hmmmm I don't seem to remember anyone ever promising me a 3rd movie when I saw the first one. I'm lucky there was a Ghostbusters II since it sounds like Bill fought it for awhile before finally agreeing to it. What makes you think he'll budge this time? I'm glad we have what we do. I'd rather see no GB3 then to have it be complete crap and come to the board and listen to everyone complain about how it was terrible and ruined the franchise.
Yes we are the fans who see their movies but at the end of the day, it is their job and livelyhood and their choice as to what they want to do with their career. They're done with that part of their life and I respect that. They gave us two memorable movies. I wouldn't want a GB3 forced just because some people wanna see it or they think they can make a quick buck off of it.
It would have to be for the right reasons and the people making it would have to be 100% behind it and that's just not the case now. Basically it sounds like some people just want to see it made and don't care if its actually a good movie. Ya never know, Bill Murray could be saving us from the biggest embarassment since EGB.
Zack
i hope there is no gb3
by
21 years, 11 months ago
by
21 years, 11 months ago
GB3 will happen eventually, rather you non believers like it or not.
by
21 years, 11 months ago
Nicely said, Zack.
Jmoney, you're calling me a moron? The irony in that is too much.
Jmoney, you're calling me a moron? The irony in that is too much.
by
21 years, 11 months ago
Only a moron wouldnt want a GB3.
by
21 years, 11 months ago
What if GB3 comes out and is about as good as MIIB? Or worse?
by
21 years, 11 months ago
Here’s my review IGN’s STAX’s review of Dan Aykroyd’s March 1999 draft of Ghostbusters III: Hellbent!:
1.) “The cost is too excessive for the studio to see it to be economically feasible, said Akyroyd.”
Hey Columbia and Sony, no job is too big, no fee is too big.
2.) ”It is a shame too because everyone wants to do it. Even Bill Murray said he would work a few days on it. I did finish a script. Harold Ramis liked parts of it. Ivan Reitman liked parts of it too. There is definitely an interest from all of the original parties involved to make it.”
It would be AWESOME if Murray, Ramis, and all the original parties were involved in GB III.
3.) “However, the studio just does not want to take the risk. In my opinion, the successes of the other two give the impression that there is a good chance of profit for a third sequel. So unfortunately, it looks like its just not going to happen based on the studio's feelings, not from anyone else.“
I agree, that there MIGHT be a good chance of profit for a third sequel.
4.) “Harold Ramis told Entertainment Weekly back in February 1999 that the dream plan is that Danny and I would produce it, I would direct it, and we would recruit some newer, younger, popular Ghostbusters to star.” Cinescape Online reported in 1998 that the “film is rumored to follow Raymond Stantz (Aykroyd) and Egon Spengler (Ramis) as they cope with Peter Venkman's (Bill Murray) departure with Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver), plus their attempt to stay employed while fighting a new otherworldly entity, possibly Hades, the Greek god of the underworld.”
Harold is a GREAT Director. As for “recruiting some newer, younger, popular Ghostbusters to star”, I don’t know. But I would like to see Venkman still bustin’. It wouldn’t be Ghostbusters without Dr. Peter Venkman. I don’t really care weather Dana Barrett is or isn’t in it. It would be interesting to see the guys fighting the “Devil”.
5.) “Having now read this March 1999 draft, I can confirm that the sequel does adhere to that general plot line (at least in this draft). Without revealing too many spoilers, Ghostbusters 3: Hellbent suggests that hell (portrayed as a stygian mirror image of The Big Apple dubbed “Manhellton”) has grown overcrowded and congested. As a result, hell is literally evicting people back into the world of the living in order to alleviate their congestion problem.”
This sounds interesting. I wonder if the evicted “people” are dead or “alive” again.
6.) “Obviously, this isn't good for our world so the Ghostbusters must use their latest technology to literally go to hell and ask the devil why he's doing this and to see what they can do to make him stop. Naturally, the devil – portrayed here as a Donald Trump-like mogul named Siffler – has a secret agenda that leads to a grand conflict with our titular heroes. The Ghostbusters must once again save New York City from the evil forces of the afterlife.”
Okay.
7.) “There is indeed a younger crop of Ghostbusters (or, as the script abbreviates it, GBs) introduced that perform much of the otherworldly legwork here. This new crew includes: Franky, a body-pierced, tough New Jersey punker; Lovell, a dread-locked dude; Moira, a pretty but uptight gymnast and science grad; and Carla, a Latino beauty. There's also Nat, a prepubescent genius whose powerful brain has made his head abnormally large. Despite his youth, Nat serves as a supervisor for the new GBs. That's all we ever get to know about these characters (we don't even learn their last names!) and they're our guides throughout most of the story.”
