Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-18-2019, 09:52 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 9,458
Ghostbusters III on the way for 2020.

Set to be directed by Ivan Rietman's son, and a direct sequel to the last Ghostbusters movie from 1984.
  #2  
Old 01-18-2019, 10:03 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 81,267
So, they're having a sequel after a reboot? That feels all kinds of weird.
  #3  
Old 01-18-2019, 11:02 PM
FlikTheBlue FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,474
Marvel seems to have pulled off deagifying (is that a word?) Samuel L. Jackson, but it’s probably going to be a bit more difficult with Bill Murray and Dan Akroyd, who have aged much more noticeably. Harold Ramis will be even more difficult .

I wasn’t able to read the link, which pulled up a blank page for me, but the whole thing seems like a terrible idea.
  #4  
Old 01-18-2019, 11:33 PM
Drunky Smurf's Avatar
Drunky Smurf Drunky Smurf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Smurf Village.
Posts: 11,148
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue View Post
Marvel seems to have pulled off deagifying (is that a word?) Samuel L. Jackson, but it’s probably going to be a bit more difficult with Bill Murray and Dan Akroyd, who have aged much more noticeably. Harold Ramis will be even more difficult .

I wasn’t able to read the link, which pulled up a blank page for me, but the whole thing seems like a terrible idea.
The link says, "sources say Reitman has begun testing teenagers for four mystery roles."

This sounds worse than terrible.

Just make a sequal of the 2016 movie. It was way funnier than either of the original two.
  #5  
Old 01-18-2019, 11:53 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 9,458
Lots of other links. Here is one of them. (It includes the very minor teaser.)
  #6  
Old 01-19-2019, 12:59 AM
Thudlow Boink's Avatar
Thudlow Boink Thudlow Boink is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 26,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunky Smurf View Post
The link says, "sources say Reitman has begun testing teenagers for four mystery roles."
"Ghostbusters: The Next Generation"?
  #7  
Old 01-19-2019, 01:30 AM
GuanoLad's Avatar
GuanoLad GuanoLad is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Where the wild roses grow
Posts: 24,531
[QUOTE=FlikTheBlue;21439626]Marvel seems to have pulled off deagifying (is that a word?) Samuel L. Jackson, but it’s probably going to be a bit more difficult with Bill Murray and Dan Akroyd, who have aged much more noticeably. /QUOTE]Why would they need to de-age them? If it's been 35 years, then they'll be 35 years older.
  #8  
Old 01-20-2019, 08:34 AM
FlikTheBlue FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunky Smurf View Post
The link says, "sources say Reitman has begun testing teenagers for four mystery roles."

This sounds worse than terrible.

Just make a sequal of the 2016 movie. It was way funnier than either of the original two.
That might work if they fix the biggest problem that movie had. The whole point of Ghostbusters should be that the villain is a ghost or supernatural entity of some kind. Gozer, Zuul, and Staypuft were good villains, and Vigo had his moments, but a human villain that I don’t even remember the name of just didn’t work. Having a human be the main villain ruined that movie.

Last edited by FlikTheBlue; 01-20-2019 at 08:37 AM.
  #9  
Old 01-20-2019, 09:59 AM
Prof. Pepperwinkle's Avatar
Prof. Pepperwinkle Prof. Pepperwinkle is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Chateau Pepperwinkle
Posts: 54,898
I ain't afraid of no sequel.
  #10  
Old 01-20-2019, 12:05 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 81,267
FlikTheBlue, did you walk out halfway through? The villain of the 2106 Ghostbusters was human... for the first half of the movie. Then he committed suicide using his ghost-amplification-device, and so turned himself into a super-powerful ghost. Which was at about the same time in the movie where the original crew first encountered their boss monsters.
  #11  
Old 01-20-2019, 12:27 PM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 40,533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunky Smurf View Post
Just make a sequal of the 2016 movie. It was way funnier than either of the original two.
I found the 2016 movie just appalling. It was like an experiment in how to make the least funny movie with the most objectively funny actors. The original had some laughs, though in retrospect parts haven't aged well.

