Dear Lord. Here we go one more time.

Matthew;130581
But they would be rusty and considering catching ghosts in recent times is a rare event it would be unusual for them. Perhaps they havn't had an emergency call in a year or so. They have gotten all to used to their desk jobs selling insurance against hauntings and accidental proton stream damage. Suddenly they get a call which they are not expecting and is out of the blue. Of course they'd be a little rusty and a little nervous just as, say a fireman would if he hasn't had to put out a fire in a long time.

Again, I get the idea. It doesn't sound funny or interesting to me. You explaining it several times is not going to change that opinion. I'm not calling your idea bad, I'm saying I, personally, don't like it. That's fine.

Matthew;130581
Yes you can. Jeez! Talk about a lack of imagination!. For instance, the movie could begin with a paranormal incident in a particular location. Next we see the exterior of the firehouse. The exterior of the firehouse could be holding signs up for insurance sales along side the no ghost logo which is still there. We then see the interior of the firehouse which is now more of an office like environment. There are desks laid out. Each one has a computer and a telephone. Venkman, Stanz and Zeddmore are wearing office attire rather than their ghostbusting jumpsuits. Already the audience gets an idea of what they now do without a word having been uttered. This scene could show Venkman trying to sell insurance to a customer who doesn't really know exactly what he's buying or Stanz talking to a customer and using lots of technical mumbo jumbo which the cutomer doesn't understand but pays anyway. Suddenly an emergency call comes in. They look at eachother in surprise. Stanz gets really exited. Perhaps Zeddmore could say something like “That's gotta be the first call in a year” or something similar. By showing this the audience would understand that the Ghostbusters arn't catching Ghosts on a routine basis and the acting and dialogue used would show that they are a little rusty and nervous

No. This is not how storytelling works. Its not a lack of imagination. I get this idea, and it would work IF the audience understood their new everyday life. You can't just vault into them in the office for 2 minutes, have a few lines of dialog, and have the audience sympathize with how these guys now operate. I'm not saying it doesn't work as a scene. But it does not work as an intro to a new story. Its not enough to make the audience understand and sympathize with how these characters will now be expected to act. Its basic storytelling. If you want the insurance thing to fly, they have to do that for a while in the movie before they go on their first bust so we can understand how long its been. If you have the bust so early on in the film, its a total cop-out to just have one of them say “Oh wow, its been a year”. Its robbing the audience of a good story by telling them through a line exactly what's happened and then that's it and we're supposed to just relate. That's not good at all.

Matthew;130581
Even your second go at explaining what you mean is a little difficult to understand. If you mean why am I putting them in a very normal, boring, mundane situation instead of having them be in big business and still routinely go out catching ghosts on a daily basis the reason for this is because I think it is better to have the characters unprepared, maybe nervous, exited etc because I think it offers more tension and exitement for the audience than having them expecting a call, not being surprised and not being very nervous.

I don't get what you don't understand about having different random ghosts pose different challenges and threats. Either through new and different powers, like shapeshifting or whatever, or through higher mental capacities or something. Its really not hard to grasp the idea of different ghosts posing different challenges.

Matthew;130581
As long as were making corrections it's “it's” not “its”.

Why yes, yes it is. Kind of like how it's “Stantz” and not “Stanz”, or “Zeddemore” and not “Zeddmore”…

I was correcting a character's name, don't go getting all defensive on me cuz I didn't bow down and call your story amazing.

Here we go again!

Doctor Venkman;130591
Again, I get the idea. It doesn't sound funny or interesting to me. You explaining it several times is not going to change that opinion. I'm not calling your idea bad, I'm saying I, personally, don't like it. That's fine.

If I explained a scene that you had never seen before in which Venkman is in a dingy old room testing two students for esp ability that doesn't sound very funny or interesting either but it was a great scene. The point is that you need the actors and the dialogue in order to really bring the scene alive and make it interesting and funny. Sure the idea the the Ghostbusters as insurance salemen doesn't sound funny because it hasn't yet been written or acted out.

Doctor Venkman;130591
I get this idea, and it would work IF the audience understood their new everyday life. You can't just vault into them in the office for 2 minutes, have a few lines of dialog, and have the audience sympathize with how these guys now operate.

Of couse you can. The audience arn't stupid. If the idea is well written and well acted then their everyday life as insurance salesmen together with the fact that emergency calls are rare can easily be communicated to the audience within a short space of time.

Doctor Venkman;130591
I'm not saying it doesn't work as a scene. But it does not work as an intro to a new story.

I don't know how you can say that if you don't even know what the story is.

Doctor Venkman;130591
Its not enough to make the audience understand and sympathize with how these characters will now be expected to act. Its basic storytelling. If you want the insurance thing to fly, they have to do that for a while in the movie before they go on their first bust so we can understand how long its been.