OH MY GOSH!!! That is COMPLETELY HORRIBLE!!! There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY I COULD EVER PUT UP WITH THIS PUNKS!!! These new GB’s sound horribly illogical. If we’re going to recruit some newer, younger, popular Ghostbusters to star, then there is only one group in particular to have: The (NON-Politically Correct) Extreme Ghostbusters! Okay, I know most of us thought the EGB’s were crap, but hey I think they’d do alright as our recruits. Of course, like what I said above, NON-Politically Correct. I’d rather see the EGB’s than these LAME ones that Dan came up with. Roland, Eduardo, Kylie, and Garrett (I seriously doubt he’d be in a wheelchair, though.) would be less confusing to us. I mean why create 5 new recruits, when the EGB’s can be used? It just doesn’t make a whole lot of since to confuse fans with 5 new GB’s. So use the EGB’s.
8.) “I'm not exactly asking for brilliantly delineated characterizations here but even the original team had their own distinct personalities, voices, and senses of humor. These young bucks are practically interchangeable. They all behave and sound alike, and get along relatively well. There's no real conflict between them nor is there a dominant personality as there was amongst the original GBs. These would be the script's worst mistakes if it weren't for the revelation that these young turks aren't especially funny or charming, either.”
Yes. And by the way, They ARE the script’s worst mistakes.
9.) “That's what shocked and disappointed me the most about this draft of Ghostbusters 3: it was more jargon than jokes. Bill Murray/Peter Venkman doesn't appear until the end and then it's only a cameo (he's portrayed in a way you've never seen before, which was the script's most memorable gag). There's also no sign of Sigourney Weaver's character Dana nor is there any mention of her kid Oscar (remember him?), who you'd think might be included among these new, younger GBs given his importance in the last film.”
I’m not shocked (Mainly because of Bill Murray’s reluctance.) to only see Peter in a cameo. What I’m shocked about, is that he would be a GHOST in that cameo. I don’t really care about having Dana and Oscar in the movie. As far as I’m concerned, The Ghostbusters are done with them. Dana and Oscar’s chapter in Ghostbusters’ history is complete. We don’t need them. It would be nice to have a Cameo for Dana, (If her and Peter got married.). Anyways, even if Oscar was in it, he wouldn’t be old enough to be GB. He’d just be a teen. The recruits are College students.
10.) “Ray (Aykroyd), Egon (Ramis), and Winston (Ernie Hudson, now referred to as “Dr. Zeddemore”) have prominent supporting roles here. (Louis Tully and Janine have cameos.) The action is driven forward by the younger GBs. Whenever the original GBs are in a scene, my interest – and the story itself – picked up. I've never been a huge fan of TV series or films featuring “the next generation” of characters, with Star Trek being an arguable exception (although I still prefer the classic Trek).”
I’m okay that they have prominent supporting roles, as long as the EGB’s are used. Louis and Janine’s cameos sound alright, as long as he’s still their lawyer, and she’s still their secretary. I wouldn’t really be a fan of a “new generation” of GB’s unless they were the EGB’s.
11.) “You fall in love with some characters for very specific reasons and sometimes it's just impossible to see new actors take over those series/franchises. I think Ghostbusters might be such a case but if these new GBs had more personality, if they were developed further, perhaps I'd have accepted the transition. I just never cared about these new Ghostbusters, though.”
Exactly my point. How could we possibly stand to put up with these 5 crappy new GB’s? That’s why we need to dispose of them, and use the EGB’s.
12.) “The plot line about hell being overcrowded and needing to evict people was relatively amusing but isn't the whole “New York is Hell” sentiment rather tired now? And I don't even want to get into the post-9/11 issues that any film about New York City being endangered will likely face now. (Of course, I compartmentalized those issues given that this script predates the tragedies.) Rather than it being the wrong time for GB3 perhaps now might actually be the perfect time for it. After all, the Ghostbusters films offer pure escapism, politically correct villains, and a wish fulfillment/fantasy about being able to save The Big Apple from (excuse the phrase) phantom menaces. I just can't say that I liked the GB3 yarn that this draft offered.”
He’s definitely right about that.
13.) “As a huge fan of the original film, I'd much rather see a GB3 where the old gang must strap their backpacks on for one last mission (even without Murray, though he'd be sorely missed) rather than see pretenders to the throne get the bulk of screen time. That's just me, though. Obviously, the series' creators see the sequel differently so I must respect their ideas. I just wasn't as entertained by this draft as I wanted to be (and I really wanted to love this script). Given that there has been no development on this project for almost three years, however, my reservations about Ghostbusters 3 appear to be moot.”
