• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Who you gonna call??

Started by s-man,

8 posts in this topic

s-man

s-man

Posted
Posted

'Ghostbusters 3' Seed Planted, Ramis Says

 

Writer, actor and director Harold Ramis had a hand in seemingly half the movies we held dear in childhood, and he shows no signs of slowing his consistently relevant resume. He wrote eternal gems like 'Animal House' and 'Caddyshack,' though Ramis might be most famous for the role of brainy scientist Dr. Egon Spengler in the 'Ghostbusters' films (which he co-wrote with fellow Ghostbuster Dan Aykroyd). Ramis' latest is the upcoming prehistoric buddy film 'Year One,' starring Jack Black and Michael Cera

 

The big news is the planned production of 'Ghostbusters 3.' When will we see that come to fruition?

"We're a long way from 'fruition,' but the seed has been planted. We have a story that we like, and my two co-writers from 'Year One' are working on a screenplay. There are a lot of steps between a first draft and a movie."

 

At this point of development, can you definitively say it's going to happen?

"There are so many variables - if the studio were simply committed to perpetuating the 'Ghostbusters' franchise, it would happen whether it was good or not. In this case, we have an insistence that it at least measure up to the other movies. So no one would be happy with a substandard iteration of 'Ghostbusters.' We're classy guys, we want it to be good. Bill Murray's very choosy - there's no way he'll do it if he doesn't like the -script.

 

They could always just say, 'We're going ahead anyway, we'll get three new Ghostbusters and that will be it.' And the whole concept of the new one is to introduce some younger Ghostbusters with us as mentors.

 

"It makes sense. It should work, let me put it that way."

 

Both Dan Aykroyd and Bill Murray have talked about the importance of having women more centrally involved in the third movie. Is that something important to you, as well? Are there specific women you'd be interested in casting?

"There are obviously some good, young comic actresses out there. I don't want to give away anything.

 

"My wife is a feminist, and when I was doing the movie 'Bedazzled,' and I was thinking about who could play the devil, my wife said, 'Well, why couldn't the devil be a woman?' And of course this made total sense, it was a wonderful idea, and we ended up with Elizabeth Hurley as the devil in that film.

 

"In fact, when we did the first 'Ghostbusters' film, we were interested in Sandra Bernhardt. She was very funny and coming into her own at the time. We talked about her for Janine, the part that Annie Potts eventually played. Sandra said, 'I'll be in it if I can be one of the Ghostbusters.' We said, 'Yeah, that's not going to happen.'

 

The first 'Ghostbusters' has a great, old-school look. Does the evolution of special effects inform the way you write a movie? Is there an impulse to write a bigger, splashier movie because you can?

"Well, you always could. When I think of effects, I think back to the Alexander Korda film 'The Thief of Bagdad,' which was the first big effects film I ever saw, done in the '40s. It was brilliant. The effects were just as cheesy as the effects could be - optical effects, things painted on glass, bad puppetry. It didn't matter, the movie was so entertaining. When you have a great story, it doesn't matter. If you don't have a great story and great characters, then no effects in the world are going to save you.

 

"I've seen so many trailers now - and they come one after another in this particular season, 'Terminator' and 'Transformers' and 'GI Joe' - you know, everything blowing up and it all looks like the same movie, and the effects couldn't be better. State-of-the-art in visual effects is tremendous, but it doesn't do you any good if no one's interested in the story you're telling.

 

"The first movie, the effects were kind of charming and old-fashioned, and the second 'Ghostbusters' film, the effects were state-of-the-art digital effects, and it didn't make the movie better because the effects were slicker."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChemEng

ChemEng

Posted
Posted

Star Trek is a better franchise for being redone, I think the same could work for Ghostbusters. The basic premise of Ghostbusters is so easy to come up with good story. I don't think any of the original actors should be in it though, except for a cameo. Make it more up-to-date and modern. My cast:

 

Owen Wilson (Has that cowboy thing going)

Neil Patrick Harris (As the brains)

Ben Stiller (Just funny)

Katherine Heigl (Spunk)

 

Tracy Morgan might be funny too in a Ghost movie

 

Of course that cast would be WAY too expensive, but it would be hilarious.

 

Actors NOT to cast:

Will Ferrell (Too overwhelming)

Jack Black (Too much of a goofball)

Amy Poehler (Too ditzy)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
s-man

s-man

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Hmmm. Some things are best left alone, and i think this is one of them.

 

I disagree...this film should've been made years ago tho, if for no other reason but to make up for GB2. To see the old group together in some capacity would be great, even if they are not the main actors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing