I remember hearing awhile back that Danny was retiring. Whatever happened to that?

I also heard Dan was retiring as an actor. Anyway, I agree on the aspect that today's view of making a movie appeal to a younger audience is just by making it into some teeny-bopper crap. All flash, no substance. Besides, I always thought that Ghostbusters was already an all-around likable movie. But ofcourse you'll always have the minority that hates it. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing because not everybody likes the same thing.

I've heard somewhere that Columbia or Sony or whatever would be more interested in making a Blair Witch 3 than a GB 3. So, it appears to be true that x film production company would indeed attempt to turn what would be a potential masterpiece into a teeny-bopper movie. Regarding your essay, Paul, I like many of the topics you addressed, and agree with you 99%. Except on the fact that the new movie “won't sell”. As you mentioned earlier, the use of the old characters is only good for nostalgia, and it would appeal to the old fans only. This is true - but there appears to be 4,598 users registered on this website alone, which means at least 4,598 old Ghosbusters fans in the world. Plus, just because the movie is out and it has the old cast doesn't mean that people won't want to see it. Personally I think that GB3 would fare quite well with the old cast in this day and age. The whole Ghostbusters concept is just so original and so strong that no, it wouldn't have to rely on old story lines to be successful. The time is right, too - you pointed out that sequels should be spaced between large intervals, and 13 years is a good length. You know what'd be great? If Mr. Ramis or Mr. Aykroyd would come on GB Central (or even Entertainment Tonight, for that matter) and spilled the beans. That would eliminate a lot of questions floating around, that's for sure.

But, I really enjoyed you post, I haven't read one like that in ages. Keep up the good work!

Dude…
Danny retired 15 years ago!

15 years ago? before Ghostbusters 2? Ok maybe that wasn't exactly a smash but he has been in several successful movies since then yes I see. You do realize you made no sense whatsoever right?

Zack

Paul - you are wrong on about a zillion counts. Sorry, I'm all for you going off and writing a script, but understand what it needs to be about. Numerous people have pointed out the Murray/Aykroyd problems. You've also got the whole GB2 issue completely wrong. It was nearly TOTALLY identical to the original movie from the beginning to end. AND it was a failure as a film, both critically and financially. For similarity comparison, this post will help:

http://www.ghostbusters.net/disscussion/ghm/1/18316/

For a post thats as long as yours, tho a little more researched, check this out:

http://www.ghostbusters.net/disscussion/ghn/3/68391/

nick

I'm sure things will work out for the better and the movie will be great

That's what we're all hoping for… but let's be realistic - it appears that there isn't enough interest to make a third movie. The best we could probably expect is another television series.

Ghostbusters 2 was by far a failure as a film! What are you talking about? You seem to forget one thing. GBII didn't make as much money as GB1 but it still grossed more than twice the amount that went into making it. Last time I checked, movie makers consider that quite a success.

One of the main reasons GB2 didn`t do as good was because it was released at around the same time Batman was released. And Batman is a damn good movie itself.