I definitely wouldn’t mind the old gang strapping on their Proton Packs for one last mission, instead of them training recruits. A lot of us feel that way about it. But I wouldn’t want for them to do that without Bill Murray/Peter Venkman, though.
:0
:O 
1.) “The cost is too excessive for the studio to see it to be economically feasible, said Akyroyd.”
Hey Columbia and Sony, no job is too big, no fee is too big.
2.) ”It is a shame too because everyone wants to do it. Even Bill Murray said he would work a few days on it. I did finish a script. Harold Ramis liked parts of it. Ivan Reitman liked parts of it too. There is definitely an interest from all of the original parties involved to make it.”
It would be AWESOME if Murray, Ramis, and all the original parties were involved in GB III.
3.) “However, the studio just does not want to take the risk. In my opinion, the successes of the other two give the impression that there is a good chance of profit for a third sequel. So unfortunately, it looks like its just not going to happen based on the studio's feelings, not from anyone else.“
I agree, that there MIGHT be a good chance of profit for a third sequel.
4.) “Harold Ramis told Entertainment Weekly back in February 1999 that the dream plan is that Danny and I would produce it, I would direct it, and we would recruit some newer, younger, popular Ghostbusters to star.” Cinescape Online reported in 1998 that the “film is rumored to follow Raymond Stantz (Aykroyd) and Egon Spengler (Ramis) as they cope with Peter Venkman's (Bill Murray) departure with Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver), plus their attempt to stay employed while fighting a new otherworldly entity, possibly Hades, the Greek god of the underworld.”
Harold is a GREAT Director. As for “recruiting some newer, younger, popular Ghostbusters to star”, I don’t know. But I would like to see Venkman still bustin’. It wouldn’t be Ghostbusters without Dr. Peter Venkman. I don’t really care weather Dana Barrett is or isn’t in it. It would be interesting to see the guys fighting the “Devil”.
5.) “Having now read this March 1999 draft, I can confirm that the sequel does adhere to that general plot line (at least in this draft). Without revealing too many spoilers, Ghostbusters 3: Hellbent suggests that hell (portrayed as a stygian mirror image of The Big Apple dubbed “Manhellton”) has grown overcrowded and congested. As a result, hell is literally evicting people back into the world of the living in order to alleviate their congestion problem.”
This sounds interesting. I wonder if the evicted “people” are dead or “alive” again.
6.) “Obviously, this isn't good for our world so the Ghostbusters must use their latest technology to literally go to hell and ask the devil why he's doing this and to see what they can do to make him stop. Naturally, the devil – portrayed here as a Donald Trump-like mogul named Siffler – has a secret agenda that leads to a grand conflict with our titular heroes. The Ghostbusters must once again save New York City from the evil forces of the afterlife.”
Okay.
7.) “There is indeed a younger crop of Ghostbusters (or, as the script abbreviates it, GBs) introduced that perform much of the otherworldly legwork here. This new crew includes: Franky, a body-pierced, tough New Jersey punker; Lovell, a dread-locked dude; Moira, a pretty but uptight gymnast and science grad; and Carla, a Latino beauty. There's also Nat, a prepubescent genius whose powerful brain has made his head abnormally large. Despite his youth, Nat serves as a supervisor for the new GBs. That's all we ever get to know about these characters (we don't even learn their last names!) and they're our guides throughout most of the story.”
OH MY GOSH!!! That is COMPLETELY HORRIBLE!!! There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY I COULD EVER PUT UP WITH THIS PUNKS!!! These new GB’s sound horribly illogical. If we’re going to recruit some newer, younger, popular Ghostbusters to star, then there is only one group in particular to have: The (NON-Politically Correct) Extreme Ghostbusters! Okay, I know most of us thought the EGB’s were crap, but hey I think they’d do alright as our recruits. Of course, like what I said above, NON-Politically Correct. I’d rather see the EGB’s than these LAME ones that Dan came up with. Roland, Eduardo, Kylie, and Garrett (I seriously doubt he’d be in a wheelchair, though.) would be less confusing to us. I mean why create 5 new recruits, when the EGB’s can be used? It just doesn’t make a whole lot of since to confuse fans with 5 new GB’s. So use the EGB’s.
8.) “I'm not exactly asking for brilliantly delineated characterizations here but even the original team had their own distinct personalities, voices, and senses of humor. These young bucks are practically interchangeable. They all behave and sound alike, and get along relatively well. There's no real conflict between them nor is there a dominant personality as there was amongst the original GBs. These would be the script's worst mistakes if it weren't for the revelation that these young turks aren't especially funny or charming, either.”
