Please note that all I know about Ghostbusters 3 is listed on this page.
[John] Calley [chairman of Sony Pictures Entertainment] also gets credit for saving the big summer ’98 film, Godzilla, and he plans a slew of sequels and recyclings. He has approved follow-ups to My Best Friend’s Wedding, Jumanji and Bad Boys. Naturally you’ll see more Men in Black. And, as Calley observes, “we can make Zorro forever if it works.” His plans also include another Ghostbusters installment and movie versions of such TV shows as I Dream of Jeannie and Bewitched.
With “Blues Brothers 2000” under his belt, Aykroyd may turn his attention
to reviving “Ghostbusters.” The biggest comedy hit of 1984, it was
sequelized five years later in another huge hit, “Ghostbusters II.” “Harold (Ramis) and I have a treatment that we really like,” reports Aykroyd. “It’s just a matter of writing it now. We’re going to try to do it this summer.”
Among the hurdles facing “Ghostbusters III” is the fact that Bill Murray and director Ivan Reitman do not want to return.
“The concept is still strong and I think that Harold and I can pull it off, if we have the time,” responds Aykroyd. “The concept is that there’s a positive image of life and there’s a negative image of life. Hell is not some distant place, far away from this dimension or realm. Hell is right next door. It’s like those old tintype photos where you turn them one way and they look positive, then you just flick them slightly and they look negative. That’s our concept. Given the right technology you could flip the switch and all of a sudden the positive that we see in this room suddenly becomes negative. It’s kind of neat.
“We’re going to set it in New York and do a Hades version of New York, very close to life in the city as we perceive it now. You look down at the river and there’s a ferry of Wall Street commuters, except they’re being shoved off with pitchforks into the river which is now boiling blood. Flick it back and it’s just the Brooklyn Bridge and just a normal traffic jam. Carrying that through, I think we can have a lot of fun.”
It was confirmed today at the official All Star Cafe by screen writer and actor Dan Aykroyd, that Ghostbuster’s 3 will end with “To Be Concluded.” (Like the end of Back to the Future 2.) Dan was quoted in saying to USA Today reporter, Danielle Gray that, “It was unintentional. But when we actually began planning the movie with Columbia, we found out that the script was just too long to view in one sitting.” Dan also told reporters that Columbia didn’t like the idea of making a fourth installment to what was “supposed” to be a trilogy, so they told him to cut some scenes out. However, even though Dan took several scenes cut, Columbia found that the movie was still too long, and agreed, after Dan rufused to cut anymore scens from his script, to make the last two hours a whole other movie that will be out nine months after Ghostbusters 3 hits theaters. On that note, the question arises: “Will this delay Ghostbusters 3 arrival in theaters?” Well, if Columbia decides to run production for both part 3 and 4 at the same time, then the answer is “Yes.” This is most likely what will happen since the same cast and scenes will be used for both movies. It would be much more economical for Columbia to take that route, but nonethelessmuch more discouraging for the millions of Ghostbuster fans around the world awaiting part 3. I’ll keep you updated on the situation. (Look for this report to be in the March 10th paper in USA Today.)
EDITORS SIDE NOTE:
Bill Emkow checked the March 10, 1998 issue of USA Today and there was nothing in there about it. Oscar has said, “I called USA Today … and tried to find out what the story was. … I asked them what was up with the interview about Ghostbuster 3 and 4 and why Danielle’s interview wasn’t even mentioned in today’s edition as promised. … Danielle and [I] spoke VERY briefly about the matter. She told me that she had some wrong information and that she couldn’t get to press in time. I asked her what kind of wrong info and she told me that Columbia didn’t have the rights to GB 3 and 4, but Sony did. By the time her editor found the mistake, it was too late to go to press. She is uncertain on whether the story will be covered at all anymore being that USA Today is a paper that deals with the present.”
Dan Aykroyd … will also star in “Ghostbusters III,” which, though slated to premiere in 1999, will probably begin advertising in theatres any day now.
Usffreak asks: Are you going to be in the next Ghostbusters film?
ErnieHudson says: I’ve been hearing rumors about a 3rd film. I talked to Danny Akyroyd and Harold Ramis who wrote the first two. Bill Murray and Ivan Reitman have been reluctant. Assuming there’s going to be a third one, and assuming I’ll be asked, I’d like to be a part of it if the script is good. You don’t want to be doing a movie, just to be doing a movie.
(the text comes from the official chat transcript)
GHOSTBUSTERS III
(Columbia)
A revival of Ghostbusters has been confirmed. Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis have a script, in part dealing with the quitting of Bill Murray and Sigourney Weaver’s characters, which Ramis will direct. Aykroyd is said to have stated that the film will end with a “to be concluded,” and a fourth film will be made back-to-back to be released nine months after the third.
(info provided by Alex Talpur)
Sony president John Calley reveals to Variety that jump-starting the studio’s potential franchise flicks is the top priority heading into 1999. Among the follow-ups that the suit says are high on the list include Men In Black 2 (which is “being cobbled together” according to a report in the trade paper) with Barry Sonnenfeld directing Will Smith, Tommy Lee Jones and Linda Fiorentino. Additionally, Sony hopes to have The Mask of Zorro 2, Ghostbusters 3, Bad Boys 2 and Jumanji 2 underway soon as well as big-budget feature remakes of Charlie’s Angels and Flash Gordon that are currently in development.
(Thanks to Justin Whipkey for first spotting this news brief.)
Yours truly put in a call to the production offices of Harold “Egon” Ramis, in an effort to confirm a comment allegedly made by Dan Aykroyd during an online chat (previously covered in the Insider) that he and Ramis were nearly ready to turn in a first draft of a Ghostbuster 3 script for Sony. According to a source close to the project, the film is indeed being worked on, but any rumors that suggest it’s anywhere but in the early planning stages are slime-worthy. It’s been confirmed that Aykroyd is working on a script at this time. Is Ramis involved? “Let’s just say they talk,” quipped our source cryptically. Perhaps Sony will choose to cut through the ghost-like haze surrounding this project soon with official word on its development, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Dan Aykroyd followed Blues Brothers 2000 with the next installment of Ghostbusters (number three for those who are counting).
Dan Aykroyd says he’s currently working on Ghostbusters 3. Now, sadly, there were plans to have the late Chris Farley join the team.
Harold Ramis is dismissing any rumors regarding a Ghostbusters 3 happening any time in the near future. While talking to columnists Marilyn Beck and Stacy Jenel Smith, the actor-writer-director pointed out one major reason that the original Ghostbusters cast will not likely be re-assembled saying, “Harder than getting the script would be for Columbia to figure out a way to pay us all.”
However; Ramis confirmed previous reports that Dan Aykroyd had been writing a sequel, in fact two versions so far. Ramis adds that “it’s more of a hobby with” Aykroyd than anything solid actually happening on a possible third GB film.
However; there is a ray of hope as Ramis reveals that if there ever is a third film, any original cast members “would just be around as mentors to a new, young cast.”
To provide some insight into the validity of Internet rumors touting a possible “Ghostbusters III,” EW Online sat down with Harold Ramis, who cowrote the first two movies in the series and played the bespectacled spirit-slammer Dr. Egon Spengler. “Dan (Akroyd) and I talk about it on a regular basis, and he’s done some writing,” Ramis says. “The studio would love to make a deal, but they’re not sure who to make the deal with, since Bill (Murray) is very elusive, and (original director) Ivan Reitman is kind of standing on the side. The dream plan is that Danny and I would produce it, I would direct it, and we would recruit some newer, younger, popular Ghostbusters to star.”
Jumping back in front of the camera isn’t a top priority for Ramis, who is concentrating on directing. (His new comedy, “Analyze This,” with Robert De Niro and Billy Crystal, opens March 5.) In fact, he says fans who remember him from on-screen turns in “Stripes” and “SCTV” may be in for a shock. “I did some of that stuff 20 years ago, and shall we say… my body has changed a little,” Ramis admits, patting a stomach that has swelled since leaving the “Stripes” boot camp. “I was in a supermarket with my wife, and somebody said to her, ‘Is that Harold Ramis?’ and my wife said, ‘Yes, it is.’ And the woman said, ‘What happened to him?'”
It beats me why Ramis even talks about Ghostbusters 3 when just about every other interview he also dismisses it as not happening.
