Hello people, I’m new here, and here to bring you hope of sorts, perhaps my own insight on the matter of our favorite heros.
Personally I believe the only thing that stands in the way of a 3rd Ghostbusters movie (ironically) is the original actors. Danny A. is being a fussy baby: first off, suggesting a movie that is too long to be made into a single feature is bad business. I mean, this series is without a sequel in 15 years and he already has two movies in the works? I love the premise, but it should be condensed.
Dan had his chance with Sony. He though, was not willing to compromise something as relivant as length to do business. Dan had his chance with Billy M., but he decided to insult him by giving him a mear cameo, but at the same time he won\'t do it without him. So those are two deciding factors, all in Dan\'s court. Blame the original creator of the whole thing for it\'s demise. It is of course, his right, and it won\'t ruin the magic, but I think it\'s a tad bit selfish.
The idea that the movie needs to play homage on the original cast is mear nostalgia. We are trying to appeal to a younger audience here, and an audience who has long forgotten Ghostbusters. The only thing nostalgia does for the movie is bring it closer
to it\'s fans, which is fine, but it won\'t sell. We could play homage to Batman by putting Burt Ward in it, but most people won\'t understand. I am totally for making a new movie without
the old cast in the picture. And no offense to Dan or Bill, but their time as actors is running short. I wouldn\'t invest in a movie starring them either. Unless of course they pull a
Cher.
Star Wars was able to pull off a late-sequel (prequel) without the original cast of the first 3, and so can Ghostbusters. The premise that additional sequels are required to suppliment this new story, is a misnomer. As we can see with Star Wars, the second one wasn\'t exactly as popular as the first. Sequals need
to be far spaced apart, otherwise you\'re going to run it into the ground. This is what happened with the Batman movies. The first two are great, but they tried entirely too much to produce movies with the same \“Good VS. Evil\” tired theme too close together.
Ghostbusters can also fall prey to this if it is written without a
point. Great, they can kill ghosts, what\'s the point? Ghostbusters 1
was about a new breed of hero\'s. One\'s which rely on less on brawn,
but more on spirit and that appealed to the story and it\'s fans.
The second movie had the same premise, and since it was anticipated by
many, it definitly would of done well regardless of how good the movie was.
Though I do think the movie was successful in its craft. The point of the second one was to suggest that we and our negative natures will come around and destroy us eventually. Hence the Ghostbusters (2) peace premise with the logo. This, and good music (great music), made this movie
successful.
A third movie needs to be “self sufficient”. This means that it shouldn\'t rely on the old movies for it's storyline, nor characters. The “nostalgia” and the inability to accept anyone else but Bill, Dan, and Harold as Ghostbusters, is only limiting the franchise because of the lack of confidence in the premise of Ghostbusters, and the spirit, being all that really is important (not the actors!!).
Dan strikes me as the type of person who doesn’t compromise ideas very easily, especially if he’s enthusiastic about them. While I think that the man (and all the characters) are brilliant, I think we need someone to write the movie
who has a fresh perspective. Respectfully, Dan and
Bill haven’t made many good movies lately. I think they have it in them, but we are not in the 80’s anymore. Ghostbusters needs to be fresh and new, not just with special effects, but with content.
Necessitating “Bill Murray’s presence” is a sign that these individuals aren’t confident enough that other actors can carry on the legacy. It comes across as arrogant and
selfish, like Ghostbusters isn’t something that “anyone
else can do”, and I do not agree with that. While that may be true in some respects, it is also a turn off. I
believe something “different” is in call, with different personalities. I do not think that different
personalities would ruin the franchise at all.
It’s all about good writing, and original writing. Most sequels fail because they are mear homage’s of their other counterparts. They do not bring a certain “new depth” to
the series, nor new plot structure.
Ghostbusters 2 was different from the first, and that is what brought it
success (with good writing). As was the 2nd terminator movie, or the 2nd Batman movie. To declare some “supernatural” detriment to sequelism is not entirely logical or with good basis. There are
reasons sequels fail.
Another strike against Ghostbusters is that the “dorkiness” of the characters isn’t popular in today’s
culture. Image is ever-more prevalent, so you need popular new (and younger) actors to fill their rolls.
There is a shortage of good candidates though in that respect, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Bill
and Dan are wonderful, but I do not think they appeal to the younger crowd.
I believe another strike against Ghostbusters 3 is the overemphasis
of special effects over content which is so viral in todays movies. Along with the deminishing music scene, it\'ll be difficult to find musicians who can live up to what it takes
to make \“Ghostbustin\' Music\”. Let\'s not let it fall in line with horrible sequels such as MIB 2.
In afterthought, I am beginning to write a script (this is for real), and I intend (as I’ve dreamed all
my life) to make this thing happen. All I need is some delightful minds to invest. Legal issues aside, Ghostbusters the movie franchise IS NOT COMPLETE! We need another movie.
Of course this is all opinion, sorry for talking you to death.
Thank you all,
Paul Day