After reading through various interviews and articles regarding the failed third Ghostbusters movie project it made me wonder. Would sony have greenlit the project if Aykroyds script had been different? The idea for the film was that the Ghostbusters are transported to hell itself. Not only that, but this idea would have taken up the majority of the screen time. special effects are of course expensive in themselves already, however a movie as heavily special effects laden as this would have understandibly cost a fortune to produce. Might Sony have said yes to it if the script was cheaper to make into a film? Should Aykroyd try again with a different idea, which is just as good but cheaper to produce? What do you think?

Personally I think Aykroyd got it wrong when pitching the idea for Ghostbusters III. I don't think the hell on earth idea was original enough and of course would have been far too expensive to produce. This is comparable to the situation with Aykroyds original script to the first movie. Origianally a space and time travelling adventure with the Stay Puft Marshmellow man climbing out of the East River. After finding out that it would have cost an astrenomical amount of money to produce the script was rewritten by himself and Ramis, and transformed into an even better story which cost less to produce. I think that this is what Aykroyd needs to do with his Ghostbusters III script. He needs to write a better, more entertaining, more original script which will cost far less to produce than his original idea. Would sony listen then? I don't know but it's worth a shot isn't it?

Aykroyd was confident in the quality of his work. I do think it would have been expensive but as Aykroyd argued“sometimes you gotta seed to bring in the big harvest.”

I don't agree with that. I think that a perfectly adequate and enjoyable third movie can be made without spending the kind of dollars which it would have cost to produce the special effects for that particular script. I dont think a third Ghostbusters movie needs any more special effects scenes than are in the original or its sequel. It would be temping to over do it with the special effects, such are the advancements, but movies like this drown the story. Also, it is very important that the Ghostbusters movies remain plausable and that the occurances relate to the viewer through the everyday world that we live in so that a beleivability is created. Taking the Ghostbusting idea to another world or having too many special effects would destroy this beleivability. For instance, if the third movie was set in New York instead of hell as was proposed, it would be far cheaper to do while being more beleivable and relative to the viewer.

please keep in mind that all of aykroyd's first draft GB scripts were WAAYYY out there, in terms of SFX. HELLBENT was no different. ramis added the reality to GB. in the recent AICN interview, ramis said that his take on the script was quite different than aykroyd's. i'm sure that if the film had gone forward, a lot of changes would have been made to the script, if not the central concept.

as for if the script had anything to do with the film NOT getting the greenlight… ramis said that it was more about money and salaries than anything. i can imagine that sony would have been spooked when/if they saw aykroyd's script, but i'm sure the ramis revision was more down-to-earth.

For instance, if the third movie was set in New York instead of hell as was proposed, it would be far cheaper to do while being more beleivable and relative to the viewer.

it WAS set in NYC. hell was basically a “negative-image” of the “positive” NYC. go back and read some interviews… sounds like you dont' have a firm grasp of the concept. …and it was VERY original.

D. OSBORN
please keep in mind that all of aykroyd's first draft GB scripts were WAAYYY out there, in terms of SFX. HELLBENT was no different. ramis added the reality to GB. in the recent AICN interview, ramis said that his take on the script was quite different than aykroyd's. i'm sure that if the film had gone forward, a lot of changes would have been made to the script, if not the central concept.

I think that Aykroyd should have turned up with a script that didn't need any changes to it. A more cost effective script which should have been co wriiten by himself and Ramis and handed to sony at that meeting. Aykroyds writing partnership with Ramis is a proven success from the first two movies which should have been used again right from the first draught without putting into question script changes to it in the future.

D. OSBORN
As for if the script had anything to do with the film NOT getting the greenlight… Ramis said that it was more about money and salaries than anything. i can imagine that sony would have been spooked when/if they saw aykroyd's script, but i'm sure the ramis revision was more down-to-earth.

Of course Sony's decision on whether or not to give the script the go ahead was based on money. The cost in the special effects would have been a major contributing factor in their decision.

D. OSBORN
it WAS set in NYC. hell was basically a “negative-image” of the “positive” NYC. go back and read some interviews… sounds like you dont' have a firm grasp of the concept. …and it was VERY original.