While talking to the Edmonton Sun, the actor/writer/director was asked once again about the limbo locked project. It’s reported that Ramis said he was open to returning to the franchise and, confirming previous reports, that Dan Aykroyd is currently writing the script. Once again, though, Ramis does add that his screen time in another Ghostbusters film might be severely limited saying that he and Aykroyd would most likely only do cameos in the film. Then, he adds, “We thought we might be in it just passing the torch to some younger, slimmer guys.”
A third ‘Ghostbusters’ script is in development. Harold Ramis, who starred and co-wrote the 1984 original movie, told Popcorn the story will involve the original cast (Ramis, Aykroyd and Bill Murray) coming out of retirement to tutor a new set of rookie Ghostbusters to rid the world of a poltergeist plague after Hell is declared to have ‘no vacancies’ in the 21st century. Ramis also said that Hollywood’s hottest young stars are going to be approached. Columbia Pictures will once again produce the film. Bill Murray is suddenly hot property again after his performance in ‘Rushmore’, and his participation may cut through the red tape which impedes other projects.
Ghostbusters Ray, Venkman, and Spengler move aside for grungy replacements?
Good thing or bad thing? Back in the 80s, Ghostbusters, a little movie about klutzy paranormal investigators making good and saving New York from the menace of the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man was a huge hit, earning hundreds of millions, spawning a pretty good cartoon, a sequel, and lots of knockoffs. Although the sequel wasn’t nearly as good, there’s been talk of a third Ghostbusters movie in the works for years, and while the project was thought dead some time ago, Harold Ramis (one of the original Ghostbusters and a famous director to boot) has revealed that it’s still very much alive, and casting’s in progress.
Instead of the third movie concentrating on Harold Ramis, Dan Aykroyd, and Bill Murray (the original Ghostbusters), these guys are only playing smaller supporting roles. According to Aykroyd’s script, they’ll reprise their roles, except now it’s the early 21st century, and they’re retired. Hell gets filled up, and all other damned souls begin to roam the earth, unleashing a poltergeist plague. So, they come out of retirement like ancient Jedi masters (but klutzy ones) and train “Hollywood’s hottest young stars” in the use of unlicensed nuclear reactors. After all, Ramis remarks, “”We thought we might be in it just passing the torch to some younger, slimmer guys.”
While it brings back shuddering memories of “Xtreme Ghostbusters,” it’s probably the best way to bring back the franchise up to date. Bill Murray’s hair’s turned white, Harold Ramis is verging on Reuben-esque, and Aykroyd…well, let’s not talk about Aykroyd. Still, who really wants to see Leonardo diCaprio crossing streams with James van der Beek?
Dan Aykroyd sang the praises of [Norman] Jewison at the shindig as well as talking about his third Ghostbusters script. “It’s ready,” he said. “But if we are going to make it, Harold Ramis and I might have to take less to give Bill Murray more.”
James_Bond_of_the_new_mellenium: Are the rumors true about Ghostbusters 3 and even a Ghostbusters 4?
BigStar_Celeb: I’ve heard them .. everyday. Someone will come up and say they read it somewhere or heard .. but no one’s approached me about it.
BigStar_Celeb: It was a big franchise and it’s hard to believe the studios won’t try to take advantage of it. But, as far as I know, nothing definite has happened and I haven’t been approached yet. I worked with Harold Ramis on “Airheads” and he talked about the studios wanting it to happen.
BigStar_Celeb: He and Danny Aykroyd were in favor but Bill Murray didn’t. So, I’m not sure if they worked through all the politics that it takes to make a movie. It’d be nice to get together with the guys again … I haven’t worked with them.
BigStar_Celeb: It’s nice to see everyone successful in their own area. I haven’t stopped working and have been fortunate to have done a lot of great films. It’s nice to have that as part of my background.
Host: Is it true there’s going to be a Ghostbusters 3?
Harold Ramis: This is a … it’s an internet fantasy.
Host: Is this an insidious rumor?
Harold Ramis: No … it’s possible. And I think that Columbia would love to ah, … just keep the franchise going with three new Ghostbusters. You know, using us as mentors, cameos in the movie, I don’t know. And we’re developing a … there’s a concept floating around for a third script and a … The studio would like to do it. Right now there’s a big negotiation going on to see if the movie can actually … if the deal can be made. The movie could be made, we don’t know if the deal could be made.
(info and soundbyte provided by Winston Kotzan)
FastForward — The latest from the home-video front
“DVD Or Bust” by Michael Giltz
Ivan Reitman is finally satisfied with Ghostbusters. For the June 29th DVD release of his 1984 hit starring Bill Murray, the director saw to it that everything looks just right, which wasn’t the case with the first, supposedly definitive laserdisc edition. “I don’t know what happened,” he says, “but it pumped up the light level so much you saw all the matte lines. I was embarrassed about it all these years.” Not only are the blacks back for DVD, all the effects shots are complete. “When we went out into release, about half dozen shots were unfinished,” recalls Reitman, who had to rush his $30 million production. “It mostly had to do with the marshmallow man. The amazing thing is, people didn’t care.”
Reitman says that he’s about to announce a new project, and while it won’t be Ghostbusters 3, a second — hopefully better — sequel isn’t out of the question. “Dan Aykroyd came to my house three weeks ago to talk about it,” he confesses. “Harold [Ramis] has talked about directing, and I would produce. I don’t think we’ve solved it yet, as far as how to do it fresh.” That’s simple: just Stay Puft.
(article provided by AJ Quick)
Dan Aykroyd shows up in town next week to help pals Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas with Home Brew, the sequel to their Bob and Doug McKenzie movie Strange Brew. So what are the odds he’ll go from Bob & Doug 2 to the long-talked-about Ghostbusters 3? A lot higher, one assumes, now that the Web site www.ghostbusters3.com has been duly registered. Go to it and it takes you to the Sony Pictures Web site. These days, that sort of circumstantial evidence is a fairly strong indicator of a studio’s early interest in a movie. The reason? There’ve been too many cases of mischievous civilians registering the movie’s name.com as soon as they read about it, and holding the Web site title for ransom (as happened with David Cronenberg’s eXistenZ). So securing a Web site is now one of the first things on a movie’s to-do list.
Q: Is there going to be a GHOSTBUSTERS 3? If so, what have you heard about it and what role shall you take on the project? Do you also know of a release date or shooting dates for the film?
A: We have talked about doing “Ghostbusters 3”, but nothing is set. If we were to go ahead with the project, I would probably produce the film, not direct it.
Dan Aykroyd: Doesn’t look good right now, I’m sorry to say that.
It’s Dan Aykroyd’s spirited battle with Sony Pictures over Ghostbusters part three.
Nancy O’Dell: How could they not possibly want to do it?
Dan Aykroyd: Because they’re trying to get bargains, they’re trying to get the next Blair Witch. But, you know, sometimes you have to seed for the big harvest to come in.
Aykroyd insists it would cost 120 million dollars to make a Ghostbusters sequel. This, for a mega successful franchise that has brought in a reported 1.5 billion dollars worldwide. The original was just released on DVD.
Dan Aykroyd: You’re talking about billion dollar releases. Spend 120, make 500. They don’t see it that way.
Nancy O’Dell: Kinda angry that they’re not gonna make it?
Dan Aykroyd: No, I’m not angry at all. I’m just resigned. I’m passionate and I’m sorry I have to leave the lot because I like it there.
Aykroyd revealed he’s so incensed, he’s ending his 10 year business relationship with the studio, even vacating his office on the lot. And frustrating him further, that a sequel won’t even be produced by a rival Hollywood studio. Sony owns the rights and he says they’re not selling.
Dan Aykroyd: It’s Ghostbusters 3, the new guys, it’s a whole new plot. It’s not like we’re gonna saddle the audience with me, and Harold, and Billy again. We’re gonna make a whole new movie with a whole new plot, and whole new characters.
Hey folks, Harry here… Well, shucks… For all of those hanging on to hopes about seeing a third GHOSTBUSTERS film… well, it looks like it is as dead as a dead thing what can’t move at all. And from the looks of it, it is all Bill Murray’s fault!!! SO… At least you now know who to direct angry frustrated thoughts at.
At a press conference for his latest film, Denys Arcand’s “Stardom”, here at the TIFF [Toronto International Film Festival], Dan Aykroyd was asked what was happening with Ghostbusters 3. Bluntly, he said “it’s dead”. He described it as “a combination of not getting the right story, and the business side of things.”. He also stated the primary reason was that Bill Murray didn’t want to be involved, and that they all pretty much agreed there wouldn’t be much point in doing it without him. He also said that it was a relief when they finally made the decision and he was happy just working as an actor. To my eye though, those statements seemed a tad contrived.
