Well, it looks like Bill Murray is definately on board, which can only be a good thing. Fingers crossed this doesnt become a massive celluloid turd...
http://www.totalfilm.com/news/bill-murray-is-in-ghostbusters-3 (http://www.totalfilm.com/news/bill-murray-is-in-ghostbusters-3)
That's hilarious. I guess Bill just really likes being killed off in movies. :D
Hopefully this film works out well.
I'd say "it has to be better than Ghostbusters 2", but if George Lucas has taught me anything, it's to never have any faith in anything being better than the previous outing.
EDIT: It's a bit worrying that they're allegedly this far along in development and they don't even know what role Venkman will play. How much of a story can they have?
Of course, it could just be his dry humour...
(Much as I'm not keen on his character being killed off, from a story point of view that's not a bad idea though.)
If they are still going ahead with the original idea then none of the original cast would have been in it much as they were handing over the business to a younger group (gak) so I doubt killing him off would do much to the overall script apart from allowing more Murrey ad-libs which is a good thing.
I think it should be 90 minutes of spurting Moranis wang.
Quote from: Roger Godpleton on 09 February, 2010, 09:19:15 PM
I think it should be 90 minutes of spurting Moranis wang.
Shouldn't you already have something like that in your collection?
I fear for this movie... :-\
They should use Dan Akroyd's original script/draft....
Not that I can find where I read this, but it had more of a space age scifi angle to it.
I have fond memries of seeing the first film on a school night with some friends.
Love the retro gadetry and the Ecto-One.
Favorite line......
"- I've been slimed -".
I was seriously thinking after posting yesterday that they should not try doing a Ghostbusters: Next Generation movie wwith newer actors. That would really suck.
They a should really try and get the old team back togather, no matrter how muchg the actors hate each other in real life.
In tradition of the orignalBlues Brothers film, they should make it a road movie.
Probably starting with Peter Ventman & Raymond Stanz in New York, and using the Ecto-One to trasvell crossing amercia, perhaps Chicago or Los Angelas[/b] to reassemble the team, and fight soem otherworldly entity back in New York.
How about the return of Gozer.
Well it worked in the first film., but I guess they don't make they like they used to.
Alteast it looks like {b]Siigonrey Weaver[/b] will be in this as well.
Every time I see a "Ghostbusters 3" headline I cringe expecting the casting of Jack Black and/or Adam Sandler as one of the new guys because market research tells us they are funny (apparently)
The second movie was quite bad enough.
PASS.
Quote from: bluemeanie on 11 February, 2010, 03:36:45 PM
Every time I see a "Ghostbusters 3" headline I cringe expecting the casting of Jack Black and/or Adam Sandler as one of the new guys because market research tells us they are funny (apparently)
I'm going to have nightmares about that scenario now! Any votes as to the worst, most misconceived sequel of all time, compared to it's brilliant forerunner? TS just reminded me of Blues Brothers 2000, and I feel the need to wash my brain out!
BTW, The first Ghostbusters was the first time I recall seeing a huge queue outside our local cinema. We said sod it and went to the poub instead, then saw it a week later.
You know... I watched Blues Brothers 2000 and it wasnt actually that bad.
Nnot a patch on the original, but I'd heard such bad things I had zero expectations so kinda enjoyed it. That said only watched it once, the original I can pretty much quote start to finish.
Worst sequel.... Highlander 2 most probably. Only time for me a sequel has been so bad its spoiled the original by totally changing the story that was so cool in the first.
Quote from: bluemeanie on 11 February, 2010, 09:41:38 PM
Worst sequel.... Highlander 2 most probably. Only time for me a sequel has been so bad its spoiled the original by totally changing the story that was so cool in the first.
I don't totally hate the latest totally revised 'Lucased' version they put out. It's still a bit shite but got a lot better when they cut out all the Zeist bobbins. The special effects are a lot better too.
QuoteWorst sequel.... Highlander 2 most probably
You could be correct. Although I rewatched Wolverine again at the weekend and it's pretty fucking dire.
Yeah? I really liked the Wolverine movie. Was like the X-Men films but without Halle frigging Berry stinking up the screen. The guy doing Sabretooth was very cool too.