Really, maybe just do something else. The world does not need more Ghostbusters.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #12  
Old 01-20-2019, 01:13 PM
FlikTheBlue FlikTheBlue is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
FlikTheBlue, did you walk out halfway through? The villain of the 2106 Ghostbusters was human... for the first half of the movie. Then he committed suicide using his ghost-amplification-device, and so turned himself into a super-powerful ghost. Which was at about the same time in the movie where the original crew first encountered their boss monsters.
I did watch the whole thing. I remember him turning into a ghost, and I suppose at one point Vigo was human, but this latest villain still sucked. A guy who wants to get revenge against humans because he felt bullied doesn’t compare to an ancient Sumerian goddess or even a medieval count who was a master of black magic and is still around 500 years.
  #13  
Old 01-20-2019, 02:07 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 9,458
Leslie Jones is not taking this well.
  #14  
Old 01-20-2019, 02:36 PM
Julius Henry Julius Henry is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Misery
Posts: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunky Smurf View Post
The link says, "sources say Reitman has begun testing teenagers for four mystery roles."
I hope they don't get a Great Dane.
  #15  
Old 01-20-2019, 03:35 PM
DinoR DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
Buried down at the end after the drama
Quote:
Described as “the next chapter” in the story started by the 1984 original, it will involve the passing of a torch to a new generation of paranormal investigators.
That sound like the four mystery roles are the new generation.
  #16  
Old 01-20-2019, 07:33 PM
Asuka Asuka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by DinoR View Post
Buried down at the end after the drama


That sound like the four mystery roles are the new generation.
They really should have done this with Ghostbusters 2016 at least instead of wasting the original crew as cameos. Would have fixed some of the movie to me, but instead in true Hollywood fashion they wanted a blank slate solely because they wanted to make this an "Extended Universe" and didn't like having the "future movies" tied to original continuity.
  #17  
Old 01-20-2019, 07:44 PM
Peter Morris Peter Morris is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The far canal
Posts: 12,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunky Smurf View Post
The link says, "sources say Reitman has begun testing teenagers for four mystery roles.".
So in this film the ghosts will be bank robbers wearing rubber masks?
  #18  
Old 01-20-2019, 08:39 PM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
So, they're having a sequel after a reboot? That feels all kinds of weird.
Does it? AFAICT it's also being done with, for example, Spider-Man films, where Tom Holland's Spidey is going to go on appearing in the Marvel movies despite the release of the very different Into the Spider-Verse in the meantime.
  #19  
Old 01-21-2019, 06:19 AM
Asuka Asuka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Does it? AFAICT it's also being done with, for example, Spider-Man films, where Tom Holland's Spidey is going to go on appearing in the Marvel movies despite the release of the very different Into the Spider-Verse in the meantime.
There's been two separate Halloween movies that have been direct sequels to the first film after a series reboot.
  #20  
Old 01-21-2019, 02:36 PM
Elendil's Heir Elendil's Heir is offline
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: my Herkimer Battle Jitney
Posts: 80,995
Loved loved loved the original, was underwhelmed by the sequel, didn't see the all-women remake. Unless the reviews of this new movie are boffo, I'm sure I won't see it.
  #21  
Old 01-21-2019, 03:49 PM
Sam Stone Sam Stone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 27,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunky Smurf View Post
Just make a sequal of the 2016 movie. It was way funnier than either of the original two.
I've seen better film in soap dishes.
  #22  
Old 01-21-2019, 06:58 PM
Push You Down Push You Down is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hollywood
Posts: 6,293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Does it? AFAICT it's also being done with, for example, Spider-Man films, where Tom Holland's Spidey is going to go on appearing in the Marvel movies despite the release of the very different Into the Spider-Verse in the meantime.
Built into the very foundation of Into the Spiderverse is the idea that there are multiple dimensions and multiple Spider-folks. It's not really the same unless at some point in this nebulous 3rd movie (seriously, they don't even know what this movie is--they are talking animated now apparently) a portal opens and at least one of the 2016 Ghostbusters showed up.
__________________
I have only one thing to say about that- Shut up.
  #23  
Old 01-21-2019, 07:38 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 9,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Push You Down View Post
(seriously, they don't even know what this movie is--they are talking animated now apparently)

Two different things. The animated one isn't new news.