Dan Aykroyd told a press conference at the Toronto Film Festival that Ghostbusters 3, the rumored third installment to the popular 1980s film franchise, won’t happen, according to a report on the Ain’t It Cool News Web site. “It’s dead,” Aykroyd reportedly said.
Aykroyd, who co-starred with Bill Murray, Harold Ramis and Ernie Hudson in the original Ghostbusters, added that the sequel’s demise resulted from “a combination of not getting the right story, and the business side of things.” He also said that Murray didn’t want to be involved, and that they all pretty much agreed there wouldn’t be much point in doing it without him, AICN reported.
The Aintitcoolnews.com site is carrying first hand quotes from Dan Aykroyd about the status, grim as it is, of the third GHOSTBUSTERS movie. Quoted by the site’s Toronto Film Festival correspondent, Aykroyd said, “It’s dead.”
Aykroyd cited the decision of BUSTERS star Bill Murray not to participate as a major reason, but also, “a combination of not getting the right story, and the business side of things.”
After the sequel GHOSTBUSTERS 2, maybe it’s just as well.
There’s a glimmer of hope that the moribund Ghostbusters 3 project might actually happen, though it may also be fading quickly. While talking to Eon Magazine, director/producer Ivan Reitman spoke of the potential project, saying, “Danny [Aykroyd] wrote a very good script [for a third film]. We have not been able to lick the combination of the creative end and the deal problems of making that film so far. So it’s always sort of getting side tracked, unfortunately. I wouldn’t say it’s necessarily dead, but, you know. We’re all getting older.”
So, you want to make another “Ghostbusters” film. Who you gonna call? Not Chicago native Bill Murray.
Although his bustin’ buddy Dan Aykroyd has been dying to do another “Ghostbusters” for years, he reports that Our Bill is the sticking point. “No, we can’t do another one–the rights are all tied up,” said Aykroyd, who plays a naval intelligence officer in the blockbuster “Pearl Harbor,” opening Friday.
When pressed, Aykroyd admits that Columbia Pictures, which released the first two hit films, isn’t the problem. “Other parties,” said Aykroyd, who finally confessed, “It’s the Ghostbusters. It would be nice to get us all to agree, but impossible.”
Press even more and suggest that it’s Murray who is saying boo to the idea, and Aykroyd responds, “Well, there’s a reason Bill won’t agree. Someone once didn’t agree with him. Now he doesn’t agree with someone.”
He paused and added, “Listen, Bill is a friend of mine and just because he doesn’t want to explore this concept is no reason to impair our friendship. He wants to move on to new work and new things. I can’t blame him.”
Aykroyd’s work includes frequent stops at Chicago’s House of Blues. In Our Town, memories are thick of his old bud, the late John Belushi.
“It’s hard for me to hail a cab in Chicago, because when John and I were doing `Blues Brothers,’ we couldn’t find a cab one night. We saw a police car, stopped it and said, `Can you give us a ride?’ And the policeman did.
“So every time after that in Chicago, John and I hailed cop cars like taxis.”
He ain’t ‘fraid of no ghosts!That’s what Dan Aykroyd is saying these days.Unfortunately, his fellow Ghostbusters alums don’t feel the same way.Cindy Pearlman of the Chicago Sun Times recently talked with the comedic actor about his feelings toward the beloved franchise.
It seems that Aykroyd is all for doing third film in the series, but there are a multitude of problems.Aykroyd tells the paper, “No, we can’t do another one – the rights are all tied up.”When pressed for details, he admits that Columbia Pictures, which released Ghostbusters and the film’s 1989 sequel, isn’t the problem.”Other parties,” said Aykroyd. “It’s the Ghostbusters. It would be nice to get us all to agree, but impossible.”
What of all the rumors that Bill Murray is the hold-up?Aykroyd says, “Well, there’s a reason Bill won’t agree. Someone once didn’t agree with him. Now he doesn’t agree with someone.Listen, Bill is a friend of mine and just because he doesn’t want to explore this concept is no reason to impair our friendship. He wants to move on to new work and new things. I can’t blame him.”
Bill Murray next appears in Osmosis Jones, and will follow that up with an appearance Ocean’s Eleven as Nick the lounge singer.The Royal Tenenbaums and Press Your Luck are both on Murray’s plate for later this year.
Aykroyd has a small serious role in Pearl Harbor, and appears in Evolution, which opens next weekend.On his slate for later this year is Woody Allen’s next picture, The Curse of the Jade Scorpion.
In an interview at THE CURSE OF THE JADE SCORPION press junket, our intrepid correspondent Scott Collura nabbed these last few words on the prospects for a GHOSTBUSTERS 3 from franchise creator/writer Dan Aykroyd.
QUESTION: Once and for all, as of today, final word on GHOSTBUSTERS III?
Aykroyd: You know, in life, one has to be able to let go of things, and I’ve been able to let go of that and it’s been a tremendous liberation for me. For years I was consumed with trying to get that movie made and I wrote a script which is the best devil script or Hell script that has come out of Hollywood. I mean I know that it, I know it’s really good.
QUESTION: You don’t sound like you let go.
AYKROYD: (laughs) No, I have though, I really have. Now I can call Ivan [Reitman] and Harold [Ramis] and Billy [Murray] and say let’s work on something else. But no, it will never happen.
QUESTION: How come?
AYKROYD: It’s a rights issue actually. Essentially, it’s not something that Billy wants to do again and for some reason, he feels that it’s really a vehicle that should remain with the two first movies and he has one fifth of the rights and so he’s locking off his rights and saying, “I think we should just leave that period of our time alone and I don’t think we should re-visit that.” And he’s got the power to do that and so we’ll move on and do something else. It’s tremendously liberating. You know, sometimes in life, your goals and dreams, they have to change by nature of just the way life is and circumstance. And so it was tremendously liberating for me to go to the set of BEDAZZLED and say to Harold, “Harold, we’re not going to do this. I’m letting it go. I’m not going to persevere anymore. When I come to you next time it will be a whole new project.” And I went to each one of them and I said that, “I’m never going to call you about this movie again.” So now we talk about other things.
QUESTION: Were there hard feelings at all?
AYKROYD: No, no, not really. No.
QUESTION: GHOSTBUSTERS is still a great movie.
AYKROYD: Yeah, yeah, the two of them were… they’re good companion pieces. Now we have to look at new things.
It looks like everyone is interested in which of her films Sigourney Weaver will do a sequel to next. Speaking in this month’s Empire magazine, the actress was asked about two projects close to the fans’ hearts – Alien 5 and Ghostbusters 3.
For the former, Sigourney admits that she’s been talking to ‘people’ about the project, ‘but I left my character not knowing even what species she was, so right now I’m a little unclear as to how things can progress.’ So that’s the good news. Unfortunately for fans of the Ghostbusters series, it looks like a sequel is out of the questions. ‘As for a Part 3, that’s highly unlikely,’ Sigourney tells Empire. ‘I think our bustin’ days are long gone – we’d be a very sorry bunch of very old ghostbusters now.’
To read the full Public Access interview, buy the October issue of Empire magazine out on newsstands on September 1, 2001.
Stax here with my reaction to the screenplay for Ghostbusters 3: Hellbent! This 122-page first draft dated March 10, 1999 is by actor Dan Aykroyd, based on a story by Aykroyd and co-star Harold Ramis. Sadly, this highly anticipated sequel appears quite dead now. The many reasons why this Columbia Pictures-based project likely won’t get off the ground are cited below.
Dan Aykroyd last addressed Ghostbusters 3 back in November 1999, several months after this draft is dated. The original Ghostbuster advised Access Hollywood that GB3 “doesn’t look like it’s going to happen for the same reason they aren’t going to make Men in Black 2.” (And we all know what happened with that project now, don’t we?) “The cost is too excessive for the studio to see it to be economically feasible,” said Akyroyd. “It is a shame too because everyone wants to do it. Even Bill Murray said he would work a few days on it. I did finish a script. Harold Ramis liked parts of it. [Series director] Ivan Reitman liked parts of it too. There is definitely an interest from all of the original parties involved to make it. However, the studio just does not want to take the risk. In my opinion, the successes of the other two give the impression that there is a good chance of profit for a third sequel. So unfortunately, it looks like its just not going to happen based on the studio’s feelings, not from anyone else.”