End 10 minutes coulda done with being re-written from scratch tho even if part of me loved what they did to Deadpool just as I knew how much it would piss off the deadpool groupies who seem to think he's the best thing in comics just because he pulls a Ferris Bueller every now and again
I really wanted to like it, and kind of enjoyed it in the cinema. But watching it again on dvd revealed the poor plotting, unfinished effects and clunky script.
The start, mind you, is brilliant- everything up to him leaving the group works splendidly, and then it all falls apart.
QuoteWorst sequel.... Highlander 2 most probably
Oh no... not by a long shot.
Looking forward to Ghostbusters 3... quite like the first film and the second is passable i suppose.
Cinema audiences expect so much more these days, more action, more effects etc... so I think it could be a great big bag of fun really.
Murry as a ghost could work... I'm guessing he didn't want too much involvement in it and this film could be a passing of the torch type of thing onto younger more trendy actors to carry on the series.
Expect to see hip youngsters in the ilk of that Efforn fella (whatever way you spell it) and at least one hot babe (Megan Fox anyone??)...
And it'll be in 3D.
So this is going to be like a live action version of Extreme Ghostbusters then, is it?
Quote from: bluemeanie on 11 February, 2010, 09:41:38 PM
You know... I watched Blues Brothers 2000 and it wasnt actually that bad.
Surely you jest - the original is my favourite movie of all time but I found this one physically painful to watch. They just did a virtual remake but forgot to be funny. The sheer number of guest stars totally devalued the point of having them, the cute kid was nauseating and John Goodman should have been humanely put down once Roseanne finished.
When I was at the Univeristy of Illinois, my roommate (another BB fan) took me on a Blues Brothers tour of Chicago visiting all the locations such as Lower Wacker Drive, Wrigley Field and Daly Plaza. And the little girl who is seen clapping and dancing to John Lee Hooker was one of his classmates!
Quote from: Dandontdare on 11 February, 2010, 07:50:43 PM
Quote from: bluemeanie on 11 February, 2010, 03:36:45 PM
Every time I see a "Ghostbusters 3" headline I cringe expecting the casting of Jack Black and/or Adam Sandler as one of the new guys because market research tells us they are funny (apparently)
I'm going to have nightmares about that scenario now! Any votes as to the worst, most misconceived sequel of all time, compared to it's brilliant forerunner? TS just reminded me of Blues Brothers 2000, and I feel the need to wash my brain out!
BTW, The first Ghostbusters was the first time I recall seeing a huge queue outside our local cinema. We said sod it and went to the poub instead, then saw it a week later.
I was gonna before, that
Blues Brothers Two could have been
Ghost-busters Threethree. Not that I liked ever liked those sequels. It's just that I sort of place the earlier films in a class of their own, the same as the some of the
National Lampoon originals... like
Vacation and
Caddy Shack.
I read somewhere that
Bill MUrry's groundskeeper character very nearl;y cameod in the
GhostbustersThe next
Ghostbuster monvie should be cross country feast, woith plenty of car chases, they needn't make it a musical. Though should bring back
Ray Parker Jr and his theme song. Back when cloured musci was palable. Back when hip-hop was in it's infancy and hadn't fully developed into what it is now.
Apart from that. I don't think that a improved
Ghostbusters movie can be made. With a winning formula or not.
Peter Venkman handing over the torch.... Is still not a great idea. But if he must.
Seth Rogan ,
Jonah Hill and
Michael Cera and I asince watching
Two and Hlaf Men I have thought that
Angus T. Jones looks like younger version of the
John Belousie, but
Michale Chickles once did a very convincing inpersonation of him in a
Blues Brothers Revivial.
Quote from: Dandontdare on 13 February, 2010, 09:06:48 AM
... and John Goodman should have been humanely put down once Roseanne finished.
Dear grud man, what are you saying?!? I'm no fan of Blues Brothers 2000 (although I believe masochist loon ButtonMan is...), but John Goodman in the right hands is a comedy
god.
After opening those links on the Defndor thread, I found this video of Bill Murray being interveiwed on Dave Letterman.
http://www.latinoreview.com/news/bill-murray-says-ghostbusters-3-is-his-nightmare-9390 (http://www.latinoreview.com/news/bill-murray-says-ghostbusters-3-is-his-nightmare-9390)
One person comented that "Don't make it at all if the original cast is not included"
BTW, You realy know you've made it in showbiz if you can comfortably dress that badly on a talk show.