(And an update from 2017.)

Last edited by Darren Garrison; 01-21-2019 at 07:40 PM.
  #24  
Old 01-21-2019, 07:57 PM
mbh mbh is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 4,353
Without Forrest Tucker, it will never be as good as the original.
  #25  
Old 01-21-2019, 08:26 PM
Peter Morris Peter Morris is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The far canal
Posts: 12,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbh View Post
Without Forrest Tucker, it will never be as good as the original.
Even the Forrest Tucker version suffered from the absence of Bob Hope.
  #26  
Old 01-21-2019, 08:33 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 9,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Morris View Post
Even the Forrest Tucker version suffered from the absence of Bob Hope.

And all of them were merely limping along without Goofy.
  #27  
Old 01-22-2019, 08:46 AM
ftg's Avatar
ftg ftg is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not the PNW :-(
Posts: 18,510
Here's how to handle the 2016 movie in-universe. That one occurred entirely in an afterlife realm. The ghostbusters were ghosts. The "ghosts" in that world are from a "death for the dead" region like in Beetlejuice. A token crossover is allowed.

So the new sequel isn't "killing off" the 2016 characters. They were already dead.

Last edited by ftg; 01-22-2019 at 08:46 AM.
  #28  
Old 01-22-2019, 09:36 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 22,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunky Smurf View Post
Just make a sequal of the 2016 movie. It was way funnier than either of the original two.
Funnier than Ghostbusters II, but that's a low bar to clear. Not funnier than the original.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Asuka View Post
They really should have done this with Ghostbusters 2016 at least instead of wasting the original crew as cameos.
...and that's why the 2016 movie sucked. By the time they shoehorned in cameos for all five of the original main cast (excluding Moranis but with a double helping of Ramis), the logo, the catchphrase and the Sta-Puft Marshmallow Man, there wasn't much time to squeeze in an actual plot or much in the way of original jokes. (That said, McKinnon was particularly brilliant and Hemsworth's coffee bit made me laugh way more than it should have.)

But I can't see Ghostbusters III being remotely funny, and frankly I too would rather see a sequel to the 2016 now that all the homages are out of the way.
  #29  
Old 01-22-2019, 09:45 AM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 81,267
Eh, I'll agree that the 2016 film wasn't as funny as the original, but it was still funny enough (especially in any of Chris Hemsworth's scenes). And in every other way, it was a better movie, especially in the characterizations.
  #30  
Old 01-22-2019, 09:57 AM
Mr Shine's Avatar
Mr Shine Mr Shine is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 1,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post

She should have made a better film then.
  #31  
Old 01-22-2019, 10:02 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 22,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Shine View Post
She should have made a better film then.
...and yet making a sub-par film doesn't seem to have been an obstacle for a sequel to Ghostbusters II, which frankly was awful. I mean, Peter MacNicol doing that thing he does was mildly entertaining but everything else about the film was stupid and the cast were phoning it in.
  #32  
Old 01-22-2019, 11:53 AM
Jophiel's Avatar
Jophiel Jophiel is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 18,718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
...and yet making a sub-par film doesn't seem to have been an obstacle for a sequel to Ghostbusters II, which frankly was awful.
Well, it took around 30 years to happen so maybe the answer is to wait patiently. We'll have a Ghostbusters Reboot-Reboot between then and now!
  #33  
Old 01-22-2019, 12:03 PM
Jophiel's Avatar
Jophiel Jophiel is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 18,718
It's worth noting that the (original) Ghostbusters universe goes beyond the two movies. You also had the cartoon, a number of comics and a video game which was written with Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis, had the original cast all returning to voice act it (and give their likenesses) and is considered by Aykroyd to be the third Ghostbusters movie. I don't know if the cartoon is "canon" but the video game and comics should be. Point being, there's a deeper well to draw on than just one well-loved first movie and the admittedly mediocre second.
  #34  
Old 01-22-2019, 12:12 PM
typoink typoink is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,690
The 2016 reboot was incredibly confusing to me. I'm actually on board with the "female remake" concept, or at least more female-centric blockbusters. I like the original, but don't consider it precious and think it's totally fine to reboot it. I really liked the new cast, except generally finding Leslie Jones a bit obnoxious. I went in expecting to thoroughly enjoy it, except to probably find Jones a bit irritating.