Harold Ramis told Entertainment Weekly back in February 1999 that the “dream plan is that Danny and I would produce it, I would direct it, and we would recruit some newer, younger, popular Ghostbusters to star.” Cinescape Online reported in 1998 that the “film is rumored to follow Raymond Stantz (Aykroyd) and Egon Spengler (Ramis) as they cope with Peter Venkman’s (Bill Murray) departure with Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver), plus their attempt to stay employed while fighting a new otherworldly entity, possibly Hades, the Greek god of the underworld.”
Having now read this March 1999 draft, I can confirm that the sequel does adhere to that general plot line (at least in this draft). Without revealing too many spoilers, Ghostbusters 3: Hellbent suggests that hell (portrayed as a stygian mirror image of The Big Apple dubbed “Manhellton”) has grown overcrowded and congested. As a result, hell is literally evicting people back into the world of the living in order to alleviate their congestion problem.
Obviously, this isn’t good for our world so the Ghostbusters must use their latest technology to literally go to hell and ask the devil why he’s doing this and to see what they can do to make him stop. Naturally, the devil – portrayed here as a Donald Trump-like mogul named Siffler – has a secret agenda that leads to a grand conflict with our titular heroes. The Ghostbusters must once again save New York City from the evil forces of the afterlife.
There is indeed a younger crop of Ghostbusters (or, as the script abbreviates it, GBs) introduced that perform much of the otherworldly legwork here. This new crew includes: Franky, a body-pierced, tough New Jersey punker; Lovell, a dread-locked dude; Moira, a pretty but uptight gymnast and science grad; and Carla, a Latino beauty. There’s also Nat, a prepubescent genius whose powerful brain has made his head abnormally large. Despite his youth, Nat serves as a supervisor for the new GBs. That’s all we ever get to know about these characters (we don’t even learn their last names!) and they’re our guides throughout most of the story.
I’m not exactly asking for brilliantly delineated characterizations here but even the original team had their own distinct personalities, voices, and senses of humor. These young bucks are practically interchangeable. They all behave and sound alike, and get along relatively well. There’s no real conflict between them nor is there a dominant personality as there was amongst the original GBs. These would be the script’s worst mistakes if it weren’t for the revelation that these young turks aren’t especially funny or charming, either.
That’s what shocked and disappointed me the most about this draft of Ghostbusters 3: it was more jargon than jokes. Bill Murray/Peter Venkman doesn’t appear until the end and then it’s only a cameo (he’s portrayed in a way you’ve never seen before, which was the script’s most memorable gag). There’s also no sign of Sigourney Weaver’s character Dana nor is there any mention of her kid Oscar (remember him?), who you’d think might be included among these new, younger GBs given his importance in the last film.
Ray (Aykroyd), Egon (Ramis), and Winston (Ernie Hudson, now referred to as “Dr. Zeddemore”) have prominent supporting roles here. (Louis Tully and Janine have cameos.) The action is driven forward by the younger GBs. Whenever the original GBs are in a scene, my interest – and the story itself – picked up. I’ve never been a huge fan of TV series or films featuring “the next generation” of characters, with Star Trek being an arguable exception (although I still prefer the classic Trek).
You fall in love with some characters for very specific reasons and sometimes it’s just impossible to see new actors take over those series/franchises. I think Ghostbusters might be such a case but if these new GBs had more personality, if they were developed further, perhaps I’d have accepted the transition. I just never cared about these new Ghostbusters, though.
The plot line about hell being overcrowded and needing to evict people was relatively amusing but isn’t the whole “New York is Hell” sentiment rather tired now? And I don’t even want to get into the post-9/11 issues that any film about New York City being endangered will likely face now. (Of course, I compartmentalized those issues given that this script predates the tragedies.) Rather than it being the wrong time for GB3 perhaps now might actually be the perfect time for it. After all, the Ghostbusters films offer pure escapism, politically correct villains, and a wish fulfillment/fantasy about being able to save The Big Apple from (excuse the phrase) phantom menaces. I just can’t say that I liked the GB3 yarn that this draft offered.
As a huge fan of the original film, I’d much rather see a GB3 where the old gang must strap their backpacks on for one last mission (even without Murray, though he’d be sorely missed) rather than see pretenders to the throne get the bulk of screen time. That’s just me, though. Obviously, the series’ creators see the sequel differently so I must respect their ideas. I just wasn’t as entertained by this draft as I wanted to be (and I really wanted to love this script). Given that there has been no development on this project for almost three years, however, my reservations about Ghostbusters 3 appear to be moot.
The prognosis for making Ghostbusters 3? Not good. Not good at all.
While discussing sequels at last Saturday’s press conference for Analyze That, director Harold Ramis (Ghostbusters’ Egon) and actor Billy Crystal discussed the prospect of a third Analyze This and a third Ghostbusters.
“We’re going to combine them,” said Ramis. Acknowledging actor Robert De Niro on his right, he explained, “Bob thinks he’s seeing ghosts so Billy calls the Ghostbusters.”
“Who am I’m gonna call?” said Crystal as if he wouldn’t call anyone else.
“And these three very aging fat guys come in in really tight jumpsuits,” said Ramis.
“Pantsbusters,” said Crystal.
“I don’t think it’s going to happen,” said Ramis.
“It did to me,” said Crystal.
And Ramis concluded with a direct note: “We played around with it, but this one I can’t see.”
That’s the current word. But wait, there’s more. Note the new issue of Scr(i)pt magazine (Nov/Dec, 2002). Within its pages is an interview with Harold Ramis by journalist David Cohen. Of Ghostbusters 3, Ramis told Cohen: “I wrote a draft though, we had a pretty good idea – Ghostbusters go to hell. But the deal couldn’t be made.”
“It’s sad that the economics became so overwhelming,” said Cohen.
“It is,” said Ramis. “We thought we’d introduce new Ghostbusters and appear as the mentors of the new Ghostbusters or not appear in it at all. Bill Murray wouldn’t appear in it. I think he didn’t want to see a sequel made, so he became kind of obstructionist about it.”
“It’s hard to do it without him,” said Cohen.
“Well, it could have been three new Ghostbusters without any of us,” said Ramis, “and the story Dan (Aykroyd) and I were evolving could have worked.”
Veteran movie comedian Dan Aykroyd has ruled out the possibility of a third Ghostbusters film – because co-star Bill Murray doesn’t want to be involved.
Dan, 51, admits all the original team would like to make another installment but unless Bill changes his mind it won’t happen.
He says, “Never. That will never happen. Unless Bill Murray agrees. Everyone else would love to do it, Columbia, Harold Ramis, myself, director Ivan Reitman.
“It’s a five-way rights situation and Bill is locking up his piece of the rights because he feels that was work that he just wants preserved and he doesn’t want it diluted.
“And as an artist I can respect that.”
“jojoebelownormal” writes: Hey guy, Interesting and funny article, as usual. Just a quick question though, what do you think the chances are of Ghostbusters 3 getting made? Is it permanently on the back burner…or is there a chance that we might to see the boys in gray kicking it with slimer one last time….
JJ responds: Dear Mr. Belownormal, the sequel to Ghostbusters was about as much fun as hemorrhoid surgery, but that’s all relative. It represented everything I hate about sequels. The original is one of those golden geek memories that I have from my childhood. I remember seeing Ghostbusters at a now torn-down drive-in in the back of my sister’s boyfriend’s pickup truck. I caught the sequel on opening night with my mother. Needless to say, we were both extremely disappointed. A living, breathing Statue of Liberty walking down the middle of downtown NYC has got to be the single most all-time groan-inducing sequence in cinematic history.
Given that Bill Murray is about one role removed from a waltz with his own statue – that being the Oscar – you know he wouldn’t be too keen on zippering up the ol’ jumpsuit. So then, what would be the point?
In retrospect, GB2 had all the elements of a great horror/comedy, minus the fact that, well, it really wasn’t all that funny. I think the film could have benefited from a trim, that’s for sure. And I could have done without the ectoplasm-bukakkied Statue of Liberty. Regardless, by no means does it even come close to measuring up with the original.