No you don't. Again, the audience arn't dumb. You don't need to fill too much time informing the audience of how long it's been since their last call and you don't need alot of screen time to let the audience understand what life is routinely like for them.

Doctor Venkman;130591
If you have the bust so early on in the film, its a total cop-out to just have one of them say “Oh wow, its been a year”. Its robbing the audience of a good story by telling them through a line exactly what's happened and then that's it and we're supposed to just relate. That's not good at all.

I think that the third movie should begin with a bust. The first and second movie didn't so I think this would help set Ghostbusters III apart from the previous two movies and really kickstart the movie with an exiting scene. I don't understand why you think this is a cop-out, I don't see how this is robbing the audience of a good story and I don't see why you think the audience wouldn't be able to relate to the characters. You're not making much sence.

Doctor Venkman;130591
I don't get what you don't understand about having different random ghosts pose different challenges and threats. Either through new and different powers, like shapeshifting or whatever, or through higher mental capacities or something. Its really not hard to grasp the idea of different ghosts posing different challenges.

Oh! Well, that's not how you originally worded it which is why I didn't understand exactly what you meant. Yes they should face some kind of threat that they have never experienced before.

Doctor Venkman;130591
Why yes, yes it is. Kind of like how it's “Stantz” and not “Stanz”, or “Zeddemore” and not “Zeddmore”.

Again with the spelling! My spelling is irrelevant but if you want to be funny and play spelling tennis I'd like to point out that it's “because” not “cuz”

Doctor Venkman;130591
I was correcting a character's name.

I know. Being corrected can be kind of annoying can't it. Especially when it's totally unecessary. It just looked to me as though you couldn't make your points in the discussion about the movie so as a last resort you highlighted the spelling.

Doctor Venkman;130591
don't go getting all defensive on me cuz I didn't bow down and call your story amazing.

You think I want you to bow down and call my story amazing? First of all you havn't even heard my story. All you've heard is a single idea which could be included in the movie. If you don't like it then I don't care. What I am interested in is sharing ideas for a third movie and reading other peoples ideas. What I don't like is being unecessarily corrected.

Ok, I think we're just missing here, so I'm gonna try to squelch this argument.

Matthew;130592
If I explained a scene that you had never seen before in which Venkman is in a dingy old room testing two students for esp ability that doesn't sound very funny or interesting either but it was a great scene. The point is that you need the actors and the dialogue in order to really bring the scene alive and make it interesting and funny. Sure the idea the the Ghostbusters as insurance salemen doesn't sound funny because it hasn't yet been written or acted out.

Well, I would not have criticized the opening scene of Ghostbusters with Venkman the ESP, but I get your point, which could potentially be right or wrong.

Matthew;130592
Of couse you can. The audience arn't stupid. If the idea is well written and well acted then their everyday life as insurance salesmen together with the fact that emergency calls are rare can easily be communicated to the audience within a short space of time.

My point is, that it's not good writing to do the scene is such a short space. The characters are known as Ghostbusters. That is what people expect. Sure they aren't stupid, so they can pick up on it. But in the same token, they aren't stupid, so you can't just throw something totally unseen and out of the blue at them without letting them then see said new thing for a while to fully understand and relate to the new situation.

Matthew;130592
I don't know how you can say that if you don't even know what the story is.

Fair enough. I basically just don't like the intro so far, a good story could obviously follow.

Matthew;130592
No you don't. Again, the audience arn't dumb. You don't need to fill too much time informing the audience of how long it's been since their last call and you don't need alot of screen time to let the audience understand what life is routinely like for them.

I think you don't have to have A LOT of screen time. But its important to have enough screen time to develop these characters in their new settings. In order to not seem out of place, that takes somewhere in the vicinity of 15-20 minutes in good storytelling in my opinion.

Matthew;130592
I think that the third movie should begin with a bust. The first and second movie didn't so I think this would help set Ghostbusters III apart from the previous two movies and really kickstart the movie with an exiting scene. I don't understand why you think this is a cop-out, I don't see how this is robbing the audience of a good story and I don't see why you think the audience wouldn't be able to relate to the characters. You're not making much sence.

I completely agree that it would be great to set Ghostbusters III apart by having a bust early on. Its not that event by itself that makes me think the audience is being robbed, its rushing the beginning with a new story arch (insurance), and then not properly developing it.

Matthew;130592
Oh! Well, that's not how you originally worded it which is why I didn't understand exactly what you meant. Yes they should face some kind of threat that they have never experienced before.

I apologize for not better explaining that before.

Matthew;130592
Again with the spelling! My spelling is irrelevant but if you want to be funny and play spelling tennis I'd like to point out that it's “because” not “cuz”

You're right, spelling is uneccesarry. Its a pet peeve. I get annoyed when people don't spell the characters names correctly.

