Row Three » Who ya gonna call? - Where Cinema is more than just $100 Million productions

Who ya gonna call?

the sex symbol.

Mar

2009

Rumors about a third entry in the Ghostbusters franchise have been around for centuries. There was a time that rampant rumors suggested Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, and Max Schreck would be a part of the cast and later Chris Farley, Ben Stiller, and Chris Rock were supposedly signed on for a sequel and the rumored line-up has evolved quite a bit since. While original co-writer and co-star Harold Ramis says no other actors are on board yet, he did again talk about with MTV the fact that a Ghostbusters 3 is in the works and gives a little more about what can be expected.

Ramis promised that all the original Ghostbusters – Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, and Ernie Hudson – are going to be involved although as he put it: “We’re all going to be in it in different kind of roles. We’re going to be the sage mentors. There are going to be young Ghostbusters.”

So, this only confirms what most of us already expected, but he says that no decisions have been made about who the new Ghostbusters will be and the script (written by Lee Eisdenberg and Gene Stupnitsky – writers of Year One and many episodes of The Office) is still in the works. It’s a “passing of the torch” type film, which the very thought of leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

While hesitant doesn’t even begin to describe my feelings, I suppose if they really are going to do this thing, then I better be rooting for them. I’m not Rush Limbaugh. I don’t want them to fail. On the contrary, if this is made, I want it to be just as good as the original, although it would be impossible to hide my skepticism and cynicism, even if Bill Murray is on board.

Who shall the torch be passed to then lies the question. With Judd Apatow on board to produce, the candidates are likely going to be from his pack of actors. I could envision Paul Rudd. Maybe Jason Segel. James Franco even? I don’t know. I don’t even know if I care. In writing this, I have gone from a cynical optimism to almost complete indifference. Oh well. Whatever. I hate movies anyway.

36 response about Who ya gonna call? »

i don’t like the idea of this. but i do like the idea that if it is made ALL of the original crew is involved. but i don’t like the idea of the original crew not being the focus. but i do like the idea of bringing in new ghostbusters, especially if one of them is Paul Rudd. but i don’t like the idea of Seth Rogen or Jonah Hill being ghostbusters.

with that said, i can think of some good ideas here. the Ghostbusters have expanded, opening up places in a few different parts of NYC. they have locations in a few other major cities. sort of like fireman. they have a recruiting session to help expand their own main office and that is where these other guys come in.

Comment by murph — March 29, 2009
I just have to wonder if after all this time is there really a demand for another Ghostbusters movie?

Comment by Mercurie — March 29, 2009
Mercurie. Ask the Battlestar Galactica folks that question!

But yea, I’ve little interest in either a reboot or a pass-the-torch type movie. So really where is there to go considering the shape and age of the original GBs.

As with everything, the writing is the key. The first one in particular has some of the sharpest writing for a block-buster sfx comedy. Like or hate the genre, Ghostbusters did things very, very well.

Comment by Kurt Halfyard — March 29, 2009
So really where is there to go considering the shape and age of the original GBs.

Did you ever watch the cartoon Kurt? There is all sorts of places they can go with the film as the early episodes, specifically the ones from J. Michael Straczynski, border closer to horror then comedy or sci-fi. I’d be ecstatic if they could get Straczynski to write the script for the new film.

Comment by Matt Gamble — March 29, 2009
meh. i have heard worse ideas for this, like that one where teh Ghostbusters go to hell. at least they are bringing in some good actors. Paul Rudd, Jason Segel… I could see it…

Comment by ralph — March 30, 2009
I’m with Jonathan. I’ll root for it and hope it’s good, but without the original cast I’m a bit skeptical. It might still b a good movie. But it just won’t feel like Ghostbusters. It will feel like a parody – especially if it’s the Apatow crew. I don’t know. I guess it’s a wait and see kind of thing. And I also agree with Matt: in the world of ectoplasm and spirits, anything could happen.

“Let’s show this prehistoric bitch how we do things downtown!”

