portzebie
April 3rd, 2003, 09:53 PM
If Ghostbusters 3 came out, it would make money. There is no question about this in anyone's minds. The real issue is whether it would be good, and I'm going to go against the common feeling here by saying that adding a new team would ruin the film. Here's why:
The original Ghostbusters works because its accessible to everyone. The heart of the story is a "Going Into Business" venture for three expelled college scientists. Each character stands out in his own unique and easily associable way - largely due to the excellent acting of the cast (moreso than the shooting script). However, our main characters do not alienate the audience by being overknowledgable - they know as much as the audience about ghosts and spooks, and we can easily side with them when they accidentally nearly vaporize the Sedgewick Hotel cleaning lady. The story quickly takes the Ghostbusters from utter failure to stardom - and soon, they are in charge of saving the world. What an enormous character leap for a few students who wanted to prove they were worth something. Even through the end, we get a sense that they are there to do the job, and do it right - not to be heroes (well, perhaps Venkman...). Thrown in is a mythological aspect thats fairly straight forward, and a winning love story between Venkman and Barret that feels utterly genuine. If you don't associate with the idea of down and out college kids spending thousands on a crappy firehouse in tribeca, you'll at least be able to feel sympathy for Venkman when his crush turns into something else - and soon, he is fighting for her life.
All in all, a very accessible movie.
Then Ghostbusters 2 comes along, and your average film goer assumes the obvious (and correct assumption): a rehash. There is no venturing away from the original movie - we are simply watching the boys go around a second time, rising from failure to fame and eventually put into a position to save the world. Even old conflicts are redredged up - Dana is not attached to Venkman, and we watch them fall in love all over again. There is nothing new to the film whatsoever. Don't get me wrong, as a GB fan, i love it - but it isnt a successful movie, and you have to be able to see that in order to come back wtih a bang for the third.
And now for Ghostbusters 3: Adding characters is an attempt to keep the franchise alive, period. It's an attempt to get people to go see the movie and make money, under the fear that no one would turn out for the old cast. I'm sure that even with Bill Martin on board, Aykroyd is pretty firm up about making a new generation of Ghostbusters, and here's why it wouldnt work.
Ghostbusters 3 would beomce a mythology movie. Your average movie goer is not interested in a mythology movie (short of the legacy of Star Wars or Lord of the Rings). More importantly, the average feeling surrounding the film will be - Same old schtick, new actors. Nothing new except the faces. Except that the new faces would bring a new style of comedy to the film. Very few comedic actors these days depend on dry wit to get by. It's more zaniness, slapstick, or over the top humor instead of the subtle dry wit infused in both of the Ghostbusters films. With cast suggestions of Will Smith and Chris Farley, i shudder to think how much the film wouldve sucked.
My point is that Ghostbusters 3 is no longer an accessible film. It's a film that sounds as if it will ultimately follow the same old pattern of GB2 with new faces. People went to see the original Ghostbusters for the concept, not the plot. People went to see GB2 partly for the concept, partly for the plot. Since both were old and stale in 1989, i can only imagine how they would fare nowadays. Ghostbusters 3, as its developing, sounds to be a plot based film - no concept. This is bad. If you want to infuse a new generation of fans of the Ghostbusters films, you have to start fresh, from the beginning - and give them a fresh concept. Come on, we've got MIB's, but when was the last time anyone used bargain basement nuclear accelerators to go catching ghosts? Give the people something they can associate with, not a movie driven by a ho-hum-the world is going to end-monster that people forget the day after seeing it. Concept is where it's at, not plot. YES, obviously, in addition to the concept, the plot is crucial - but concept should be sending people to the movie theaters in teh case of the Ghostbusters films.
The point of all this is that its destined to fail. I'm one of those fans who hopes never to see GB3, at least, not for a lonnnnng time, because i dont want another crappy installment. I want something that people - not just Ghostheads but people in general - fall in love with. I dont want a movie that people see the #3 and assume its just another attempt to cash in on the franchise.
i visit this board every now and again, and i see all these people posting the exact same posts:
1) who do you want in the movie
2) who dont you want in the movie
3) who should do the soundtrack
4) what's the latest info? when is GB3 coming out?
5) should ghostbusters 3 be made?
my permanent answers:
1) Who do you want in the movie?
Conan O'Brien - very accessible, can play numerous character parts perfectly. would never agree to do it.
Jason Lee - Winning smile, general childlike awe would be a winning addition.
Bruce Campbell - the badass who wants to get the job done.
Three ghostbusters is enough people.
2) Who dont you want in the movie?
Any of the characters listed above. Why? because they all have known personas - Jason Lee is Banky/Brody; Conan is a talk show host; Bruce is Ash. When the original GB came out, it instantly matched the characters with their respective actors because their identities had not yet been firmly entrenched with a single character (tho perhaps in Aykroyd's case, Elwood Blues).
The following people should not touch ghostbusters:
1) Will Smith
2) Tom Green
3) Any cast member from Friends (or any other sitcom)
4) Any actor who has been successful personifying a fictional character (Mike Myers = Austin Powers, etc.)
3) Who should do the soundtrack?
Who cares. You'll never beat the original.