Any story ideas for a third? Personally, I’d love to see Dan Akroyd train a new generation of Ghostbusters…maybe with Jimmy Fallon in the lead? And with all this “I love the 80s” bullshit going down (you can’t walk into a Hot Topic without seeing some Morrissey-loving Robert Smith-wannabe freak peddling Rainbow Brite T-shirts or Karate Kid trucker hats), doesn’t it seem like somebody is missing the whole nostalgia boat by not getting the Ghostbusters license out there more? Neca recently released two really cool Ghostbuster bobbleheads, one of the Staypuft Marshmallow Man and one of Slimer, and I have both sitting on my stereo right now. There will be another DVD release commemorating the movie’s 20th anniversary soon, so maybe the merchandising onslaught is just beginning.
Dan Akroyd talks Ghostbusters 3 (or lack thereof)
Akroyd says that he still wants to make a Ghostbusters 3, but that it will never happen. First off, the original cast has moved on and doesn’t have interest. Akroyd is open to the idea of using a younger cast, but said that without naming names, certain people will not give up their original rights to the material, meaning it can’t move forward.
Akroyd has no current movies that he is working on or is scheduled to work on.
(Sorry–I know the Ghostbusters thing is old news, but this is an update, I suppose)
As every Ghosbusters fan knows, a third film is about as likely to happen as Jessica Simpson enrolling in post-grad marketing studies at UCLA. In other words : Not too likely.
Slime-shooting Dan Aykroyd is still keen to do it. He just has a board of suits to convince. And once they learn that Bill Murray would rather have his teeth extracted than do a “Ghostbusters 3”, they’ll turn their attention to the pooping pigeon outside on the studio window still and away from the pitch.
Aykroyd tells Latino Review that Murray isn’t the only one who’s balked at the idea of doing a second sequel. Apparently ‘most of the cast’ have. Harold Ramis, Annie Potts and Ernie Hudson co-starred in the previous films.
A couple of years back, Aykroyd mentioned that he had an idea to bring in a new young cast of “Ghosbtusters” – Will Smith’s name was mentioned at one point, probably after the success of “Independence Day” and “ID4” – and he says that’s still one idea he could consider – if only the rights holders of “Ghostbusters” would let him. At the moment, he says those that would make such a call – and he’s not naming names – won’t let him.
Funnily enough, just three short years ago, Harold Ramis mentioned something similar – and sounded quite keen to do it – in an online interview.
“I think Columbia would love to keep the franchise going with three new ghostbusters..you know.. using us as metors , cameos in the movie… I dunno, and we are developing …there’s a concept for a third script , the studio might do..right now there’s a big negotiation …going on the series..the movie consequently..if the deal can be made the movie can be made, we dunno if the deal can be made.”
This is apparently the storyline of the would-be sequel : Dr’s Stantz (Aykroyd), Spengler (Harold Ramis) and Zeddemore (Ernie Hudson) cope with Venkman’s (Bill Murray) departure. They recruit a group of young bucks and try to deal with a new wave of spooks, who are being ejected from an overcrowded hell by that looks exactly like Manhattan. Louis (Rick Moranis), Janine (Annie Potts) and Dana (Sigourney Weaver) all have cameos, while Venkman only appears near the end of the film.
It’s a sad state of affairs when Aykroyd can get a “Blues Brothers 2000” made – now that, I would feed to Toranga’s Gators – and not a second sequel to one of the most profitable films of the 80’s.
The fans want it. Columbia. You listening?
Excerpt from a much longer article:
Other friends of Murray’s speak in similar tones, like jilted lovers angling for the chance to be jilted again. “Getting him to read the script for the [as yet unmade] second sequel to Ghostbusters-I don’t think he’s ever read it, actually,” says Dan Aykroyd, one of Murray’s fellow Ghostbusters and oldest friends. “He makes business so difficult that I just relate to him as a friend now. I have to.”
Answering Another Call?
Considering the monstrous success of the first two “Ghostbusters” films, it shouldn’t come as too big a surprise that a third film for the series was considered.
But, as the years have gone by, several cast and crewmembers careers have soared even higher into the stratosphere.
But if the stars align and the likes of Ramis, Aykroyd, Murray, Weaver and Reitman find the time to get together again (Ramis alone has two films on his director’s plate — the action comedy thriller “Ice Harvest” with Billy Bob Thornton and John Cusack, and an untitled project with Owen Wilson) could we see them all taking another plunge?
“Dan had a great idea for a third one and spec’d out a script,” Ramis told me. “The idea was wonderful. It saw the Ghostbusters going to hell. I thought, ‘That’s perfect.’ We actually talked about it, wrote a story for it and did another draft, but we could not make the deal. Everyone had gotten so big that to get Ivan, Bill, Dan and I all packaged together, there wasn’t enough in it for the studio.
“Plus I’m not so sure Bill was wildly enthusiastic about putting the suit on again,” Ramis mused. “Maybe he would be in it if he could play a ghost.”
GHOSTBUSTERS 3: GHOSTBUSTERS GO TO HELL
My editor is begging me to ask you three questions about “Ghostbusters 3.”
The non-existent film?
Yes. He would like to know about the non-existent film. My understanding is that it would have sent Peter, Ray and Egon to Hell.
Yes. “Ghostbusters go to Hell” was Danny Aykroyd’s concept for it.
What was your favorite scene from that script that we’ll likely never see?
Well, we never really got down to an actual scenario. We had a story. Part of the fun of “Ghostbusters” was developing some kind of lamebrained scientific explanation for what was going on, and I take credit for this:
What Danny had originally conceived was sending us to a special-effects Hell — a netherworld full of phenomenal visual environments and boiling pits and all that stuff.
He does tend to think big when he’s writing these, doesn’t he?
Oh, he’s amazing. [laughs] But my thought was that what works so well about the first two is the mundane-ness of it all. So my notion was that Hell exists simultaneously, and in the same place as our consensus reality. But it’s like a film shutter — it’s the darkness between the 24 frames. When we’re blinking on, they’re off — so we blink alternately with this other reality, which is Hell.
So all the Ghostbusters would need to do [to go to Hell] is take themselves “out of phase” one beat. And we create a device to do it, and it’s in a warehouse in Brooklyn. And when we step out of the chamber, it looks just like New York — but it’s Hell. Everything’s gridlocked — no cars are moving, no vehicles are moving, and all the drivers are swearing at each other in different foreign languages. No two people speak the same language. It’s all the worst things about modern urban life, just magnified.
And Heaven was across the George Washington Bridge in New Jersey — which was irony. The Ghostbusters had to make this journey from lower Manhattan to the George Washington Bridge.
It sort of makes me sad that I’m not gonna see that.
Yeah. There was a good structure — because some of us were in Hell, while some of us were in the real world, tracking our journey through Hell. We had new Ghostbusters and old Ghostbusters.
I’ve read that you had a next-gen cast in mind. If you were casting those roles today, who would play the younger Ghostbusters?
Well, we had Chris Farley as one of them, Ben Stiller as one of them. It was a while ago.
Full Article: Web-Only Uncut Version, Print Version
On the basis of Harold Ramis’ few comments in his recent In Focus interview (see above), Hollywood.com has decided that GB3 is back in the running. This in turn was picked up by a lot of other sites (I’m looking at you blogosphere), which means that everyone will begin to think it’s true. However, based on Harold’s comments, GB3 is still stuck going nowhere.
You only have to read the In Focus comments to see that Ramis was talking past tense about the script and the plans he and Aykroyd had a few years ago – he wasn’t talking about now.
Well, we had Chris Farley as one of them, Ben Stiller as one of them…. It was a while ago.”
I’d like a new movie as much as you, but let’s not get carried away. This isn’t a new script and while the idea of Stiller is unique, it’s still old news about a proposed idea, not current fact.
[UPDATE] I’ve gotten two reports that the rumour-as-fact has now spread to at least one TV entertainment program and in the UK, a radio station has apparently announced that Charlotte Church will play the lead female role.
I’d like to remind people that these days, TV entertainment / radio stations just read off the internet. Plus, it’s been established for awhile that Church was a Ghostbusters fan as a kid. It’s an interesting mutation strain to the story, but it doesn’t change anything.
[UPDATE] MSN has adopted the story, apparently through CP (Canadian Press.) When a supposed serious news portal adopts it as true, you know it’s going to live for a long time. Interesting to note that Ramis is quoted as saying he’s a “huge fan” of Stiller. Ramis says no such thing in the original interview. Yahoo News is also awash in GB3 stories – the problem here is that as a portal, Yahoo News has the vaneer of respectable, even reporting AP/CP/etc news, but combining it with their search engine, which spits back “news” from most middling sources. Here’s another bit of “quoting”;
MSN report, attributed to Ramis – “When the Ghostbusters step out of this portal, it looks just like New York but it’s hell.”
