New Ghostbusters movie in OG movie universe Jason Reitman directing 2020

[Wildcat]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I think losing the co-creator and primary creative force is a pretty significant mark against this being a "true" Ghostbusters 3. Let's be honest, it's not like they lost the sound tech or a key grip.

I know Aykroyd always had a ton of creative input as well over the years, but have you actually seen his original unfiltered ideas for the first movie? Just awful. I lay a ton of what Ghostbusters ultimately became on Ramis, and to a lesser extent Reitman, filtering out Dan's goofball and completely impossible ideas and turning them into something workable.

To imply that losing Ramis was some kind of minor speed bump and that this one is "just as good" as a real Ghostbusters 3 is pretty nuts.

I feel bad that Harold Ramis was not able to be part of this. I really do. Even seeing the aged toys seem weird without him.

Still even if he were alive or this was made a long time ago we don’t know how much focus they would have gotten. Every previous idea talks about a new team and passing the torch.

If it was not for Bill Murray maybe Peter would have been written out and we still would only get 3 returning. We just don’t know.

I understand Ramis was a big part of but they’re not just loosely connected to the old ones. In my opinion I think he would approve of it. Not to have one die but the general idea of family reviving their business.

[Andrew NDB]

Doesn't really seem very black and white to me at all, because the history of "Ghostbusters 3" (emphasis on the quote marks, and no, I don't lump GB16 into this history) has been pretty sordid.

Since about the late 90s Ghostbusters 3 had crazy script after crazy script penned by hilariously looney guy Dan Aykroyd. Who is also brilliant in many ways. But whether we're talking about his original idea for the 1984 movie or any of his many scripts for GB3... none of these were really filmable. Crazy wacky stuff over "heart" and true airtight screenwriting, largely consisting of his own strange paranormal fantasy wish fulfillment. Bill Murray is often pointed to as the guy just sitting around lazily striking down scripts denying fans a proper GB3 until Ramis dropped dead, which due to the nature of Bill's legal role surrounding Ghostbusters at large really DID stop things at many points. But it wasn't not for good reason, ever, I wager. And you can read some of Aykroyd's writings of GB3 around the internet (they're not even hard to find)... and yikes.



Murray with Stern, about 10 years ago. Skip to about 4:30 there.

Murray has always been polite towards Aykroyd in this way, and would never just come out and say, "Naw, this is sh**. I'm not doing this because this is sh**, that he wrote." But that's the always been the unspoken reason why. I remember reading tons of stuff about Bill over the years allegedly refusing to read Aykroyd's scripts, even fake articles saying he sent them back to him after running them through a paper shredder... but I don't think any of this true. And if you listen to Bill in that Youtube clip, you'll hear a little bit of his take on that. I believe he DID read them. All of them. Probably right away, every time he'd get one. Because Aykroyd is his good friend and always has been. It's much easier for him to tell the press "Naw, I haven't gotten around to reading Danny's latest GB3 script (even though I've been simultaneously reading other scripts from brand new writer/directors who are in their 20s and I've been out actually filming their movies)" than saying, "Yeah, I read it... and the reason I'm not doing it is because his script is bad." So instead, for about 20 years we've gotten a mix of "just haven't been reading these scripts" and "man, Ghostbusters 2 just didn't turn out the way I thought it would... and we can't have that again" from him. It's just him being diplomatic and polite to Aykroyd and its always been that.

So fast forward many years, a failed reboot, a very dead Harold Ramis, and finally a script for GB3 that isn't terrible. And Murray signs on for it.

So is "Ghostbusters: Afterlife" truly GB3? No, not really, not in the terms or shape that fans would have been expecting it to be in the years since GB2. Though I wouldn't have to think too hard to drum up plenty of examples of movie franchises with sequels where the sequels suddenly focus on new characters with maybe only a few of the old characters -- or none at all -- and these are still considered very legitimate numbered sequels. So there is absolutely a sound argument for why it IS GB3, or could be considered such. But it's absolutely the very best GB3 we could expect at THIS point in time... or really any other previous, given the factors I've mentioned.