4) What's the latest info?
Shut up and look around.
5) Should GB3 be made?
No. :mad: I don't think so
What do you think
The original Ghostbusters works because its accessible to everyone. The heart of the story is a "Going Into Business" venture for three expelled college scientists. Each character stands out in his own unique and easily associable way - largely due to the excellent acting of the cast (moreso than the shooting script). However, our main characters do not alienate the audience by being overknowledgable - they know as much as the audience about ghosts and spooks, and we can easily side with them when they accidentally nearly vaporize the Sedgewick Hotel cleaning lady. The story quickly takes the Ghostbusters from utter failure to stardom - and soon, they are in charge of saving the world. What an enormous character leap for a few students who wanted to prove they were worth something. Even through the end, we get a sense that they are there to do the job, and do it right - not to be heroes (well, perhaps Venkman...). Thrown in is a mythological aspect thats fairly straight forward, and a winning love story between Venkman and Barret that feels utterly genuine. If you don't associate with the idea of down and out college kids spending thousands on a crappy firehouse in tribeca, you'll at least be able to feel sympathy for Venkman when his crush turns into something else - and soon, he is fighting for her life.
All in all, a very accessible movie.
Then Ghostbusters 2 comes along, and your average film goer assumes the obvious (and correct assumption): a rehash. There is no venturing away from the original movie - we are simply watching the boys go around a second time, rising from failure to fame and eventually put into a position to save the world. Even old conflicts are redredged up - Dana is not attached to Venkman, and we watch them fall in love all over again. There is nothing new to the film whatsoever. Don't get me wrong, as a GB fan, i love it - but it isnt a successful movie, and you have to be able to see that in order to come back wtih a bang for the third.
And now for Ghostbusters 3: Adding characters is an attempt to keep the franchise alive, period. It's an attempt to get people to go see the movie and make money, under the fear that no one would turn out for the old cast. I'm sure that even with Bill Martin on board, Aykroyd is pretty firm up about making a new generation of Ghostbusters, and here's why it wouldnt work.
Ghostbusters 3 would beomce a mythology movie. Your average movie goer is not interested in a mythology movie (short of the legacy of Star Wars or Lord of the Rings). More importantly, the average feeling surrounding the film will be - Same old schtick, new actors. Nothing new except the faces. Except that the new faces would bring a new style of comedy to the film. Very few comedic actors these days depend on dry wit to get by. It's more zaniness, slapstick, or over the top humor instead of the subtle dry wit infused in both of the Ghostbusters films. With cast suggestions of Will Smith and Chris Farley, i shudder to think how much the film wouldve sucked.
My point is that Ghostbusters 3 is no longer an accessible film. It's a film that sounds as if it will ultimately follow the same old pattern of GB2 with new faces. People went to see the original Ghostbusters for the concept, not the plot. People went to see GB2 partly for the concept, partly for the plot. Since both were old and stale in 1989, i can only imagine how they would fare nowadays. Ghostbusters 3, as its developing, sounds to be a plot based film - no concept. This is bad. If you want to infuse a new generation of fans of the Ghostbusters films, you have to start fresh, from the beginning - and give them a fresh concept. Come on, we've got MIB's, but when was the last time anyone used bargain basement nuclear accelerators to go catching ghosts? Give the people something they can associate with, not a movie driven by a ho-hum-the world is going to end-monster that people forget the day after seeing it. Concept is where it's at, not plot. YES, obviously, in addition to the concept, the plot is crucial - but concept should be sending people to the movie theaters in teh case of the Ghostbusters films.
The point of all this is that its destined to fail. I'm one of those fans who hopes never to see GB3, at least, not for a lonnnnng time, because i dont want another crappy installment. I want something that people - not just Ghostheads but people in general - fall in love with. I dont want a movie that people see the #3 and assume its just another attempt to cash in on the franchise.
i visit this board every now and again, and i see all these people posting the exact same posts:
1) who do you want in the movie
2) who dont you want in the movie
3) who should do the soundtrack
4) what's the latest info? when is GB3 coming out?
5) should ghostbusters 3 be made?
my permanent answers:
1) Who do you want in the movie?
Conan O'Brien - very accessible, can play numerous character parts perfectly. would never agree to do it.
Jason Lee - Winning smile, general childlike awe would be a winning addition.
Bruce Campbell - the badass who wants to get the job done.
Three ghostbusters is enough people.
2) Who dont you want in the movie?
Any of the characters listed above. Why? because they all have known personas - Jason Lee is Banky/Brody; Conan is a talk show host; Bruce is Ash. When the original GB came out, it instantly matched the characters with their respective actors because their identities had not yet been firmly entrenched with a single character (tho perhaps in Aykroyd's case, Elwood Blues).
The following people should not touch ghostbusters:
1) Will Smith
2) Tom Green
3) Any cast member from Friends (or any other sitcom)
4) Any actor who has been successful personifying a fictional character (Mike Myers = Austin Powers, etc.)
3) Who should do the soundtrack?
Who cares. You'll never beat the original.
4) What's the latest info?
Shut up and look around.
5) Should GB3 be made?
No. :mad: I don't think so
What do you think