Actual Ramis quote – “And when we step out of the chamber, it looks just like New York – but it’s Hell.”
So, yes, the facts are the same, I just always assumed quotes were, you know, accurate.
[UPDATE]There’s an interview from about a week and a half ago – Ramis was in Austin for the film festival. The interview is short and lightly touches on Ghostbusters, but not a third movie. Later, Stiller is mentioned as part of the new generation of comedy filmmakers (again, Ramis never says he loves him.) And later still, Ramis mentions he’s developing a property for Owen Wilson. I predict the Stiller/GB3 news will roll in Wilson soon enough (especially as the two have starred together before.) You heard it here first – but don’t believe the hype.
[UPDATE] Who the Hell (pun intended) is WENN? I initially blamed Hollywood.com for this mess, but Yahoo News UK has picked up the story, and it’s attributed to WENN as well. I looked it up (you know, using the Internet to fact-check) and it’s the World Entertainment News Network. So, now I know who to blame – one subscription news service, who bent the news to make it tastier, and we have a lie.
You know, I’m not that old, but I do remember a time when the new services at least TRIED to keep the wires clean (if only so they wouldn’t have to clean up the mess later.)
Well, I’m looking at you WENN. You got it wrong. Can you set it right?
QUINT: I know you’re probably sick of it, but the AICN readers would kill me if I didn’t bring up GHOSTBUSTERS 3. I know a few years ago it was getting hot and then just seemed to disappear. What’s going on with it?
HAROLD RAMIS: Yeah, Danny and I actually played around for a while… Aykroyd had a great concept. He called me and said, “I got it. I got GHOSTBUSTERS 3.” I said, “What is it?” He said, “Ghostbusters go to Hell! This is it!” (laughs)
QUINT: So is there a chance that it’ll still happen?
HAROLD RAMIS: Well, the script was viable. Dan is the most imaginative person. He went off on a tangent 90% of the movie is a special effect set entirely in Hell, you know. I had a whole different take on it.
Really, it was the business that stopped it. I never thought that the public wanted to see the three of us kind of stuffed into our jumpsuits again. I thought we would introduce three new Ghostbusters, but maybe we’d be around as Senior Ghostbusters, running the company or something, but the real adventure would be… And this was so long ago, we were thinking Chris Rock, Chris Farley and Ben Stiller taking over. That would have worked
And we had the script all worked out. Danny and I had the story and Murray got really… Murray’s so cantankerous, you know. Dan called him and said, “Would you be in the movie?” And he said, “I’ll be in the movie… but only as a ghost.”
QUINT: That would have been awesome!
HAROLD RAMIS: (laughs) It would have been interesting. So, we even created a story around that. In the end, it sounds greedy, but the deal couldn’t be made. We as an entity… Me… well, I’m low man on that totem pole deal-wise, but Ivan, Bill, Danny and me couldn’t make a deal with the studio. There wasn’t enough left for the studio.
And I can’t say my heart was really in it, you know… making the third one.
Bullz-Eye: Okay, I’ve got two words for you: “Ghostbusters 3.”
Harold Ramis: (Laughs)
BE: Never gonna happen…?
HR: Not with us! Danny (Aykroyd) and I tried. Danny really wanted to get it going, and he had a good idea.
BE: The Ghostbusters going to Hell…?
HR: Yeah, it was a real good idea…but he wrote a script that was just way out there. It was just…very bizarre. I helped him re-frame it. I said, “Uh, I really think it should go like this.” So we actually had a very good story for it. Danny talked to Bill Murray a little bit, but Bill had no real enthusiasm for it. The studio would’ve been happy to go ahead. My theory was that we’d get some new Ghostbusters. Young guys. Young, popular guys. And then maybe we’d turn up as the executives of Ghostbusters, Inc. or something, with us supervising them, and we’d just put in cameo appearances. But it turned out to be a deal that couldn’t be made. I’m quite convinced that we could’ve written a really funny and interesting script that would’ve been very faithful to the “Ghostbusters” spirit, but it was a package that couldn’t be made, somehow. It added up to more than 100% with the profits. And not that we’re so mercenary, but the studio just couldn’t foot the bill for it.
E.Y. sent in a link to IGN, that references that awful WENN news item from last year. Stax has read the GB3 script, so his article is a lot more level headed, but he still picked up on the Ben Stiller item, which is so old as not to be credible any more.
UPDATE – Oh good, it’s starting all over.
In the wake of IGN’s post regarding GB3, Contactmusic.com has boiled the entire article down to a couple of dozen words, which comes out as “Aykroyd pens GB3 script, Bill Murray to be replaced by Ben Stiller.” This is turn get’s picked up by a dozen blogs, who are now reporting that Ben Stiller is replacing Bill Murray, which isn’t what the original article said at all.
I hate the internet.
UPDATE – I’d like to initiate Cinescape and the Internet Movie Database into the Too Lazy To Research club. Well done lads. Thanks for helping sort things out.
Dan Aykroyd was briefly on CTV today, as eTalk Daily visited him on a photoshoot at his new Ontario vineyard. Aykroyd confirmed that he’s shifting his focus away from acting into business ventures, that GB3 is not going to be made, and that all those reports and quotes about GB3, attributed to Harold Ramis, are false.
Dan Aykroyd: It’s like a hockey player or football player. At some point you just go, you know, ‘it’s time to hang it up’.
Zain Meghji: Which puts to rest the rumors about the third installment of Ghostbusters.
Dan Aykroyd: It’s not gonna happen. I’m telling you right now, and I’ll give you the honest scoop. These are all false quotes. Harold never said any of that stuff. We’ve all gotta move on.
Video – Aykroyd segment:
* Flash (YouTube) – Streaming / Download (GB3 is mentioned from 1:00-1:21)
Video – Whole show (Windows Media) (Aykroyd segment 5:55-8:06, GB3 7:06-7:28):
* Streaming
* Download High Quality (29.5 Mb, 10:01, 416×312, Stereo/Left-Primarily)
* Download Low Quality (16.6 Mb, 10:01, 304×228, Mono)
(downloading requires a special program)
Director Ivan Reitman says a second sequel to his 1984 paranormal comedy, “Ghostbusters,” could be on the way once he neutralizes some pesky legal issues.
“(Dan Aykroyd) has written a draft of something, but I think there are some sort of technical problems that have basically frozen the rights. We’re trying to do something about it now, but who knows?” Reitman told UPI, while promoting his romantic comedy, “My Super Ex-Girlfriend,” due in theaters Friday.
Asked if filming this new supernatural comedy, which is also set in New York City, reminded him of the days when he worked on the 1984 film and its 1989 follow-up, Reitman said: “What makes me nostalgic for ‘Ghostbusters’ is to work with Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis; that was the joy of working on ‘Ghostbusters’ and ‘Ghostbusters II.’
“They’ve become old friends,” he said. “That’s what you miss. It’s not staging a marshmallow man walking down Columbus Circle; that’s a pain in the ass. It’s much better getting (the actors) all in a room and doing something funny.”
Ever since Ghostbusters 2 was released nearly twenty years ago, San Diego’s Comic-Con has been a breeding ground for rumor of a possible sequel. [..] At the Snoop Dogg Hood of Horror panel, Ghostbuster Ernie Hudson added fuel to the rumor fire, when he responded to the “will there be a sequel?” question.
Hudson said: “I’ve been hearing about Ghostbusters 3 for 20 years… Harold would love to [do it] and Dan would… Bill is the hold-out.”
Ernie Hudson this weekend over at Comic-Con seemed a bit hopeful about a new Ghostbusters film, but is something in the works?
No, not at all, at least according to the Producer and Director of the films, Ivan Reitman.
We met with the filmmaker during the Junket for My Super-Ex Girlfriend in New York and we had to ask about two possible sequels.
The first up Old School 2, which he was able to confirm, is in the works. The second, the beloved Ghostbusters, “stale” is what he called the franchise and seemed pretty sure there is nothing in the works.
* Watch The Interview (Windows Media, 2:00, 5.2 Mb) (GB3 mentioned from 1:18-1:26)
Mike McGuire at CISN Country 103.9 in Edmonton got to interview Dan Aykroyd today, who talked about GB3 as being in the talking stage, and the plan is for it to be CGI. The transcript below was done by Steven Hough.
Uh-huh, yes yes.
I think you know what the question is going to be and unfortunately I think I know the answer too, but everyone is dying to know: Ghostbusters III-we’ve heard tons of rumors about it, does this thing exist?
