe/themes are rich with potential, as evidenced by its various other iterations. While I could never really get into the cartoons & stuff, I'm still open minded towards other things.

[Wildcat]

Totally agree with Andrew and Powder. The property itself is full of possibility. It’s such a fun concept. That’s always been why I loved it.

And no I do not think creating something close to GB just for the sake of not using the brand would work. I’ve seen others suggest this. It’s silly and most likely would have felt like a ripoff.

Heck Sony paid Filmation for the name and offered to include thier cartoon in the the series. To make yet a third “Ghost Zapping” franchise just to retire GB is pointless when itself can just continue.

Regardless of Ramis passing, to let the franchise end forever is such a huge waste. Just because some can not accept new people becoming ghostbusters?

I know not everyone feels this way but it’s what I’ve come across most often with this fan base. In any fan base actually.

I think if there was a GB3 in the 90s more people would have been fine with a new team by now. Its weird but it’s like the huge amount of time helped turning more people into naysayers.

That would have happened anyway as with everything but it’s like it had a stronger affect on this franchise specifically for some reason.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Powder

Yeah, totally. I'm all for this kinda thing. A passing of the torch from the old guard, moving on to new stories/characters, sure, so long as it's done right, go for it. It's a fun property. The original cast are (were?) it's main appeal for me personally, but obviously the universe/themes are rich with potential, as evidenced by its various other iterations. While I could never really get into the cartoons & stuff, I'm still open minded towards other things.

And it's not like the old guard need to fade away into the shadows. Even if Murray only is down for the one, I'm pretty sure Aykroyd and Hudson will keep doing them until they're 90. They can transition into, like, the Alfreds of the franchise... occasionally still getting their hands dirty (albeit, less and less).

[Leo656]

I'm not sure it really is that wide-open of a premise. I really think the strength of the franchise was with the characters, if not the actors themselves. Obviously the Real Ghostbusters cartoon was very successful even without the original actors, but the characters themselves were pretty much the same, and they still resonate with people.

Outside of the Core 4, what exactly is so "special" about the premise, in that it can be "just as good" without the guys who made it? "Hey, look, a ghost! (ZAP) We win!" That's it. That's the story. That's every Ghostbusters story no matter who the cast is. Where are the "infinite possibilities"? Because the cartoons and comics explored this, and really, it just comes down to, "Sometimes, the ghosts are Somewhere Else, like maybe France, or something."

Some things only resonate because of who was involved in them. "Back to the Future" or "Bill & Ted" arguably have far greater "infinite possibilities" for storytelling than Ghostbusters does, BUT, if those movies had been made with ANY other actors, nobody would have cared and we wouldn't still be talking about them. And I think it's a great disservice to Dan, Ernie, Bill and Harold to suggest that we'd all still care as much about Ghostbusters, or that we WILL still care just as much, by simply plugging new characters into the same stock scenarios.

People love to rag on "Answer The Call" because the "Let's make 'em all chicks" gimmick was transparent and stupid, but you know what? Stick four dudes in the same script, and it's STILL a terrible, paint-by-numbers story. And it's hardly all their fault; there really aren't that many ways you can spin the same basic yarn about four goofballs coming together to catch ghosts.

I don't know, man. "Ghostbusters" was already a thing before 1984, and nobody cared. It took that group of people to MAKE people care. And even now, nobody cares about the Forrest Tucker/Larry Storch Ghostbusters, even though they were the originals, and nobody cares about the Filmation cartoon either. Nor do most people care about "EXTREME Ghostbusters", even though it was decent, and it already did what the franchise is now trying to do in live action. It was good enough to win awards, but does anyone actually still talk about it? Not really.

I think the concept itself is fun but it took Those Guys to make it really click. We've seen them "replaced" in other media already, and those versions don't resonate the same way with people. We'll see if that changes anytime soon.
-------------------------

I do agree Dan and Ernie will be clinging to whatever Ghostbusters projects come along, even if they're reduced to tiny cameos and bit parts. Let's face it, their phones aren't ringing otherwise. Nobody's cast either of them in anything but a bit part in 500 years. This franchise is literally all they have left, so of course they're going to stay involved to some degree.

[snake]

Leo, with all due respect, you're pretty uncreative if you can't see the possibilities the Ghostbusters world has in terms of worldbuilding and what kinds of stories you can tell. There's a lot of untapped potential that goes untapped because the outlets to tell those stories are so limited in scope and there simply isn't enough of them, especially now. Good writers attatched to a Ghostbusters TV show, comic, or book series could open up insane amounts of potential stories that differentiate from "It's a ghost! Zap! We win!".

And Bill and Ted is a huge wealth of amazing stories waiting to be written. God, I am so happy we're getting a third movie.