Matthew;130592
I know. Being corrected can be kind of annoying can't it. Especially when it's totally unecessary. It just looked to me as though you couldn't make your points in the discussion about the movie so as a last resort you highlighted the spelling.

Yes, being corrected can be annoying. Again, its a pet peeve, so I pointed it out. It wasn't meant maliciously.

Matthew;130592
You think I want you to bow down and call my story amazing? First of all you havn't even heard my story. All you've heard is a single idea which could be included in the movie. If you don't like it then I don't care. What I am interested in is sharing ideas for a third movie and reading other peoples ideas. What I don't like is being unecessarily corrected.

I agree. It is a single idea, and all I'm saying is I don't like it. I'm glad you aren't overly defensive about your stories. As a fellow writer, I know what that can be like, due to some instances with my experiences with GB:TAS. Its tough to come across without being an asshole when you don't like someone's material. People too often just take it personally immediately.

Doctor Venkman;130593
Well, I would not have criticized the opening scene of Ghostbusters with Venkman the ESP, but I get your point, which could potentially be right or wrong.

The point is that on paper neither scene sounds exiting, particularly interesting or very funny.

Doctor Venkman;130593
My point is, that it's not good writing to do the scene is such a short space. The characters are known as Ghostbusters. That is what people expect.

I think that sometimes it is better to give the audience something that they are not expecting. Anyway with this particular idea they would still be ghostbusters and the audience would get a ghost catching scene right off the bat.

Doctor Venkman;130593
Sure they aren't stupid, so they can pick up on it. But in the same token, they aren't stupid, so you can't just throw something totally unseen and out of the blue at them without letting them then see said new thing for a while to fully understand and relate to the new situation.

I beleive that in order to show the audience that the Ghostbusters now do more insurance paperwork than catching ghosts, that this is basically their routine job nowadays and that catching ghosts is now somewhat of a rarity can easily be done within a couple of scenes and not much screen time at all.

Doctor Venkman;130593
I think you don't have to have A LOT of screen time. But its important to have enough screen time to develop these characters in their new settings. In order to not seem out of place, that takes somewhere in the vicinity of 15-20 minutes in good storytelling in my opinion.

15-20 minutes? All we'd need is a few minutes showing the inside of the firestation and, for instance, Venkman dealing with an insurance claim then suddenly an emergency call comes in. It would only need to take up five or so minutes of screen time.

Doctor Venkman;130593
I completely agree that it would be great to set Ghostbusters III apart by having a bust early on. Its not that event by itself that makes me think the audience is being robbed, its rushing the beginning with a new story arch (insurance), and then not properly developing it.

The insurance saleman idea doesn't need to be developed just as the esp testing in the original movie didn't need to be developed. The esp testing in the original wasn't an integral part of the overall story and neither is the idea about them selling insurance. The point is that the Ghostbusters suddenly have to answer an emergency call which is unusual for them due to the fact that the emergency phone hasn't rang in a long time. They suddenly have to leave their desks behind and get out there. They have gotten all too used to the safety and familiarity of filling in paperwork and they are suddenly taken out of their comfort zone, similarly as to how Venkman was when Stantz made him leave Jennifer as the beginning of the original movie in order to visit the New York Public Library.

Matthew;130594
The insurance saleman idea doesn't need to be developed just as the esp testing in the original movie didn't need to be developed. The esp testing in the original wasn't an integral part of the overall story and neither is the idea about them selling insurance. The point is that the Ghostbusters suddenly have to answer an emergency call which is unusual for them due to the fact that the emergency phone hasn't rang in a long time. They suddenly have to leave their desks behind and get out there. They have gotten all too used to the safety and familiarity of filling in paperwork and they are suddenly taken out of their comfort zone, similarly as to how Venkman was when Stantz made him leave Jennifer as the beginning of the original movie in order to visit the New York Public Library.

Well that's where we just have to agree to disagree. If the story is going to change the fundamentality of what Ghostbusters is, even briefly, it will need to be explained and developed. Something that completely changes what the Ghostbusters are, even if its only briefly, needs to be seen for longer than 5 minutes. Otherwise it will seem pointless. Changing that fundamentalism of what the Ghostbusters are IS integral. You can't just have it be different, then go back to what Ghostbusters really is in 5 minutes and not confuse or annoy the audience.

Doctor Venkman;130595
If the story is going to change the fundamentality of what Ghostbusters is, even briefly, it will need to be explained and developed.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. The idea that they are selling insurance in the beginning of the movie can easily be explained within a short scene. It however does not need to be developed because it is not integral to the story. It simply serves as a way of reintroducing the characters, in particular Venkman who is still as unprofessional as ever.

Doctor Venkman;130595
Something that completely changes what the Ghostbusters are, even if its only briefly, needs to be seen for longer than 5 minutes.