Well, I wrote a script called Hellbent, uh, Ghostbusters go to Hell, basically its-the premise is that its Manhellton-that there’s Manhattan and Mannhelton. And if you can basically, build a phase-an interdimensional phase system, so that you can go from one dimension to another, we’ve succeeded in doing that, and we go to the Hell side of Manhattan. Which, Downtown, Foley Square its all where the cops are, its they’re all blue minotaurs. Uh the uh-Central Park is this huge deep mine with green demons there, surrounded by, you know, black onyx 1000 foot high apartment buildings with uh classic red devils, you know, very wealthy, and we go and visit like a Donald Trump like character who’s Mr. Sifler, you know, Luke Sifler, LukeSifler, Luk-so its it and we meet the devil in it. Now it won’t happen as a live action cuz Billy will not come onto the live stage anymore for it, but he will voice his part, and we’re looking to do it as a CGI animated project.
Really?
Yeah.
So Ghostbusters III…
It lives! It lives today!
Wow.
Last year, last year it didn’t-this year it lives.
That is big news.
Yeah, that’d be good, because, you know, with that, with CGI animation and the way these uh, these cartoons are done, we can just do everything that I ever wrote in that script for much less money.
That is great news.
Audio Interview (Part 2):
* Inline On Blog Page
* Indirect Streaming
* Direct Streaming/Download (1:15, 195 Kb) (downloading requires a special program)
In a forthcoming interview with Premiere conducted by yours truly, Sigourney Weaver talks at length about all her various franchises, and even has a few words to say about the recently resurrected hoopla over a possible Ghostbusters III. When I pointed out that the film industry’s renewed focus on next-gen 3D imagery and CG-rendered worlds means that perhaps a third Ghostbusters adventure is still feasible, Weaver looked at me a bit like I had just given her a toothache. She then took a big breath and said “Well, I just saw Ivan Reitman at this dinner, this lunch for his son, and, ummm, there’s no way.” Perhaps responding to the look of sadness on my face, she quickly added “You could 3D Ghostbusters. You could pay for that. I think they’re fantastic movies for that time, and I think, if anything, Be Kind, Rewind is kind of a Ghostbusters for this time.” Since I haven’t seen Be Kind, Rewind, I have no clue what that last part is supposed to mean. Does Slimer make an appearance in Be Kind, Rewind or something?
It’s not like any of this is a great surprise — to my knowledge, Weaver has never expressed any enthusiasm for returning to the franchise and rumor has it she declined to participate in the upcoming video game that will feature voices from the main Ghostbusters and will cannibalize Dan Aykroyd’s never-in-development Ghostbusters III: Ghostbusters Go to Hell script. Most of the recent GIII talk stems from Ernie Hudson, who was quoted as saying that he hoped the success of that particular game would renew interest in creating a third film, and that Ramis and Aykroyd still wanted a third film, too. That would be fine with me as long as it starts with a fresh concept, as opposed to the whole ‘Manhellton’ crap. I’ve heard Aykroyd describe his ‘hell’ script at length — to a radio DJ on a country music station, no less — and, frankly, it’s the opposite of impressive. It sounds like a recipe for a studio-killing flop with a $300 million budget. But with Murray and Weaver and (apparently) Ivan Reitman not even down for a third go-round, don’t hold your breath. To read the interview, which mostly centers on Avatar, check out Premiere.com on Thursday.
Speaking of 3D and these next-gen special effects, it seems like Ghostbusters III could be a natural beneficiary of that. It doesn’t have to be a dead project.
Well, I just saw Ivan Reitman at this dinner, this lunch for his son, and … there’s no way. You could 3D Ghostbusters. You could pay for that. I think they’re fantastic movies for that time, and I think, if anything, Be Kind Rewind is kind of a Ghostbusters for this time. You know, I wish I did, but I don’t have a master plan. I’m kind of just canoeing along. And this will look good to me and that will look good to me and a lot of it is based on what I’m offered. So even if I wanted to satisfy the fanbase and say “I think they need to see me in another science fiction,” you know … I’ve turned down a lot of science fiction because the parts haven’t been that compelling. You know, they just want “me” in a science-fiction movie. So unless it really grabs me, regardless of the genre, I don’t go for it. So when I am sent something that’s fantastic and genre and back in the world of science fiction … I mean, I really love it in that world. I love doing the impossible. I love the dream of science fiction. I think it’s fantastic, I really do. My father was always talking to me about outer-space, he was a Navy guy. So growing up with them putting a man on the moon and everything, I’m fascinated by space. But I never think about the fanbase. I don’t even know that I have a real fanbase.
“The time is right.”
These were the words spoken by legendary director/producer Ivan Reitman last night at the Ghostbusters 25th Anniversary Blu-Ray Premiere at the Fine Arts Theatre in Beverly Hills. I had the privilege to attend the event, courtesy of Fangoria, Atari, and Sony Pictures Home Entertainment. There, I watched the original Ghostbusters film in Blu-ray on the big screen, played the soon-to-be-released videogame, and spoke with Mr. Reitman about all things Ghostbusters, as well as his most anticipated project, Ghostbusters III.
Let’s get right to it: the status of Ghostbusters III. According to Reitman, a general outline for the film has already been completed by its two writers, Gene Stupnitsky and Lee Eisenberg (who also wrote the upcoming Harold Ramis directed film, Year One). Dan Aykroyd has been saying in interviews recently that the film will be about “passing on the torch to a new generation of Ghostbusters.” Reitman said that while this is true, he stressed that it is merely one part of the story they’re trying to tell. The writers are expected to turn in their first completed draft in a month or so, and all five of the Ghostbusters “rights holders” will review and approve it.
What do I mean by all five? Ghostbusters is not owned solely by Sony/Columbia Pictures. They are just one part of what Ivan Reitman considers to be a sort of Ghostbusters “family.” Before anything can move forward on anything related to Ghostbusters, all five parties must submit their approval. This includes Sony/Columbia, Ivan Reitman, Dan Akryoyd, Harold Ramis, and Bill Murray. Reitman contributes the protection of the franchise (aka why there haven’t been dozens of Ghostbusters sequels) to this “family.” As such, Reitman stressed that “Ghostbusters III is never definite,” but it’s certainly looking pretty good now.
As for his involvement in the possible film’s production, Reitman said that he will “definitely be involved” throughout the entirety of the project, although it is still up in the air as to whether or not he will direct it. He “absolutely wants to work with Bill Murray again” in a directing capacity on Ghostbusters III or otherwise, and said that his current goal regarding the project is to make sure the script is as funny as possible before any physical production starts (although he has acknowledged in the past that many of the original film’s funniest moments were due to the cast’s unmatched ability to improvise on set).
Here’s the part that I find most interesting: this could be the first time, in the history of film, that a videogame’s development and release has been the instigator behind the revitalization of a major film franchise. In order to create Ghostbusters: The Video Game, the producers had to receive approval from all five rights holders (as discussed above). But their persistence and love for the franchise started a chain reaction that not only got all of the parties excited for a game, but also got them to seriously consider continuing the film franchise. Last night, Reitman said that the game (and the upcoming Blu-ray release) reawakened in him the joy he felt making the first movie, and Bill Murray has said that getting back into character to do voice work as Dr. Peter Venkman for the videogame made him believe that a third film could be funny and deserves a fresh look.
Ivan Reitman also spoke for a minute about his thoughts on Ghostbusters II¸ saying that although the film will never be considered as good as the original, it is still a great companion piece. He also said that, although it hasn’t been announced, he does expect a Blu-ray release of the sequel eventually, hopefully with lots of special features, as it was far better archived than the first film throughout its production. All of the previous releases of Ghostbusters II on DVD have contained little to no special features. Hopefully this will change if/when it’s released on Blu-ray.
Ivan Reitman, who directed Ghostbusters, told a Los Angeles audience that the time finally feels right to seriously develop the long-awaited, often-rumored Ghostbusters 3. Reitman introduced an anniversary screening of the original film in support of the upcoming Blu-ray release.
“We’re going to get a screenplay in a short time,” Reitman said Wednesday night. “We’re going to see how it is. There’s something in the zeitgeist of the world right now that it feels appropriate. There are some very talented people writing the screenplay. All of our fingers are crossed.”
Before his introductory remarks, Reitman spoke to a group of reporters about the Blu-ray, the Ghostbusters video game and the new sequel. The following Q&A features edited excerpts of that interview. Ghostbusters arrives on Blu-ray June 16.