[Wildcat]

I think I heard that interview before but I listened to it again.

Maybe he did not like Dan Aykroyd’s writing but I don’t think that’s the reason he kept refusing. If it was part of it. From what I’ve read none of the potential GB3 stories were very wacky or outrageous. They were in line with the first 2.

My point is like you said many sequels with various levels of continuity have been made and with different writers/directors and nobody (generally speaking) refutes them as “true”.

Terminator:RotM was widely accepted as T3 even though James Cameron was not involved. Even Dark Fate was not suddenly considered a “True T3” just because he returned and worked on it.

Jurassic World is JP4 but nobody claims it’s not a “True JP” because it has a new cast or anything else.

Some are only saying this about GB because of its history and a main character passed away.

The huge hiatus and constantly hearing its supposedly in development created a build up in everyone’s mind about what a GB3 was supposed to be.

Again I understand we wanted the 4 original members together again but a new team was always in the plans. Especially after the 90s.

[drgon78]

Last I remember Murray had a falling out with Ramis because of Groundhog's Day and that had more to do with Murry not wanting to have anything to do with GB3 or at least the main reason anyway.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

Maybe he did not like Dan Aykroyd’s writing but I don’t think that’s the reason he kept refusing. If it was part of it. From what I’ve read none of the potential GB3 stories were very wacky or outrageous. They were in line with the first 2.

Try reading one of them. Also, "the first 2"? Murray hated 2, more than most of even its biggest haters.

[Leo656]

Here's a fun little Easter egg; apparently the Bug-Eye Ghost from the old Real Ghostbusters toyline is in the movie.



That's pretty funny.

[Coola Yagami]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Here's a fun little Easter egg; apparently the Bug-Eye Ghost from the old Real Ghostbusters toyline is in the movie.

https://ghostbustersnews.com/wp-cont..._eye_ghost.jpg

That's pretty funny.

That was thrown in there for any Retro Rockers in the audience.

[Leo656]

I actually missed it until someone on the He-Man forum pointed it out.

[Vegita-San]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Try reading one of them. Also, "the first 2"? Murray hated 2, more than most of even its biggest haters.

has anyone found out what the 'original' idea for 2 was before they 'switched it' on him?

[IMJ]

I'm getting really excited about this one, but wondering why we didn't see a pair of Ernie Hudson hands in that "Did you miss us" trailer moment as well. Love Ernie Hudson - sure as hell hope he is back too.

More and more I'm thinking though that this is going to be like 99% the new kids movie with a total screen time of the OG Ghostbusters down to maybe like 3.5 minutes.

[Leo656]

I think it'll be more like, ten minutes, tops. Seeing them together in uniform, maybe half that. But I highly doubt it'll be as much as most people probably hope.

And Winston's definitely in it, he has a new "old man" action figure in the Plasma series:


The description says: "WINSTON ZEDDEMORE: Executive offices are a long way from the firehouse, but you can still always count on Winston!"

[Wildcat]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Try reading one of them. Also, "the first 2"? Murray hated 2, more than most of even its biggest haters.

Ya he hated part 2 I just meant they did not undo anything.

Other than Dan’s original version what did he write that was too wacky? All the following concepts were straightforward ideas.

I read some early draft summaries for GB2 and I don’t remember them being drastically different unless I missed something.
————

The eye ghost also comes with one of the new figures and Ernie Hudson can be seen in the trailer on the edge of the shot. I’m sure it was just because it’s a quick teaser. Not that they purposely cropped him out.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by IMJ

I'm wondering if Ray and Peter only show up at literally the very, very end of the movie

I'm thinking they're going to be consigned to like a B plot. But this is a GOOD thing, as they will actually get one. The A plot is the kids settling into creepy Egon place and eventually Egon's granddaughter calls Ray after they see their first spooky stuff. This sets in motion the B plot, which probably hits about a third into the movie. Which is Ray (post-phone call) going around rustling up all the old Ghostbusters. Lots of "Yeah yeah, Ray... you're crazy, and that kid probably is, too, so we're not helping" type of stuff. With Ray continuing to prod them all. But several scenes of it sprinkled throughout. Probably the B plot ends kind of ambiguously negatively in the 2nd act, like "Aw, they're not coming" so there's this sense of defeat when the kids have to do what they have to do... then WHAM, the OG Ghostbusters all show up suited up at the final conflict at the end for the whole last bits, probably after the kids have already engaged the final Gozer situation a little bit and things are looking grim.