Quote from: ThryllSeekyr on 15 February, 2010, 02:31:47 PM
Back when cloured musci was palable.
Er, am I reading this correctly?
There is no Blues Brothers without John Belushi.
V
I meant palatable, You know tasty, eatable, consumable but only in the way poplular music can be.
Maybe a road movie is not such great a idea and far be it from me to decide how the third movie shall be filmed. It's a habit of the movie fan.
Though, I was thinking that they should do a film about how the whole Gozer thing started.
Set back in early Sumerian times, Though this might be alittle cliched, maybe the ghostbusters had ancestors just like them who were involved with the earlier Gozer somehow. They could make this in black and white.... Please no coffee colour sepia here.
Just the seed of a idea though.
They could also do a world wide version of Ghostbusters. Where they have their own air-vechile. Some sort of jetplane. They could call it the Ecto-Two. Paying visits to hauntings all over the world.
The people involved with Ghost-Hunters Interantional and Most Haunted could cameo.
Not that I wathc their telvsion show much, though they are sometimes interesting, but I think they are just fakers. The way it's all done is make it vey hard to tell wehter or not tye've actualley filmed/found a true haunting. Half the time I think they are reading froma script anyway. Just a excuse to get funding for all their fancy equipment, and getting to travel to alot of far and distant places.
I don't like seeing the way they've film evryting on thsoe horribly filtered camaras where the finish product look very amatuerish like watching different versions of Blair Witch Project each time I tune in to this show.
BTW, can anybody tell me about the Morecambe Winter Gardens hauntings. Are they all they were cracked up to be on that show.
Did you HONESTLY use the word "COLOURED" (albeit mis-spelled)?
Quote from: Mike Gloady on 12 March, 2010, 05:39:26 PM
Did you HONESTLY use the word "COLOURED" (albeit mis-spelled)?
Now
this could spark an interesting debate about what is and isn't considered racist.
I think the problem most people would have with the term "coloured" these days is that it's not very specific. It groups everyone who isn't "white" together without distinction. However, in the past it was also used by people of different races to describe
themselves, which is why there are groups with names like
this around... http://www.naacp.org/home/index.htm
I think "coloured" is definitely (these days) on the list of grey-area words. While it's not flat-out racist, use it in the presence of someone of a non-white ethnicity and you'll probably get a funny look. Like most words, it's all about the context, a granny using it will probably get cut an awful lot more slack than someone in their teens/20s/30s too.
Personally it's on my "do not use" list because it makes some people feel uncomfortable. I am fairly surprised it slipped past me the first time. Then again, TS is Australian and useage of these terms varies from area to area.
My dad is a fair minded bloke, but sometimes forgets that "darkie" is not really an acceptable description these days! ::)
Except when it's "Darkie's Mob".
Quote from: Mike Gloady on 12 March, 2010, 08:17:24 PM
Then again, TS is Australian and useage of these terms varies from area to area.
This. That's the impression I got, and it's not the first time he's used that word in an innocent way.
Actually my parents generation used to prefer the word 'coloured' to 'black' because they thought the word 'black' was rude. I remember my Dad being quite surprised when the acceptability seemed to switch. And he's certainly not racist.
Also in South Africa the term is actually used for the mixed race community.
Less than 2 hours ago my dad used the word "coon".
Quote from: Roger Godpleton on 12 March, 2010, 11:31:16 PM
Less than 2 hours ago my dad used the word "coon".
Was that to describe
YOUR MOM.
Quote from: Mardroid on 12 March, 2010, 11:24:14 PM
Actually my parents generation used to prefer the word 'coloured' to 'black' because they thought the word 'black' was rude. I remember my Dad being quite surprised when the acceptability seemed to switch. And he's certainly not racist.
Yeah, taht was my dad's attitude too. And while he hurumphed about it, he DID attempt to change his own useage. Eventually (he'd be in his 80s were he still alive, these things are often generational).
I'm remembering a scene in Clerks 2. You'll know the one if you've seen it. I don't have TS pinned as a "Randall's grandmother" by any stretch of the imagination....
Could YOu give the sentence I used the word COLOURED in?