It doesn't completely change what the Ghostbusters are. They are selling insurance in relation to what they do which is catching ghosts. They still catch ghosts every now and then but calls arn't as common as they once were.

Doctor Venkman;130595
Otherwise it will seem pointless. Changing that fundamentalism of what the Ghostbusters are IS integral. You can't just have it be different, then go back to what Ghostbusters really is in 5 minutes and not confuse or annoy the audience.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with putting new ideas in it. You're talking as if this one little idea would completely change Ghostbusters. This idea would not change the movie into something completely different. It would still be about the four guys catching ghosts and trying to defeat some kind of paranormal menace at the end. I don't see how this idea would annoy the audience. Besides, this scene would indeed serve a purpose. It would be a way of reintroducing the characters, particularly Venkman.

You'd need a good fifteen minutes for the audience to get used to it, though. Dr V is absolutely correct on that.

The difference from the ESP scene is that these are established characters that you are putting in a slightly different situation. If you want to come from the angle that business is slow so they're branching out, you need a little time to really get that feeling across before you blast them off on a surprise bust. It's just about building tension to an event, rather than just stumbling into one that could leave an audience behind you. The audience is expecting to see Ghostbusters, not ghost insurance guys - there's humour in that idea but it would have to be milked a little bit before they were back to being straight Ghostbusters.

So yeah, it is the fact that the audience has expectations of these characters that demands that - should you make any major changes to those characters' situations, you'd better be diligent in explaining it.

Case in point, in GB1 they establish that there ARE ghosts in New York in the first 10 minutes. You COULD cut from their getting thrown out of uni straight to the slimer bust. Audiences would probably get it, but they wouldn't care anywhere near as much.

It's not a bad idea, it's just that it's a pointless idea if it isn't slightly exploited for humour/characterisation/drama/tension etc.

Matthew;130596
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this. The idea that they are selling insurance in the beginning of the movie can easily be explained within a short scene. It however does not need to be developed because it is not integral to the story. It simply serves as a way of reintroducing the characters, in particular Venkman who is still as unprofessional as ever.

It doesn't completely change what the Ghostbusters are. They are selling insurance in relation to what they do which is catching ghosts. They still catch ghosts every now and then but calls arn't as common as they once were.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with putting new ideas in it. You're talking as if this one little idea would completely change Ghostbusters. This idea would not change the movie into something completely different. It would still be about the four guys catching ghosts and trying to defeat some kind of paranormal menace at the end. I don't see how this idea would annoy the audience. Besides, this scene would indeed serve a purpose. It would be a way of reintroducing the characters, particularly Venkman.

Ok, again. I get what you're saying. We have to agree to disagree. You're either not getting what I'm saying about changing what they are… I know they're still going to catch ghosts, but showing this newer side of their business is going to be showing the audience something completely different that yes, will need to be developed. If its not integral to the story, then there should be another way of reintroducing the characters. Showing them running a new side of a business for only a few minutes without properly developing how they operate, is just going to seem odd and irrelevant to the audience if its not integral.

Again, just agree to disagree. We don't see eye to eye on this scene. No big deal. I'd be curious to talk about any other ideas you have, or where the story goes from this opening scene.

This is how it should be “Ghostbusters III The awakining of Samhaine”

It should be Hallows eve night the night before Halloween the gang is getting things set up at the firehouse for the Halloween party the next night.Meanwhile Venkman and Ray are busy trying to evaluate the youngsters who are going to be the new ghostbusters in the next possible movie who are Eduardo Rivera,Roland Jackson,Garret Miller and Kylie Griffin. (The Characters from the Extreme Ghostbusters cartoon) The evaluation goes fine and the gang thinks that these are the youngsters that are going to take their places when the recent ghostbusters hang up their boots.The next day is finally Halloween it's a cold night little kids are trick or treating while there's a party going on in the firehouse.While Egon shows the soon to be ghostbusters around the firehouse.Where the proton packs are,the ecto mobile and Egon shows the soon to be ghostbusters the room where the containment unit is Eduardo starts messing with the containment unit and it accedently releases Samhaine and some other ghosts.And now Samhaine and the ghosts are around New York City.So it's up for the Ghostbusters to stop Samhaine and to show the soon to be Ghostbusters what being a Ghostbusters is all about.So it's up to the Ghostbusters and the rookies to team up and stop Samhaine before it's too late.Samhaine is caught at the empire state bulding and the soon to be ghostbusters offer to catch samhaine to see if they pass the test to becoming the new ghostbusters.The soon to be Ghostbusters catch the ghosts and Samhaine and they pass the test to becoming the new ghostbusters for the fourth movie.Venkman,Egon,Ray and Winston will still make camo's in the fourth movie

I don't like the idea of new recruits. Ghostbusters III being set over Halloween with Samhaine as the villain could work though.