GB3 will only be good when Ackroyd and Ramis, Reitman get together to finalize and flesh out that script when they get the OK from Columbia pictures that the script is acceptable to them as well (witch we don't know from their view). But we don't even know if GB3 is coming at all. And then there's the Bill Murray thing. Either he makes a cameo or doesn't show up and they proceed without (witch seems almost happened). But that won't happen either. Ackroyd said that not only Bill Murray with his rights is the problem, but its the actors and Reitman as well. What they take of gross profits and any up front salary (if any). This makes it difficult and Ackroyd said they didn't wish to do GB3 without Murray. So its in limbo.
He said he'll only come up to Ramis and Murray with a new idea and never bring up GB3 again. Come on then, when will they ever work together again?
I also agree GB wasn't good an idea from Ackroyd's original story. GB2 was the same. He said in an old interview for GB2 that his idea for GB2 was Dana's baby gets kidnapped by a ghost or entity and taken to Scotland. Then the GB's must find and rescue baby, stop the ghost. He acknowledges that it was too radical and hence Ramis comes in with him on it and drive that story into the GB2 we saw. Perhaps that is why GB2 is so alike with GB. Maybe they didn't have time to work on the story.
From Stax's GB3 script review (if it ain't BS), I only question the idea of the GB's getting into the hell realm with their technology (too Real GB cartoony to me) and this Nat with the big head. Flesh out the new characters, more humour and GB3 could be better. Ah, heres still hoping.

Obviously, Stax doesn't have ANY kind of final say - he just wrote his review of a script that may or may not be fake. Needless to say, I didnt really consider that review for what I posted earlier.

But one of the key aspects of his review that bothered me was the interchangability of the characters. I mean, COME ON - they arent even given last names. Ray Stantz, Peter Venkman, EGON SPENGLER - EGON SPENGLER, perhaps one of the most easily recognizable names in film history. Each has their own personality - each is so basic (the hands, the brain, and the mouth, as described by Reitman) and yet so intrinsically winning. How can you then go and create four kids to take over that have no distinguishable personalities?

I agree with people who have compared the idea of GB3 to a Real Ghostbusters episode. In fact, I think that nearly any script post-Ghostbusters 1 is doomed to be seen as an overlong RGB episode - once you get past the origin story (which was so winning in the first place) you are simply telling tales that happened in their Ghostbusting careers - the point of the cartoon show. GB2 was like an episode of the cartoon (well, obviously with a lot more depth and subplots). Altho I must give both Ghostbusters 1 AND 2 credit for creating two memorable enemies (for all the flak GB2 got, does anyone NOT remember Vigo?).

I have a lot of freakin' respect for Aykroyd, despite my post, but its more for his ideas and kernels of ideas than his writing. I think you see a lot of bad stuff happen if his ideas are left unchecked - i.e. all the goofy crap that happened in Blues Brothers 2000. Similarly, leaving Reitman to his own brings us Evolution - which definately had its comedic elements and timing in place, but overall plot and concepts were poorly planned and given up on. (scary to see them use “From THe Maker of Ghostbusters” so frequently in connection with the film … shudder…) Looking at individual projects, its easy to see that colaboration is the only way to go.

Finally, there really can't be any dialog in any GB script, just general ideas. Ive read a ton of fan fic, as well as the original scripts, and all the dialog within just comes off as so - unspontaneous. What made the first and second (to a lesser extent) so damn good is the freedom they had to improv. I know most of you are aware of the fact that 95% of the jokes (and lines) in the first movie were improved over generalities previously laid down. Would this be done in the third? If not, I think we're in for some trouble.

glad some of you agree!
nick

I almost had enough attention span to read that whole thing, you make some really good points but your cast selection is horrible and you should be slapped for making them, J/K

Very good thats best explination ive heard. A few have said before but never as well and mabey now people will finaly understand.

hmmm.

bizdog, you make a convincing argument. however, i just can't help but feel that if done properly, gb3 could be really good. i bet you hear that a lot…“if it's done right it could be AWESOME!” heh heh heh.

however, i disagree a little with your thing about casting. i think there are a bunch of people out there who could be potential ghostbusters. jimmy fallon, michael ian black, elise neal, jay mohr, sean patrick thomas, liew schreiber, karen allen, enrico colantoni, michelle rodriguez, and others i don't feel like listing ‘cause i’ve been on the computer for a long time.

i don't know. the idea of the originals having some established headquarters with some of the people named above and have the story be focused on someone else mentioned above joining could be pretty good (also, f.y.i. - i'm not restricting the possibilities to my list…there are tons).

the villian? i don't know if this devalues the point i'm trying to make, but like i said in another post – boogeyman. i can't get over how bad to the freakin' bone he was. for my thoughts on that, see that post.

thanks for listening.