Comment by Andrew James — March 30, 2009
After ‘Indiana Jones and Spectacular Crap-fest’, I’m totally numb to sequels in franchises I enjoy. I hope they have a fourth Ghostbusters lined up starring Brad Pitt. For me these movies are like going to the dentist to get a tooth pulled. I’m going to go, even though I know it’ll hurt and probably won’t be any fun.

Comment by Andy — March 31, 2009
Not to mention, Bill Murray is crap in pretty much everything post 1985.

Comment by Andrew James — April 1, 2009
no way, Andrew! get out of here! not even close!!!! Groundhog Day! What About Bob! Ed Wood! Kingpin! Rushmore! Lost in Translation!

Comment by ralph — April 1, 2009
Pfft. Maybe Tenenbaums, but the rest are total shit. I can’t stand Lost in Translation (never been a fan of Sophia Coppola), Rushmore is my least favorite Wes Anderson film and the repetitiveness of Groundhog Day is not only unfunny, but actually quite annoying. Ed Wood is NOT the movie it was trumped up to be. Aside from Landau’s performance I thought it to be pretty boring. Kingpin = shitpin. As a bowler, I actually find it to be a bit offensive.

Comment by Andrew James — April 1, 2009
you are insane!!!!! also, i thought you were all about dry humor? Rushmore and Lost in Translation are the epitome of dry humor. and wow, i dont know, man. that’s all i got. you’re crazy.

Comment by ralph — April 1, 2009
‘Scrooged’ and ‘Life Aquatic’ are great as well. ‘Kingpin’ is hilarious because I’m from Northwestern Pennsylvania, also known as Amish country.
And maybe you forgot about a little gem I like to call ‘Osmosis Jones’? Eh? Eh?!

Comment by Andy — April 1, 2009
its I agree with Ralph day, because holy shit you are insane Andrew, every single film you listed is great, especially Lost in Translation, I haven never heard anybody say a bad thing about that film.

Rushmore and Bottle Rocket are tied for first in my ranking of Wes Anderson films.

Comment by rot — April 1, 2009
When he was on drugs (mid 70’s early 80’s) Bill Murray was hilarious. Now he just irks me. If he appears in a Wes Anderson film, chances are I don’t like the movie. And I mean seriously, could LiT be any more pretentious?

Comment by Andrew James — April 1, 2009
And he’s also in Coffee and Cigarettes in a completely useless cameo. Not that that movie is wonderful anyway, but as soon as he appears I just rolled my eyes.

Comment by Andrew James — April 1, 2009
I have never heard anybody call Lost in Translation pretentious before. it is the opposite of pretentious, its guerrilla filmmaking, no subtext, no high meanings straight forward quiet character piece.

I know you are in a bad mood today but holy hell

Comment by rot — April 1, 2009
I’ve heard LIT being called pretentious before, back when i worked in a video store.

A lot of people really dont like that movie. I think they’re crazy, but whatevs.

Comment by Goon — April 1, 2009
Most of the problems I have with LiT lie with Murray though. He’s seriously just so unfunny and hard to look at I can barely stand it. Between “Where the Buffalo Roam” and “Fear and Loathing,” no contest on who plays Hunter S Thompson better.

Comment by Andrew James — April 1, 2009
Everything Murray does is hilarious, he’s the only one who can call someone a fag and make it seem funny and acceptable (Life Aquatic), he makes Broken Flowers funny, goddamn in LiT the scene with the Japanese prostitute, doing the commercial, he’s amazing.

Comment by Goon — April 1, 2009
And Coffee & Cigarettes is a good, really fun movie as well. Massive consecutive wrongness by Andrew.

Comment by Rusty James — April 1, 2009
Oh GOD! Forgot about Broken Flowers…. *snooozzzzze*

Comment by Andrew James — April 1, 2009
If I leave you alone on not liking these Bill Murray movies, I expect just as many free passes on my next ‘boring’ writeoffs

Even if its Volver, which I’m probably renting this weekend.