On the contrary. I know all about the concept and script details. Of course the movie was set in New York, that goes without saying, it's a Ghostbusters movie after all. What I was saying is that the amount screen time which would have been taken up by the special effects created locations of hell (even if it is a negative version of New York) would have been long, thereby costing alot of money. I wouldn't call it a VERY original concept either.

Would a Hell-verse New York really be that CGI heavy? From Ramis's comments I doubt it, maybe some CG fires, a few ruined buildings and colour correction… and maybe traffic jams, but it wouldn't suggest a heavily CGI laden Hell with rivers of molten lava, rocks falling from the sky and the hordes of the eternal damned making jumps from the Brooklyn Bridge…


Sony should have known, of if anybody from Columbia remained, that Dan's initial scripts were wacky, but that's what Harold was there for, wading through the madness.

I agree, that done a certain way this hell/New York theme wouldn't necessarily need to be too reliant on expensive special effects.

As regards to Harolds rewriting of Dans script, I think this should have been done pre to meeting the Sony exectutives, the script would have been more of a finished product with Ramis's inclusion and would have probably cost a lot less to produce.

I think Dan Ackroyd after the first two films, finally could go on himself on the 3rd films script. By now he knows the concept and knows where it it can go. Even in the 2nd movie I heard his original idea was a little way off. Until Ramis comes along on both, it gets toned down. But for the 3rd film, he knows how to do it now. I assume he had meetings with Sony for all of his ideas. Ramis seems to have approved the concept. He has said himself he thought it was a great idea.

Story (accumulation of what has been said):
Hell is too full of evil spirits, and starts leaking/bleeding into our world. Hence the NYC realworld (positive version) and the hellish NYC world (negative version). The GB's go into Hell to ask why this is happening. As Ramis has stated on that latest interview, the GB's (old & new ones), are in both NYC's, trying to (I assume) get the answers and see what needs to be/or can be done.

Ramis has clearly stated the GB's could've been old and new ones in it, or just even the new guys alone. He really thought the story was good enough that the old GB's didn't even need to be in it. That I'm not crazy about, but if you were to think GB: The Next Generation, then I accept it.
The GB concept can go on with new characters, but keep the touch of humor with that dose of somewhat down to earth reality, it can go on. Ackroyd himself has said this. Personally I really thinks its a great concept, but the GB's making a device to get into Hell seemed too “Real Ghostbusters” like to me.
What do you all think?

From what I can gather the script that Aykroyd offered was all his own work with no actual writing help from Ramis apart from a few breif discussions with him regarding it's premise. Ramis himself said that he had a different take on Aykroyds idea. I think that a cooperative rewriting by the two, should have been done before it was shown to Sony.

Personally I don't like the idea of the Ghostbusters going into hell or any other world or dimension. That would be too far out, destroying the beleivability of the francise which it delivers through it's mundaneness and farmiliar locations and situations that we as viewers all recognise and can relate to.

it comes down to this, dude. sony would have had to pay aykroyd, murray, reitman, and ramis too much in order for the film to go forward. with those salaries, and the cost of production of the film, sony thought the film was too expensive. more than likely, it had NOTHING to do with the “out-there-ness” of aykroyd's first draft. having it “more believable (?!) and in ”familiar locations" wouldn't have done a thing for getting a green-light for the film. if you honestly think so, you need to get your head out of the fan-boy clouds.

Personally I don't like the idea of the Ghostbusters going into hell or any other world or dimension. That would be too far out, destroying the beleivability of the francise which it delivers through it's mundaneness and farmiliar locations and situations that we as viewers all recognise and can relate too.

what… like the stay-puft marshmallow man and a giant, living river of mood slime is believable?

I think that Aykroyd should have turned up with a script that didn't need any changes to it.

with a FIRST DRAFT?! give me a break! he was getting his first thoughts down on paper. go sutdy up on the screenwriting process. i think you'll find that VERY FEW, if any, first draft screenplays are shootable. once again, look at the GB history. all of aykroyd's first drafts “put the gears in motion”, and show little resemblance to the final product. no one here, i assume, really knows if aykroyd submitted his first draft script to the suits at sony.

On the contrary. I know all about the concept and script details.

coulda fooled me! okay… so you know about the details. enlighten us on “the details”. is slimer in the script at all? what about the original ectomobiles… are they mentioned? in what form does venkman appear, if at all?