I have to agree with Matt on the idea of not being particularly sold on the idea of new recruits, it just seems that to have a bunch of new upstarts wearing the Proton Packs would take time away from the great dynamic the actors have created, so that the movie might be devided down the middle in following the four Ghostbusters we've grown up to love, and four new ones we probably wouldn't care all that much about.

Of course, the worst it might end up being is like that scene in the Starsky & Hutch movie where they had the original actors alongside Stiller and Wilson.

Matthew;130360
“And with the generic statement you made about ”Ghostbusters hire a new team, Ghostbusters train new team, some strange paranormal occurance happens and the new team manage to help save the day.“… that's the same thing as ”Ghostbusters are still in business, some strange paranormal occurance happens and they manage to save the day."


Exactly! So what would be the purpose in introducing a new team? What would it add to the movie?

I want an original story. I want something different. No, the introduction of a new team does not interest me and it will just mean less screen time for Murray, Aykroyd, Ramis and Hudson and those are the guys I want to see even if they are in their late 50s/early 60s. Those are the characters which we fell in love with. There is also a danger in having too many characters in a movie. It can weaken the story and become disjointed. It can do more harm than good.

And yes some new event or problem whether a legal one such as for instance the Ghostbusters having to abide by new regulations and service standards, a social one such as people who may not want ghosts of loved ones caught or a completely new kind of supernatural danger such as a lunatic with the knowledge of black magic. These are just examples but the original characters having to deal with such issues/problems would interest me more than a new team joining the company.

I do sort of agree with you on some fronts… not about the legal issues or social issues, as that is making Ghostbusters something it never has been or should be… it makes it almost too serious, but not in that threatening, ominous way.

And I agree that too many characters in a movie can complicate a story, but let's not pretend that the number of characters being at 8 or 9 (main characters) is too many. Thousands of movies have had that many characters and been plenty successful. It would take away screen time from the original boys, which is who we all want to see of course, so that would kind of suck a bit yes. But its not going to complicate the plot of the movie by adding more characters. I just don't buy that.

Sorry, to go off topic, but i found this quite amusing, i was on Youtube lookin at some GB vids (the Siskel and Ebert Ghostbusters 2 review, i was bored), and one of the comments seemed to be very very familiar.


“kittiscool (5 days ago):
They are nuts because Ghostbusters 2 was a great movie. They are making a GB3 and it will be here in 2010 it's going to be written by the writers from the office and it will have the Originals training a new team to help them out. It will be a hreat movie to see in 2010 and I can't wait to see it because GB3 will kick ass at the Theater in 2010!”

Slimer388;130375
Sorry, to go off topic, but i found this quite amusing, i was on Youtube lookin at some GB vids (the Siskel and Ebert Ghostbusters 2 review, i was bored), and one of the comments seemed to be very very familiar.


“kittiscool (5 days ago):
They are nuts because Ghostbusters 2 was a great movie. They are making a GB3 and it will be here in 2010 it's going to be written by the writers from the office and it will have the Originals training a new team to help them out. It will be a hreat movie to see in 2010 and I can't wait to see it because GB3 will kick ass at the Theater in 2010!”

Ha ha. Precisely why I don't pay attention to the comments on YouTube. Most of them are just like that.

Kojack, thanks for the link. You do have to love how Dan's just playing with people about it at this point, spilling the beans, per-say, that it will involve an event that may bring about the end of the world.

Rumors and hype are spilling everywhere, which brings me to my rant, that everyone knows what Ghostbusters is, and a new team would spoil the fun of the first two, especially if its a closing chapter to a trilogy, a torch shouldnt be passed, it should be closed on a positive and conclusive note.

The new team concept does come off being unorignal, but to appeal to a “new and broader audience” they probably might have to go into an already done concept ( XGB, anyone? ) and thats my optimistic opinion if things do go that route. and like i said, it could set up for some good comedy and character chemistry, but as i said in an earlier post, it all depends on who they cast as well (also, its nothing we havent seen in Back In the Saddle).

But! why appeal to a ‘broader audience", when almost all of the population of movie fans, young and old or even casual, know what Ghostbusters is? So the creators/writers can easily just start where the original films left off, without introducing new team members,Why do they need young or ’hot cream of the crop' actors to appeal to young audiences? its not like young movie fans look forward or assume to seeing Will Ferrell or Steve Carrell in a Ghostbuster film. Use the originals everyone knows, Sure they'd be a bunch of 50-something ghostbusters,but that could be the funny part, have them still be Ghostbusters, no going out of business or retirement (the GB2 route), but have the flow of ghost problems be at a casual rate becoming almost a non-hassle. But then things get worse and worse, and we see our aging heroes go through more exhausting and intimidating situations, in which we could see alot of physical humor.

Not my main idea for what they can do, but its an example, of the possibilities of avoiding introducing (or recruiting) a new team.

What people are thinking, I guess differently than me, is that Ghostbusters 3 will be the closing in the trilogy, and then they'll be done. I guarantee the thought process is if they're going to make Ghostbusters 3, make Ghostbusters 4 and potentially 5 as well, with the new trainees and some old Ghostbuster goodness as well.

I'm for either idea. I know regardless of the route taken, Ghostbusters 3 will leave me wanting more, as would any Ghostbusters movie… that's the beauty of Ghostbusters.

Great to see it still being talked about whenever these guys get interviewed though.

Yeah, I'm all for the idea, as long as it's done right. I'd like to see maybe the first half hour or so about the original guys then deciding to bring in new recruits, kind of like how they bring Winston in in the first film. Incidentally, it seems that Seth Rogen agrees with some of the people here, even though he originally said how awesome it was that they were doing it:

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/movies/a133140/rogen-ghostbusters-3-is-a-terrible-idea.html

“It's hard to imagine that would be good, isn't it?” he commented. “I mean just as a movie fan I am the first guy to be skeptical of that. It sounds like a terrible idea when you first hear it. At first hearing it sounds like the worst idea ever. I mean, that would have to be one motherf***ing good script.”

Rogen, who worked with Ghostbusters star Harold Ramis on Knocked Up, insisted that he would not hesitate to turn down the movie: “It all depends on how bad the script was. There is a point where it’s so bad it's really easy to say no.”

Its just very ironic, Seth talks about bad scripts, and I'm quite happy Seth Rogan doesnt want to be in it, frankly, all the new “comic” actors blow. Steve Carell, Seth Rogan,etc. all of them, they're not funny, they have no real style to their acting or comic delivery (or lack of for that matter) or any depth to the personality of their characters, its just bland obnoxious humor that amuses 14 year old kids.

Slimer388;130380
Its just very ironic, Seth talks about bad scripts, and I'm quite happy Seth Rogan doesnt want to be in it, frankly, all the new “comic” actors blow. Steve Carell, Seth Rogan,etc. all of them, they're not funny, they have no real style to their acting or comic delivery (or lack of for that matter) or any depth to the personality of their characters, its just bland obnoxious humor that amuses 14 year old kids.

I dunno about that. There's plenty of comedians out there who could do these roles well. I, for one, would be ecstatic if Paul Rudd were cast. He's a great sarcastic, yet emotional actor.

Yeah, I like Rudd too. I like Carell and Rogen as well, but I don't think they'd work as well in GB3 as Rudd. I wonder if the new writers have specific people in mind when they are writing these new characters?