It's going to be the old "Han coming back to save the day with the Death Star after it seemed like he went away" thing, in a sense. For the 3rd act stuff. For sure.

[ZariusTwo]

Ackroyd, Hudson and Murray are on both Jimmy Fallon and Seth Myers tonight as guests

[Wildcat]

I couldn’t help but feel a little annoyed by Bill Murray. He still seems not that into it and he’s pretty much why this did not happen before with all 4 of them.

Also not that it needed anymore confirmation but I’m glad Dan Aykroyd clearly stated his idea was to do a classic comedy based on the real supernatural (what evidence and research there is anyway, I know it’s technically subjective).

I cannot stand when people act all movie buff-y online arguing it was never about the ghosts and calling it a dumb gimmick.

I’d like to see people tell this directly to Dan Aykroyd...”see your movie is not really about this idea you had”.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

I couldn’t help but feel a little annoyed by Bill Murray. He still seems not that into it and he’s pretty much why this did not happen before with all 4 of them.

Also not that it needed anymore confirmation but I’m glad Dan Aykroyd clearly stated his idea was to do a classic comedy based on the real supernatural (what evidence and research there is anyway, I know it’s technically subjective).

I cannot stand when people act all movie buff-y online arguing it was never about the ghosts and calling it a dumb gimmick.

I’d like to see people tell this directly to Dan Aykroyd...”see your movie is not really about this idea you had”.

So.... Bill Murray still saying he wasn't ever down with working with a crazy script... and crazy Aykroyd still talking about the crazy scripts that never saw the light of day. Welcome to the last 20 years of talk of "Ghostbusters 3." Nothing new at all to see here.

[Wildcat]

It wasn’t just GB3. Jimmy Fallon asked how he came up with the idea to begin with. The interview is on Youtube but I guess you watched it or will.

Normally I wouldn’t give Bill Murray’s joke or remark a second thought but given what we know and the history of a third movie he comes off sarcastic. Someone even mentions it in the comments.

Like...I did you guys a favor of reprising my role in this thing I was never really interested in doing again. Basically I did it for Jason Reitman. Enjoy.

After reading how he’s been difficult to work with in other movies I see him in a different light. Yet everyone treats him like...Oh you, Bill being Bill haha.

I just recently read what Richard Dreyfuss said about him during What About Bob?. I’ve always liked that movie but that was sad to see.

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by Leo656

Here's a fun little Easter egg; apparently the Bug-Eye Ghost from the old Real Ghostbusters toyline is in the movie.

https://ghostbustersnews.com/wp-cont..._eye_ghost.jpg

That's pretty funny.

OMG that's fantastic. I hope his eye shoots out too...

[IMJ]

Originally Posted by Wildcat

I couldn’t help but feel a little annoyed by Bill Murray. He still seems not that into it and he’s pretty much why this did not happen before with all 4 of them.

Also not that it needed anymore confirmation but I’m glad Dan Aykroyd clearly stated his idea was to do a classic comedy based on the real supernatural (what evidence and research there is anyway, I know it’s technically subjective).

I cannot stand when people act all movie buff-y online arguing it was never about the ghosts and calling it a dumb gimmick.

I’d like to see people tell this directly to Dan Aykroyd...”see your movie is not really about this idea you had”.

I think there are enough stories out there floating around in various contexts to determine that Bill Murray is probably quite the primadonna. There have probably been quite a few Murray-helmed projects that could've/should've happened but he held out for ego instead.

Guys like that will holdout even on projects they want to do because their "ego psychosis" is so dominating.

[Andrew NDB]

Murray was crying when they put on the suits:

https://uproxx.com/movies/bill-murra...rlife-emotion/