Instead, I found it remarkably dull and formulaic and unfunny, with the exception that I think Jones was fine. I assume there's an excellent version on the cutting room floor somewhere, but it was killed by rewrites and tweaking and a need to shoehorn in a bunch of stakeless action sequences.

I've been really surprised by its defenders. It's totally fine to disagree, it just always feels like they're describing a different movie than I saw.

All that being said...this seems pointless. There's NO need to make a new sequel now. "Passing the torch" stories are almost always crap, since you're going to have a bunch of self-congratulatory fluff for the old guard and an overly pregnant introduction of a new cast. Ignoring the 2016 reboot feels like a slap in the face to the folks who DID like it while throwing a bone to the worst MAGA-hat contingent of people who rejected it.

The only way this actually gets me interested enough to go to the theater is if they announce that all the ghost effects will be done with 80s-style practical VFX.
  #35  
Old 01-22-2019, 12:29 PM
Jophiel's Avatar
Jophiel Jophiel is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 18,718
Well, the guy spearheading it (and directing it) is the son of the original director (who is now producing it) so my guess is that he's far more interested in the world his father helped create than the reboot of "Thanks for the idea, we'll take it form here with a new world". I don't think it's intended to be an "insult" or anything, just that the reboot isn't the product he's invested in. Had the 2016 film been part of the original 'universe', it would probably play some sort of role -- or maybe this movie wouldn't be getting made at all because we would have already had a 'passing the torch' and the originals as themselves instead of actor cameos, etc.

I've no idea if it'll be good or not but the reboot was nothing special and I assume a sequel to the reboot will be worse (as these things tend to be) so it's hard to be worried about who is going to upstage who or be worse than who.

Last edited by Jophiel; 01-22-2019 at 12:31 PM.
  #36  
Old 01-22-2019, 12:41 PM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 22,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by typoink View Post
I've been really surprised by its defenders. It's totally fine to disagree, it just always feels like they're describing a different movie than I saw.
I suspect a certain percentage of defenders got a bit tetchy from arguing with the noisy and toxic "It sucks because WIMMEN" brigade and felt obligated to defend it on all grounds. I am somewhat sympathetic.

I agree that much of it was dull, formulaic and unfunny and have indicated above one of the big reasons this was so. But the main cast was solid and a second movie with better writing could easily work, especially if they try something new and not the Zuul plotline hinted at at the end of the last one, which will run into the same "hey look - here's all your old favorites!" problem the first one had.
  #37  
Old 01-22-2019, 01:23 PM
Stranger On A Train Stranger On A Train is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 18,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
So, they're having a sequel after a reboot? That feels all kinds of weird.
If you find this confusing, don’t even bother with the Star Trek franchise, which decided to reboot by creating a new narrative universe but still connected to the original ‘continuity’ (such as it was) and then a new show that completely breaks any prior canon and is thematically and stylistically completely different from any previous movie or show. This is just another artifact of trying to wring as much money out of a franchise property whether it has any creative merit whatsoever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Morris View Post
So in this film the ghosts will be bank robbers wearing rubber masks?
”I am an EEE PEE EEH agent!”