Yes. And by the way, They ARE the script’s worst mistakes.
9.) “That's what shocked and disappointed me the most about this draft of Ghostbusters 3: it was more jargon than jokes. Bill Murray/Peter Venkman doesn't appear until the end and then it's only a cameo (he's portrayed in a way you've never seen before, which was the script's most memorable gag). There's also no sign of Sigourney Weaver's character Dana nor is there any mention of her kid Oscar (remember him?), who you'd think might be included among these new, younger GBs given his importance in the last film.”
I’m not shocked (Mainly because of Bill Murray’s reluctance.) to only see Peter in a cameo. What I’m shocked about, is that he would be a GHOST in that cameo. I don’t really care about having Dana and Oscar in the movie. As far as I’m concerned, The Ghostbusters are done with them. Dana and Oscar’s chapter in Ghostbusters’ history is complete. We don’t need them. It would be nice to have a Cameo for Dana, (If her and Peter got married.). Anyways, even if Oscar was in it, he wouldn’t be old enough to be GB. He’d just be a teen. The recruits are College students.
10.) “Ray (Aykroyd), Egon (Ramis), and Winston (Ernie Hudson, now referred to as “Dr. Zeddemore”) have prominent supporting roles here. (Louis Tully and Janine have cameos.) The action is driven forward by the younger GBs. Whenever the original GBs are in a scene, my interest – and the story itself – picked up. I've never been a huge fan of TV series or films featuring “the next generation” of characters, with Star Trek being an arguable exception (although I still prefer the classic Trek).”
I’m okay that they have prominent supporting roles, as long as the EGB’s are used. Louis and Janine’s cameos sound alright, as long as he’s still their lawyer, and she’s still their secretary. I wouldn’t really be a fan of a “new generation” of GB’s unless they were the EGB’s.
11.) “You fall in love with some characters for very specific reasons and sometimes it's just impossible to see new actors take over those series/franchises. I think Ghostbusters might be such a case but if these new GBs had more personality, if they were developed further, perhaps I'd have accepted the transition. I just never cared about these new Ghostbusters, though.”
Exactly my point. How could we possibly stand to put up with these 5 crappy new GB’s? That’s why we need to dispose of them, and use the EGB’s.
12.) “The plot line about hell being overcrowded and needing to evict people was relatively amusing but isn't the whole “New York is Hell” sentiment rather tired now? And I don't even want to get into the post-9/11 issues that any film about New York City being endangered will likely face now. (Of course, I compartmentalized those issues given that this script predates the tragedies.) Rather than it being the wrong time for GB3 perhaps now might actually be the perfect time for it. After all, the Ghostbusters films offer pure escapism, politically correct villains, and a wish fulfillment/fantasy about being able to save The Big Apple from (excuse the phrase) phantom menaces. I just can't say that I liked the GB3 yarn that this draft offered.”
He’s definitely right about that.
13.) “As a huge fan of the original film, I'd much rather see a GB3 where the old gang must strap their backpacks on for one last mission (even without Murray, though he'd be sorely missed) rather than see pretenders to the throne get the bulk of screen time. That's just me, though. Obviously, the series' creators see the sequel differently so I must respect their ideas. I just wasn't as entertained by this draft as I wanted to be (and I really wanted to love this script). Given that there has been no development on this project for almost three years, however, my reservations about Ghostbusters 3 appear to be moot.”
I definitely wouldn’t mind the old gang strapping on their Proton Packs for one last mission, instead of them training recruits. A lot of us feel that way about it. But I wouldn’t want for them to do that without Bill Murray/Peter Venkman, though.
:0
:O
by
21 years, 11 months ago
Well at the risk of being called a “retarded chinese midgit rapping asshole” thats a qoute by the way by that n00b Jmoney. I agree that there should be no GB3 regardless what anyone says.
by
21 years, 11 months ago
UMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM, No and No.
by
21 years, 11 months ago
It does not matter how lame or cool ghostbusters 3 is going to be. The fact if the matter is that it is GB3! :s Adam
by
21 years, 11 months ago
The true fact of the matter is, unless done in such an exact style that I have seen few to no ghostheads address it wont work. It will turn out like the casper sequal, or was that a prequil? Does not matter, it would suck in such a fasion that all those MIB fans out there would sway thier shades in our face and rant on about how much we suck. jmoney, you my saddly mistaken young and highly arrogent, self centered, no good member need to shut up. No argument just shut up before you dig yourslef a nice big hole. your antics are tiresome and my inbox is filled with crap about you. You may have been a fan since you where three, but you need an additude adjustment, NOW. Enough said.