FORUMS: list search recent posts

Ghostbusters

COW Forums : TV & Movie Appreciation

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Stephen Smith
Ghostbusters
on Nov 7, 2011 at 2:14:34 pm

They played Ghostbusters at the Megaplex theater for the Halloween weekend which was really cool but they also had some people dressed up as Ghostbusters and one had a full on pack. They also had three cars with flashing lights and stuff all deck out like the ambulance in the movie. I thought that was super cool.

Stephen Smith
Utah Video Productions

Check out my Motion Training DVD

Check out my Motion Tutorials


Return to posts index

Mark Suszko
Re: Ghostbusters
on Nov 8, 2011 at 4:30:52 pm

A new sequel is constantly rumored to be in production. Supposedly, Murray is now on board and they are in development.

My pitch?

The Ghostbusters go to Hell to retrieve Venkman (Murray) from the Devil, after he's been tricked into a curse on his soul. But Venkman's not sure he wants to be saved. He's there in place of Dana.


Return to posts index

Jason Jenkins
Re: Ghostbusters
on Nov 11, 2011 at 7:33:55 pm

[Mark Suszko] "
The Ghostbusters go to Hell to retrieve Venkman (Murray) from the Devil, after he's been tricked into a curse on his soul. But Venkman's not sure he wants to be saved. He's there in place of Dana."


You're hired!

Jason Jenkins
Flowmotion Media
Video production... with style!


Return to posts index


Stephen Smith
Re: Ghostbusters
on Nov 11, 2011 at 7:41:31 pm

Ha Ha this video is great.







Stephen Smith
Utah Video Productions

Check out my Motion Training DVD

Check out my Motion Tutorials


Return to posts index

Scott Roberts
Re: Ghostbusters
on Nov 14, 2011 at 3:29:52 pm

I'm pretty sure the third Ghostbusters film is finally in the pre--stages of getting made. Closer than it has been before. At first it was rumored that the "Apatow crew" (Seth Rogan, Paul Rudd, James Franco, etc) were going to be the new Ghostbusters, but that was several years ago and there's probably a 0% chance of that ever happening now.

Then it sort of got stalled several times because of Bill Murray. First he said he wouldn't do it unless they guaranteed Ernie Hudson would be in the movie. Then he said he wouldn't do it unless Peter Venkman died at some point during the movie and became a ghost (though, he might have been sarcastic). Then they finally shipped him a near completed script and he didn't want to read it because it was written by the guys who wrote that Jack Black/Michael Cera movie Year One, and he heard that movie was awful and he just assumed they wrote a crappy Ghostbusters script too. Then in a Howard Stern interview earlier this year he finally admitted that the script was on his desk and he feels bad that he hasn't gotten around to reading it.

But I think now it's finally gotten wheels in motion. I don't know if that means Bill Murray warmed up to it, or he isn't involved or what. But as good as Mark's idea is, it seems (based on Dan Aykroyd's comments) that the film will be about training a new group of young Ghostbusters. So now it doesn't even just rely on a good script, it also falls greatly on the casting of the new guys.

I actually like that idea for the movie. It could be funny to play on the crappy economy, and a few down-on-their-luck guys taking the job as Ghostbusters because they need the money or something like that. Because it never seemed like ghostbusting was that glamorous of a job if you think about it.


Return to posts index

Mike Cohen
Re: Ghostbusters
on Nov 14, 2011 at 4:12:50 pm

You know, between GBII and the present is just enough time for all the guys to have grown kids of their own. Maybe Shia Lebeauf can play Venkman's son. That's a clever idea.

Mike Cohen


Return to posts index


Mark Suszko
Re: Ghostbusters
on Nov 14, 2011 at 7:56:47 pm

I think it is important in any new Ghostbusters script, to not deny the established "Canon" laid down in the first movies. So this is a world where people have been convinced that ghosts do exist, with physical evidence having proved it, and proving Egon's technology works. You follow the implications from there, and see what kind of stories it can generate. The classic extrapolation of classic science fiction. Then you decide how much funny and how much scary to pull from that situation.

The first thing I would imagine happening after Ghost Busters 2 is the GB tech being seized by the DOD "for evaluation". Ghosts that are controllable, after all, would make awesome spies for recon, as well as possible assassins. Even a power source. And the psychokinetic slime could be used for urban pacification.

Parelleling the development of nuclear weapons, the hardest job was that of the first atomic bomb-makers: once the Russians and Chinese knew it could be done, with some general hints at how, and some stolen tips, their progress was faster. So, extrapolating from that, you would see other world powers quickly copying the GB tech and trying it out themselves.

Where does that get us?

A world where major powers are locked in a metaphysical arms race. Does all this messing around with the natural order of ghosts bring on some global warming-like threat? Is there some hyper-dimensional evil being that wants to harvest all this ghost energy to become all-powerful? Meanwhile, are ALL ghosts scary or funny? Aren't any of them happy or friendly? Do they miss their Earthbound friensd and family? What have they been DOING all this time, and where? Wouldn't a heck of a lot of people have their belief systems shaken, and wouldn't a lot of them want to use this tech to contact dead loved ones? Do shosts have human rights? What do THEY want out of (after)life? GB tech and it's implications would turn the entier world on it's ear in short order, a disruptive event on a par with the Renaissance... or the Black Death.

Thinking thru all of that, making another breezy little comedy seems like it isn't quite big enough anymore...


Return to posts index

Tim Wilson
Re: Ghostbusters
on Nov 17, 2011 at 4:44:40 am

I really like the idea of playing older movies in theaters now and again. To me, the main reason for going to theaters -- and why I think they'll be around in some form forever -- is the power of tribal experience. I don't know anybody in a theater, but we share the laughter, adrenaline, tragedy, whatever, simply on the basis of being humans in the dark together.

I can think of other movies that might work as a revival. Ghostbusters was genius. Yes, a blockbuster, but probably still underrated. I can see Dirty Dancing as another choice, Ghost, Top Gun. If I had a theater, I'd show Die Hard every Christmas season.

Thinking about this recently, I've actually been softening my stand on remakes. Strip away the cannibalism, and what you've got is the idea of telling a good story more than once. Romeo and Juliet becomes West Side Story, Yojimbo becomes Fistful of Dollars, and Judy Garland and James Mason become Barbara Streisand and Kris Kristofferson.

(For that matter, Sinatra becomes Clooney and McQueen becomes Brosnan -- both of which work bizarrely beyond any expectation to outclass the originals. Those characters and stories were too good to let the early 60s have the final word.

I've been thinking the same thing about movies based on TV shows: TV watchers are an even bigger tribe than moviegoers, which makes those properties intrinsically valuable. They repeat the stories and characters that have become ingrained in us. Star Trek has been part of my life for 44 years, and I can barely wait until 2012 for the next Abrams installment.

Anyway, I really do think that Ghostbusters was a brilliant choice. I'd love to see that on the big screen again.


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]