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
Eh, I'll agree that the 2016 film wasn't as funny as the original, but it was still funny enough (especially in any of Chris Hemsworth's scenes). And in every other way, it was a better movie, especially in the characterizations.
The only thing actually funny about the 2016 film was Kate McKinnon doing improvisation (because Kate McKinnon is always a win) and Chris Hemsworth playing a himbo secretary. The rest of the movie was Leslie Jones doing the same loud, obnoxiously-oversexed black woman stereotype she plays in every role and Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy—both talented not only at sketch comedy but in a wide range of dramatic roles—playing off a gender-twisted version of the sexual harrassment and creepiness that makes the original Ghostbusters often awkward and uncomfortable to watch.

The original Ghostbusters was mostly novel because it combined horror with comedy in a not-purely slapstick fashion (like Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein or Love At First Bite) or an open parody (like Young Frankenstein or Attack of the Killer Tomatoes) with the combined talents of Bill Murray’s gonzo character with Dan Akroyd’s straightman, Harold Ramis’ deadpan nerdism, and Sigourney Weaver’s damsel less-than-in-distress (and side characters like those played by Annie Potts, Rick Moranis, and William Atherton) in creating a world in which humorous apocalyse seemed plausible. It isn’t really a very good movie by any objective standard; the pacing is uneven, the last minute pressures shows in the editing, none of the characters has any kind of development arc, and even for the day the effects are mediocre. There is certainly room for a sequel (with new actors in new roles taking over or reviving the business) or a reboot that feeds into a larger Ghostbusters-connected universe of comedic horror, but the 2016 film was just not very good; nor would I have much confidence in a sequel that just tries to recreate the je ne sais quoi that made the original film appealing in 1984.

Stranger
  #38  
Old 01-22-2019, 01:27 PM
MrKnowItAll's Avatar
MrKnowItAll MrKnowItAll is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 1,701
I think that ultimately this will fail for the same reason the last one failed: No Harold Ramis script.
  #39  
Old 01-22-2019, 01:55 PM
Loach's Avatar
Loach Loach is online now
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 24,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by typoink View Post
The 2016 reboot was incredibly confusing to me. I'm actually on board with the "female remake" concept, or at least more female-centric blockbusters. I like the original, but don't consider it precious and think it's totally fine to reboot it. I really liked the new cast, except generally finding Leslie Jones a bit obnoxious. I went in expecting to thoroughly enjoy it, except to probably find Jones a bit irritating.

Instead, I found it remarkably dull and formulaic and unfunny, with the exception that I think Jones was fine. I assume there's an excellent version on the cutting room floor somewhere, but it was killed by rewrites and tweaking and a need to shoehorn in a bunch of stakeless action sequences.

I've been really surprised by its defenders. It's totally fine to disagree, it just always feels like they're describing a different movie than I saw.

All that being said...this seems pointless. There's NO need to make a new sequel now. "Passing the torch" stories are almost always crap, since you're going to have a bunch of self-congratulatory fluff for the old guard and an overly pregnant introduction of a new cast. Ignoring the 2016 reboot feels like a slap in the face to the folks who DID like it while throwing a bone to the worst MAGA-hat contingent of people who rejected it.

The only way this actually gets me interested enough to go to the theater is if they announce that all the ghost effects will be done with 80s-style practical VFX.
I agree about Jones. I only sometimes find her funny and often obnoxious. The trailers is all seemed to try to make her out to be as obnoxious as possible and a bit of a stereotype. I was surprised when I saw the actual movie and found her to be probably the best character in it and not at all obnoxious. Really bad piece of marketing there.

I liked the reboot OK in the movie theater. Everything is more enjoyable in the theater. Individual parts were OK but in reflection the whole thing fell apart. It was just not a very good movie. Maybe the biggest problem was using too much screen time to shoehorn in all the original caste cameos. It would’ve worked better I think if it was set in the same universe and just had some cameos of the characters as the originals And then move on.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:34 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017