Comment by Goon — April 1, 2009
You should leave me alone about it anyway. I seriously don’t get Bill Murray’s humor. It’s not really dry. It’s slapstick sort of disguised as dry. Sometimes the screenplay actually has some funny lines, but the way Murray characterizes them just feels like “trying too hard” to me. Dunno.

Comment by Andrew James — April 1, 2009
Bill Murray completely, unapologetically Rules. Although I skipped any movie involving him doing Voice work, like those Garfield flicks. I’d say that Murry is fabulous in just about everything post-1985. Even in middling stuff like “The Man Who Knew Too Little”

Coffee & Cigarettes is a load of goodness!

Comment by Kurt Halfyard — April 1, 2009
Bill Murray… slapstick…? wtf!!!!!
Bill Murray… trying to hard…? wtf!!! if anything, he is barely trying at all!

Comment by ralph — April 1, 2009
@ Oh GOD! Forgot about Broken Flowers…. *snooozzzzze*

Do you just not like Jarmusch? More wrongness.

And Almadovar sucks. I’m making a movie, it’s called I Don’t Give A Fuck About Your Mother.

Comment by Rusty James — April 1, 2009
The only Bill murray I’ve seen that I truly loathed was actually Stripes. unfunny and boring.

Comment by Goon — April 1, 2009
And yes, as some of you have figured out, this was my attempt at an April 1st gag. It’s not particularly funny and I thought it was pretty obvious. But it sure did stir up a hornet’s nest. Which is why I couldn’t let it go.

So just to set the record straight, I like just about all of Murray’s movies. I personally think he’s comedic gold. Groudhog Day is one of my favorite comedies of the past… ever. I still can’t fathom that you guys bought in to this.

Comment by Andrew James — April 1, 2009
just because the opinion is Campea level wrong doesnt mean its inplausible

Comment by Goon — April 1, 2009
@ just because the opinion is Campea level wrong doesnt mean its inplausible

Yeah, I think no one got because it wasn’t any different than the flame war we all get in everyday. I’m mean, Henrik says crazier shit on a regular basis. And he’s being serious.

In fact a great gag would’ve been if you posed as Henrik and acted really agreeable and said pro-american things all day long.
That shit would be hilarious.

Were you being serious when you said Murray was a better HST than Depp?

Comment by Rusty James — April 1, 2009
“Were you being serious when you said Murray was a better HST than Depp?”
No. But I think I actually said just the opposite. I think both performances are pretty good. Depends on what you are looking for.

But yes, the Henrik thing would have been genius. You gotta tell me these things before April 2nd. The Murray thing was just a quick, impulse idea.

Comment by Andrew James — April 1, 2009
…

I actually don’t find Bill Murray funny at all, but I have avoided most of his films, so my opinion may not hold much water. I have seen the commercial scene in LiT and hated it. I don’t think Groundhog Day is very funny.

And I agree that Ed Wood outside of Martin Landau is pretty boring.

I guess by the time you’re being reduced to an April Fools joke, is the time you’ve gotta look around for another place to be.

Comment by Henrik — April 2, 2009
“I have seen the commercial scene in LiT and hated it. ”

You must hate complexity.

“I don’t think”

Yes.

I really hope this is Andrew abusing your account

Comment by Goon — April 2, 2009
Complexity? Making fun of somebody saying wat pack or whatever.

Comment by Henrik — April 2, 2009
I really didn’t like LiT, though I will admit that is almost solely because I loathe Sophia Coppola. She’s a waste of carbon.

And where was the love for Quick Change?

Comment by Matt Gamble — April 2, 2009
Harold Ramis: “Something’s going to happen. Dan [Aykroyd] did write a spec GB3 screenplay a few years ago, but no one was motivated to pursue it. Now, 25 years after the original, there seems to be some willingness to proceed and apparently a substantial public appetite for a sequel. We’ll introduce some new young Ghostbusters, and all the old guys will be in it, too. Think Christopher Lloyd in Back to the Future … GB3 is progressing with plans to shoot next summer and release in 2011.”

Comment by Jonathan B. — January 5, 2010

Who ya gonna call?

36 response about Who ya gonna call? »

Leave a comment

Recent Comments