I think that they should try and find some undiscovered talent for the role of the GB's. I'm sure that we here at GBN aren't the only people who like the type of comedy that was in GB and GB2. There are probably some people out there who are good actors and like that kind of comedy who would be willing to do a GB3.
Also, I half disagree with what you said about dialogue. I think that a script should have general ideas with no dialogue that must be said, but I think that it should have dialogue written that can be changed. So that they'll have a little more of an idea as to what to say.

I would rather see the same cast and no new talent. But from a sales point of view new talent would be needed to draw a crowd and make a lot of money.

I think it would be cool if the old guys came and passed the torch to the younger guys. I really think the main cast should be some new undiscovered talent. But the is just what i think. also i think the man has some great points….and that is all i'm saying

bump!

this is one of the better posts on this site, and I think one of the most insightful. If you haven't read, you should…but if you are reading this, then you have read it…so ignore that first part! hehe

The only way it would work, period is to keep the old Ghostbusters. NO NEW CAST ADDITIONS! He is 100% right about using new actors like Bruce Campbell. Anybody here seen The Majestic? Bruce Campbell is the star of a fake movie-within-a-movie and the first comment heard in theatre in this seen was, “Look! It's Ash!”. There is no doubt that GB3 would be successful, but let's not be too hard on Jurassic Park3. We should hope it would be that high-quality. Look at the pattern here: Jurrasic Park Rocks, The Lost World was, ummmm, semi-decent, and Jurassic Park 3 was better than the Lost World but by then the whole concept was stale. Same thing with the GBs. Great film, Mediocre/Inferior sequel (admit it), and if it's made, GB3 will fix the mistakes from GB2, but it will never be the original. We all KNOW that Bruce Campbell would make a GREAT Ghostbuster! But he is Ash, dammit, and HE WILL ALWAYS BE ASH! Look at any actor you love. You don't love him/her, you love the CHARACTER! And that's why a new cast won't work, because they will be relying on the traits of a fictional character when casting an actor. In ANY Matthew Perry movie you've seen, Matthew Perry is Chandler, no matter what the character name. Same character, different situation. And this is what is know as being TYPECAST.

Now that that unpleasantness is over, I present you with my GB3 idea:

It is the year 2003(or whatever year the film is released), and the GBs have been incredibly successful over the past 14 years…However, they are getting up there in the years. Think the RGBs in that episode of EGB/XGB. While out on a routine spook check, Spengler is injured, not severely, but enough for him to realise his own mortality. Now this where they could go with the Train a New Team idea, or my idea. Spengler sets to work in the lab with an invention that will prevent any ghosts from being stranded in, or allowed to enter the mortal realm. The device fails miserably (but not without some quips from Venkman), and ghosts are unleashed among us with a Hell on Earth type of thingy. Now it's up to the Ghostbusters to save the world! Just like always…a stale plot, but in the end they are going to be heroes, except now we have a valid reason for their failure and this “they were barred from performing work as paranormal investigators” crap from GB2. We have them being failures again, being despised by the EPA, can you smell the William Atherton cameo, and they go out with a bang by besting the head demon, Satan himself, and thus ridding the world of ghosts. Period. No more sequels. They go into retirement. Ernie Hudson is a major character with some lines, dammit! And no more sequels. We get a real end to the series, not this “we'll bust another ghost overlord every film” crap. The main problem with this is the Saturday morning cartoon sure to follow!

Now I don't expect everyone to agree with my ideas for the film, but everyone should agree that I made some valid points, as did most, if not all, of the people involved in this discussion…that is all.