Not sure if I meant i the same context you Assumed I used for it.
Though, it's correct I aoften use that word to described anybody with Autraliod, Negroid background.
It's seems even when I use but I do, because I've been taught throuigh local media that it's the most polite term. Perhaps being polite in this manner is still considered rascist putting another.
It's feels like you referring to COLOUREDS as another speices or genus. When I don't mean that.
If I know a person who I'd assume is of African Persuasion really well. I referr to them by their given name or a nickname that they are used to.
The words, Niggas, Darkies, Coons, Jinns, will be in hovering distance of marginally escaping my lips in moments of anger.
It's always personal, and it might be from confusion.
I've never been motivated to hate someone because they were different, racially or in some other way. BUt id hate them, then , their apparent dirernces certainly wouldn't help. I might capitalise on the racial slurs, but I guess that makes bad person still.
SOme pole might think it doen't tak much to treat evrybody equally, buit I think therebiogtretyy evrywhere. It's just more obvious if your a skin head nazi, swastika goodtepping with you cronies on parade.
Hard to be nice to somebody who's different, someone you've never been used to, somebody you haven't grown with as a child. Perhaps they would rathe reat you for breakfast than get to know you or even talk to you.
I have problems with the local aborigines, there was once a incident between me & three of them. To tell the ruth I hate those, but it's personal, it's just them & other who are like them.
If say much more I'll only incrimnate myself further.
Quote from: ThryllSeekyr on 13 March, 2010, 05:16:17 AM
Could YOu give the sentence I used the word COLOURED in?
Sure can, TS:
Quote from: ThryllSeekyr on 15 February, 2010, 02:31:47 PMThe next Ghostbuster monvie should be cross country feast, woith plenty of car chases, they needn't make it a musical. Though should bring back Ray Parker Jr and his theme song. Back when cloured musci was palable. Back when hip-hop was in it's infancy and hadn't fully developed into what it is now.
I'm presuming you mean "coloured music" although that's by no means massively clear. Round MY way, calling someone "coloured" is borderline offensive but, as you yourself say and as I mentioned in my first post on this particular example of thread-drift, you've been taught that it's the preferred term in your part of the world.
Wasn't intending anything rude by pointing it out and asking if indeed that was what you said.
Quote from: ThryllSeekyr on 13 March, 2010, 05:16:17 AM
Not sure if I meant i the same context you Assumed I used for it.
I didn't assume any context as, again, I think my initial post (or at least the one after) made reasonably clear. It's the internet and assumption tends to lead to bad places. I wouldn't think that of you, sir.
Quote from: Mike Gloady on 12 March, 2010, 08:17:24 PM
Personally it's on my "do not use" list because it makes some people feel uncomfortable. I am fairly surprised it slipped past me the first time. Then again, TS is Australian and useage of these terms varies from area to area.
I'm from Australia and the term 'Coloured' is not in common useage. I would say it is pretty much never much used by anyone under the age of 70, probably pretty similar to Britain. It's not the most offensive of words to use by any means but more awkardly archaic and suggestive of times past when racism was more open.
Ah, well archaism isn't a crime - although it might get you a few funny looks, TS so maybe if Stonty Jim is right it might be worth having a wee think when using the term in future? I know you don't want to run the risk of offending anyone.
I know I don't, that's why I try never to use the terms "bint, broad" or "chick" when talking about women. However, "chick" has been known to slip through. I blame Happy Days.....
I remember when this thread used to be about Ghostbusters 3.
Fuck Ghostbusters, lets exchange racial slurs (patiently awaits Roger)
My dads attitude had to change when my sister started dating a lad of a different race, to coin a phrase.
V
Oh dear, I can'tr belive I said that. I must have been underinfleunce of something. Perhjaps I was tired when I said that, By I know what I meant.
I guess that was bad of me to say that.
Hoping my oppology is accepted.
Yeah, "Coloured" which I assumed to be the poreferred usage, still sounds way too clinical to be unoffencive. You could say thats it's just being offencively polite.
Perhaps if we just peoples what they are.
Anyway, I forgot, I might just call people what ever they want me to if I'm cowed enough.
Yeah, people is people. Don't worry about it, I don't think anyone here jumped to any unnecessary conclusions....