Returnofmovieguy;135774
Very true! we were told many times that GB3 was a go….Look back in 1998 Dan was ready….But the dam blair witch project made so much money and killled the chance for the GB3 movie…(;_

How'd Blair Witch kill GB3?

I took the liberty of merging this thread with the aforementioned one Dan posted, and reword the title a little.

Kingpin;135793
How'd Blair Witch kill GB3?

I was going to post the same thing, then figured it wasn't worth the hassle.

I think he's referring to the fact that some people believe Sony was just looking for low budget, high return films.

Specter;135764
I understand what you mean, I think, and I know what you are feeling. A film where the original team is replaced with new Ghostbusters will bring in a group of guys that none of us has known for the past 25 years, and thus not really care that much about.

It's something that we'll all have to take into consideration, should this film get made. We've known the original team for 25+ years, and if a new team is assembled, then we'll have to get to know them, but it'll never really be the same or really fit right unless they can capture the feel of the original films well. We've got this feeling like they're part of our family, and it's like part of that family is moving out and we won't be seeing them again, and we're probably going to get a new group of guys that look like some of our friends, because face it, they're probably going to be about our age, by now, when the original Ghostbusters were always older, and something we could grow up to become.

The new team would make it impossible to aspire to become that, in our own minds, and may even be younger than many of us.

It's probably going to be a natural reaction that effects whether or not each of us enjoys the new film.

I think that was part of the problem with the new Indy. It had been about 19 years between films, and had it come out in like 1992 or 1993, I think we'd probably have just seen Indy 5, and thought that nothing was really too out-there in Indy 4 (it would have been different without Shia, though, and Indy's age would have put him into slightly different situations). People would have compared it more to Temple of Doom's supernatural feel than wondering if Indy still had it.

I'd wager that we're all going to be very split on our own reaction to the film. For some of us, it's going to be like an old pair of pants. They may not fit as well, but they are broken in some. They may fit just as well, and we love wearing them. For others, it'll be like a new pair of pants, however. You know how to wear the pants, but it takes a while to get used to them.

And that's only half of it. The other half is that a new film means new ownership by a younger generation. The new generation will claim ownership of the franchise in their world, and start treading on well established territory. There will be some that claim the new team is better, and probably younger and if they go there, “hotter” than the original team. It's going to frustrate a lot of us fans of the original.

I just say, we have to be prepared for anything.

That was pretty much what I ment with replacing them.

Kingpin;135793
How'd Blair Witch kill GB3?

Dan Aykroyd said on Access Hollywood in 1999 that Sony were “trying to get bargains, they're trying to get the next Blair Witch” and were not willing “to seed for the big harvest to come in.”

Andreas;135809
Dan Aykroyd said on Access Hollywood in 1999 that Sony were “trying to get bargains, they're trying to get the next Blair Witch” and were not willing “to seed for the big harvest to come in.”

Clearly that is an excuse being made by Aykroyd. He was frustrated. If a movie studio thinks a movie will be profitable than they will make it. They won't not make a movie simply because its not extremely low budget and easy to make a ton of money off of with little effort.

then how do you explain movies like Disaster Movie? :p

Slimer388;135819
then how do you explain movies like Disaster Movie? :p

I didn't say they wouldn't make movies that are extremely low budget and require little effort to make money. I said they wouldn't ONLY make movies that are extremely low budget and require little effort to make money.

If they can determine that a movie is worth making and is profitable, they will make it. They won't avoid it simply because its not low budget. Its widely known that Sony thought Ghostbusters was a dead property for YEARS. Now they're dusting it off and realizing it has potential.

Slimer388;135819
then how do you explain movies like Disaster Movie? :p

Those films give directors and Hollywood a bad name. They get a lot of bad reviews, but as long as it turns a profit in they'll make it, no matter how crappy the script might be.

I watched the fist 10 minutes of Epic Movie out of curiosity, and boy was that an excruciatingly long 10 minutes..

anyway, replying to Dr.V..

i totally agree, but also, take into a account it IS sony's fault for GB being ‘dead’, also take in account the 3rd film was proposed in the late 90s, right after XGB bombed with the ratings, not the shows fault, it was only aired on obscure UHF channels at awkward times, atleast in my area it was. So it was Sony's fault for not airing it on appropriate channels, and given the show wasnt given any promotion what so ever. (i remember finding out about just by flipping through channels.) anyway, now Sony realises they have a profitable franchise, and putting everything they can out for it, including a game, new toys, shirts etc. and now maybe a new film.

Slimer388;136049
I watched the fist 10 minutes of Epic Movie out of curiosity, and boy was that an excruciatingly long 10 minutes..

anyway, replying to Dr.V..

i totally agree, but also, take into a account it IS sony's fault for GB being ‘dead’, also take in account the 3rd film was proposed in the late 90s, right after XGB bombed with the ratings, not the shows fault, it was only aired on obscure UHF channels at awkward times, atleast in my area it was. So it was Sony's fault for not airing it on appropriate channels, and given the show wasnt given any promotion what so ever. (i remember finding out about just by flipping through channels.) anyway, now Sony realises they have a profitable franchise, and putting everything they can out for it, including a game, new toys, shirts etc. and now maybe a new film.

Can't disagree with you there. Sony was definitely partly to blame for the “death” of Ghostbusters. However, it also had to do with the fact of what had become popular at the time and the fact that Ghostbusters, honestly, for the time being, had run its course.

But its back with a vengeance now baby!