D. OSBORN
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.

There is no question that the salaries that Sony would have had to pay out to the actors would have been very high indeed. That is obvious and also is not what I am asking. What I am asking is, Could Sony's decision be partly to do with the high cost of production for the amount of special effects needed in that particular script?

D. OSBORN
more than likely, it had NOTHING to do with the “out-there-ness” of aykroyd's first draft.

What are you talking about? When writing a script for a Ghostbusters movie, the more “out there” it is, the chances are, the more money would need to be spent on special effects.

D. OSBORN
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.

Yes it would actually. I think you need to get your head out of the clouds. Producing a movie which has the majority of it set in hell or any other special effects world would be much more expensive to produce than simply filming it in the real world. This of course depends on exactly where you film, but if you are creating entire locations by using special effects you have to spend alot of money.

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

Yes. One of the most important things any Sci fi or fantasy film has to do is to take the viewer completely out of reality and make the viewer beleive in the story. The Ghostbusters movies take us from the mundane to the ridiculous by using what Reitman explains as the “steps of reality”. You show the viewer certain situations which lead from normal life to the impossible, with explanations to back them up, which creates the story and makes it's ridiculous ending somehow plausable to the viewer.

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

D. OSBORN
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.

I know that this is how Aykroyd has pitched his ideas in the past, and look what happened, he and Ramis had to rework them. They were successfull after this reworking. so what I am saying is, seeing as though his writing partnership with Ramis has proven to be so successfull, why didn't he give in a script that had already been worked on by the two of them?

D. OSBORN
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?

Don't be stupid. I didn't say I had read the script or know about every detail. I have read all the interviews with Ramis and Aykroyd regarding Ghostbusters III as well as the main plot details. Maybe you should get your head out of the clouds and actually watch Ghostbusters on DVD, listen to its commentary and watch the featurettes so you actually understand the movie and know what you're talking about.

first off, we have NO IDEA which script was submitted to sony for review. therefore, don't jump to conclusions about the idea that the high-budget quote for aykroyd's first draft led to the shelving of the project. ramis himself said that his idea was totally different from ayrkoyd's, which more than likely meant in terms of possible SFX work. to answer your question… again…. nearly all parties involved with the project have stated in the public that the main reason for the film not going forward was the high salaries of the talent. is it possible that PART of the reason for shelving was the submitted draft possible budget? sure! money was THE problem with the film not getting made… of course it was a reason. was it the PRIMARY reason, as asked? no…

I didn't say I had read the script or know about every detail.

exactly. so don't act like you DO know every detail.

Producing a movie which has the majority of it set in hell or any other special effects world would be much more expensive to produce than simply filming it in the real world. This of course depends on exactly where you film, but if you are creating entire locations by using special effects you have to spend alot of money.

really? darn.. i thought it was CHEAPER! shucks!

These movies take us from the mundane to the ridiculous by using what Reitman explains as the “steps of reality”. You show the viewer certain situations which lead from normal life to the impossible, which makes the story and it's ridiculous ending somehow plausable to the viewer.

once again, have you read the script? how do you know the “steps to reality” that reitman and ramis talked about in SEVERAL past interviews weren't present in the drafts written for the third film? it's easily plausible that the concepts and events in the GB3 scripts were on the same level of believabitliy as the first two fillms.

I know that this is how Aykroyd has pitched his ideas in the past, and look what happened, he and Ramis had to rework them. They were successfull after this reworking. so what I am saying is, seeing as though his writing partnership with Ramis has proven to be so successfull, why didn't he give in a script that had already been worked on by the two of them?

how do you know they didn't? once again, we, the fans, know NOTHING about what went on with early development of GB3.

D. OSBORN
first off, we have NO IDEA which script was submitted to sony for review. therefore, don't jump to conclusions about the idea that the high-budget quote for aykroyd's first draft led to the shelving of the project.

I didnt jump to any conclusion. I asked a question.

D. OSBORN
ramis himself said that his idea was totally different from ayrkoyd's, which more than likely meant in terms of possible SFX work. to answer your question… again…. nearly all parties involved with the project have stated in the public that the main reason for the film not going forward was the high salaries of the talent. is it possible that PART of the reason for shelving was the submitted draft possible budget? sure! money was THE problem with the film not getting made… of course it was a reason. was it the PRIMARY reason, as asked? no…

No. I was asking specifically about the possible high costs of the special effects.

I didn't say I had read the script or know about every detail.

D. OSBORN
exactly. so don't act like you DO know every detail. .

I havn't acted that way at all. I'm going strictly by the news I read that a major part of the movie was said to be taken up by the Ghostbusters in a hellish world created through special effects.

Producing a movie which has the majority of it set in hell or any other special effects world would be much more expensive to produce than simply filming it in the real world. This of course depends on exactly where you film, but if you are creating entire locations by using special effects you have to spend alot of money.

D. OSBORN
really? darn.. i thought it was CHEAPER! shucks!

Then what did you mean? When you said the fact that Sonys decision had nothing to do with how “out there” the script was, what did you mean? presumably, the more “out there” the script, the more expenses in special effects for sony and the more money they have to spend, so the less chance of them making a deal. Common sence I would have thought.

These movies take us from the mundane to the ridiculous by using what Reitman explains as the “steps of reality”. You show the viewer certain situations which lead from normal life to the impossible, which makes the story and it's ridiculous ending somehow plausable to the viewer.

D. OSBORN
once again, have you read the script? how do you know the “steps to reality” that reitman and ramis talked about in SEVERAL past interviews weren't present in the drafts written for the third film? it's easily plausible that the concepts and events in the GB3 scripts were on the same level of believabitliy as the first two fillms.

I didn't say that the steps of reality wern't present in the script for Ghostbusters III. I was explaining how the steps of reality work in the first movie because you said you found some of the occurances such as the Marshmellow man to be unrealistic.

I know that this is how Aykroyd has pitched his ideas in the past, and look what happened, he and Ramis had to rework them. They were successfull after this reworking. so what I am saying is, seeing as though his writing partnership with Ramis has proven to be so successfull, why didn't he give in a script that had already been worked on by the two of them?

D. OSBORN
how do you know they didn't? once again, we, the fans, know NOTHING about what went on with early development of GB3.

I know this from an interview with Harold Ramis which I have read. He himself says that he had a different take on the script which Dan Aykroyd put forward to Sony.

i swear… it's like conversing with a brick wall… over the internet. :p

you asked a question, and i answered it logically, based off interviews from the past six or seven years. i refuse to repeat myself any longer.

If you're going to continue speaking to me the way you have done so far in this particular thread then it's best that you don't repeat yourself any longer.

Dont make me hose you two with mood slime :p GB3 is a tricky situation due to not much is known in my opinion. Dan has said both Murray and money contributed to GB3 not being made. I think we all have a basic idea of the reasons that prevented a deal.