Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 

Author Topic: Ghostbusters 3  (Read 4689 times)

Woolly

  • Member
  • Battle Hardened War Robot
  • ****
  • Posts: 4018
    • View Profile
Ghostbusters 3
« on: 09 February, 2010, 04:25:38 PM »
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

PsychoGoatee

  • Member
  • Prog Stacking Droid
  • ***
  • Posts: 970
  • Drokk!!
    • View Profile
Re: Ghostbusters 3
« Reply #1 on: 09 February, 2010, 05:49:02 PM »
That's hilarious. I guess Bill just really likes being killed off in movies. :D

Hopefully this film works out well.

TordelBack

  • Member
  • CALL-ME-KENNETH!
  • *****
  • Posts: 26018
  • Thunder Chops is dragged off, gnashing...
    • View Profile
Re: Ghostbusters 3
« Reply #2 on: 09 February, 2010, 06:29:09 PM »
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?
« Last Edit: 09 February, 2010, 06:32:55 PM by TordelBack »

Mardroid

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 6574
    • View Profile
Re: Ghostbusters 3
« Reply #3 on: 09 February, 2010, 06:56:25 PM »
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.)

James Stacey

  • Member
  • Battle Hardened War Robot
  • ****
  • Posts: 4660
  • Drokk! It's Souster!
    • View Profile
Re: Ghostbusters 3
« Reply #4 on: 09 February, 2010, 08:19:35 PM »
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.

Roger Godpleton

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 7179
  • Welcome to you're "Doom"!
    • View Profile
Re: Ghostbusters 3
« Reply #5 on: 09 February, 2010, 09:19:15 PM »
I think it should be 90 minutes of spurting Moranis wang.
He’s only trying to be what following how his dreams make you wanna be, man!

JOE SOAP

  • Member
  • CALL-ME-KENNETH!
  • *****
  • Posts: 15084
    • View Profile
Re: Ghostbusters 3
« Reply #6 on: 09 February, 2010, 10:34:40 PM »
I think it should be 90 minutes of spurting Moranis wang.


Shouldn't you already have something like that in your collection?

HOO-HAA

  • Member
  • Posting Machine
  • ***
  • Posts: 1257
    • View Profile
    • Wayne Simmons (Sci-Fi and Horror Author)
Re: Ghostbusters 3
« Reply #7 on: 10 February, 2010, 12:06:59 AM »
I fear for this movie...  :-\

ThryllSeekyr

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 8678
  • That's Your Reality!!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Ghostbusters 3
« Reply #8 on: 10 February, 2010, 05:48:44 AM »
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 -".



ThryllSeekyr

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 8678
  • That's Your Reality!!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Ghostbusters 3
« Reply #9 on: 11 February, 2010, 11:00:44 AM »
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.

 

bluemeanie

  • Member
  • Evil Cyborg
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
  • Richard in the real world... hello and that
    • View Profile
    • http://2000ad.wordpress.com/
Re: Ghostbusters 3
« Reply #10 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)


Mike Gloady

  • Member
  • Battle Hardened War Robot
  • ****
  • Posts: 4836
  • Mikey give you SMUSH!
    • View Profile
Re: Ghostbusters 3
« Reply #11 on: 11 February, 2010, 03:40:57 PM »
The second movie was quite bad enough. 

PASS.
New in town?  Follow this link for a guide to the Greatest Threads Ever

Dandontdare

  • Member
  • CALL-ME-KENNETH!
  • *****
  • Posts: 10287
    • View Profile
Re: Ghostbusters 3
« Reply #12 on: 11 February, 2010, 07:50:43 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.

bluemeanie

  • Member
  • Evil Cyborg
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
  • Richard in the real world... hello and that
    • View Profile
    • http://2000ad.wordpress.com/
Re: Ghostbusters 3
« Reply #13 on: 11 February, 2010, 09:41:38 PM »
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.

James Stacey

  • Member
  • Battle Hardened War Robot
  • ****
  • Posts: 4660
  • Drokk! It's Souster!
    • View Profile
Re: Ghostbusters 3
« Reply #14 on: 12 February, 2010, 09:55:02 AM »
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.