What finally made a Ghostbusters 3 a real possibility?
Reitman: I actually think the combination of both the Blu-ray release and the new game sort of awakened the thirst of at least the creators of the movie to start to rethink it more seriously, the possibility of a sequel. It’s something that’s been sort of dormant in our minds, really, for the last 10 years or so, and there have been two things that sort of told us, “Wow, people still seem to be really interested in this story, and the characters in this story.” More importantly, it sort of reawakened the joy of working on this film in both iterations.
Did the new sequels to Indiana Jones, Rocky, Rambo and Die Hard more legitimize the idea of revisiting Ghostbusters?
Reitman: No, for me, that actually makes me much more wary, frankly, but it’s never been about the other movies. There have been a ton of sequels almost to all these sort of historical big movies over the years. We’ve never really done it. Now it’s been 25 years since the first one. It’s not like we’d be taking advantage of the power of the movie.
Would the new story be about passing the torch to a younger generation of comedians?
Reitman: Yeah, I think that is part of the story that we’re working on right now. We’ll see how it turns out. One of the reasons there’s not Ghostbusters 18 right now is that we’re basically this family that all have an equal voice in something. The studio is one of five equal voices. The studio would have liked to have made a bunch of them, and we’ve been really quite selective. Frankly, any of us can kill it.
And Gene Stupnitsky and Lee Eisenberg now have a voice with the new script?
Reitman: Except for an outline, I have yet to read anything, so I think they’re going to hand something in in the next month or two.
What are your hopes and fears for a new Ghostbusters?
Reitman: The most important thing [is] we don’t want it to be certainly a disappointment to the people who have sort of taken this very much to their hearts. I feel the responsibility as the producer and director of the original in a very legitimate and real way. It was hard enough to do that sequel, but I think the time is kind of right. I just sort of felt it lately and said that to Columbia, so we’ve started this journey. The most important thing is that the script is good. I think we can find actors who can join the original group of actors to make something special of it.
Ivan Reitman introduced a screening of the Blu Ray release of Ghostbusters. A first look at the HD transfer showed a perfectly clean and clear print of the film that will certainly be worth analyzing in detail on your home HDTV. We caught up with Reitman on classic Ghostbusters memories, the new video game and of course the new possibilities of a Ghostbusters 3.
Crave Online: How real is the possibility of a Ghostbusters 3 now?
Ivan Reitman: Ghostbusters 3 is never definite. We’re not being coy when we say this. We have sort of this very complicated arrangement. A lot of people have a say in what’s going to happen.
Crave Online: Would you still direct it?
Ivan Reitman: Certainly as producer and director of the original movie, I’m going to have that opportunity. The only way I could direct it is if I felt that I could find something wonderfully new to do and to live up to the tradition of the first one. So don’t write that I’m going to direct the next one. I’m not sure and I’m not even sure that there is going to be a next one but I think there’s certainly a great interest in doing it.
Crave Online: What’s changed to even make this a real possibility?
Ivan Reitman: You know, I took a lot of crap when we finally did the sequel. I certainly don’t think the sequel is as good as the original and it almost never is except in really rare occasions, but I remember making the sequel and thinking, “Wow, this is really hard because we don’t have the surprise in our pockets that we had.” When we were making the original, I kept thinking, “Wow, this is going to be great. People have no idea what we’re doing and we’re going to come out and it’s going to be a magical experience.” It turned out to be that. With the sequel, I kept thinking, “Oh my God, we’re going to get killed. There’s no way to recapture the magic of the first one.” We had sort of let a little bit too much time go by from the first to the second, so on the cycle of people’s interests, we were in the wrong part of the cycle. I’d like to think now we’re back to a greater interest to it.
Crave Online: Are you a Blu Ray fan?
Ivan Reitman: Yeah, I’m an early adopter. I have a collection of over 4000 laserdiscs and then all of a sudden this thing called DVDs came out so I’m used to this.
Crave Online: What makes Ghostbusters such a favorite still 25 years later?
Ivan Reitman: I think there’s something about the combination of the actors are very, very special. They’re unique talents with an extraordinary voice individually that seem to combine beautifully as a piece of music. I think that in combination with Dan Aykroyd’s unique, crazy vision of this idea and the sort of mixture of genres of real good comedy with really kind of a legitimate, scary, science fiction story. It was the first time anyone sort of tried to do that. Mel Brooks had done it in a humorous way a little bit before me but I really took it seriously. I was always kind of a horror, science fiction fan. So I thought if I was going to do it even as a comedy, I wanted to legitimize it so that people who were fans of the genre would really appreciate it as well.
Crave Online: With the game showcasing 3D animation, would you consider a 3D version?
Ivan Reitman: It’s possible. I just saw Up which is a lovely movie and really works and the 3D is done in such a subtle way, it actually works fabulously in it. Yeah, it’s a possibility but don’t start writing that we’re doing it in 3D.
Crave Online: Were there other scripts over the years you’d shot down?
Ivan Reitman: Yes. Not a lot because it’s always been a closed shop. There’d be people who spec scripts that we didn’t even look at because we just didn’t want to get into all the legal issues that you could imagine would come from that.
Crave Online: Ghostbusters II does get short shrift. Where’s that Blu Ray?
Ivan Reitman: I’m sure there will be one by the way. It’s only a matter of time. The problem with Ghostbusters II is that it came out a week before the first Batman came out. That was such a startling new [vision]. It was the hot movie of that year. There’s something about when movies are released that really affect our viewpoint of a particular movie at the time. We waited a little bit too long to do the sequel for the very reasons that we’ve waited so long to talk about a third one, so I think it’s affected things. It affected certainly the viewpoint of that movie. I’m actually very happy with the film. I think there’s some really nice things in it, some very funny things in it. It’s not the first one. It never can be the first one but it’s kind of a very interesting companion movie. I’ve been hearing a lot over the years, particularly lately, how on reviewing the film, it seems to be holding up kind of nicely.
Crave Online: The DVD of II had no extras. Do you have behind the scenes or deleted scenes for a Blu Ray?
Ivan Reitman: A lot of times things disappear but I think we were more careful to archive the material from the second one. I do think Sony is planning a Blu Ray version of that movie as its popularity has certainly held on. It was actually quite a successful movie in itself so I think it probably is going to come and if it does, they’ll certainly look through everything to give us as much background stuff as there is.
Crave Online: What are your favorite Blu Rays?
Ivan Reitman: I thought the Third Man disc was really amazing. I just looked at it the other day. I have about 150 of them. I have a little theater in my home. I have a projection television so Blu Ray really helps projection television when you’re up on a fairly large scale.
Crave Online: How does it feel to arrive at this theater and see guys in Ghostbusters uniforms?
Ivan Reitman: I was really excited, guys. Three of these guys just drove in all the way from Salt Lake City apparently. I’m a little tired, I’m usually asleep by this time so just showing up at a movie theater in the town that I live and seeing a dozen guys with the full regalia really was thrilling. It did remind me of the first day of shooting of the first Ghostbusters and I was on Madison Avenue at 61st. We’d been working on the designs. The pre-production on that movie was very, very short. It was really kind of a magical, very creative process. Bill Murray literally had just arrived in town 24 hours before we started shooting and I’d never seen him in an outfit. I’d seen some stuff in the costumer’s place just to see what it looked like and suddenly, I just turn around, I’m getting ready for the first shot and it’s one of the montage shots from the first movie as they start to get busy and the Ghostbusters song really kicks in for the first time, I look up and here comes the three guys with all their crap on. It’s the first time I had ever seen that image and it’s right in New York, right on a real street, right on a famous street, right with shoppers all turning around like who the hell are these guys and what are they doing and what is that symbol. We shot it and I got this wonderful shiver of recognition of oh, I think we’re doing something special. That’s what I thought and it’s kind of nice 25 years later to just sort of see that and get the same kind of lovely feeling in my spine.
Crave Online: What do you think of the game?
Ivan Reitman: I’m not a big gamer. My kids are pretty good gamers but I think the technology hit my own generation oddly so I didn’t get into it in the same kind of way. It seemed appropriate and I think this group was just persistent enough to get the actors involved, the real actors involved and I think that was very important. It just caught this sort of growing wave of interest in Ghostbusters itself. And it’s fortuitous that it all happened.
Crave Online: Are you excited that games can look like movies?
Ivan Reitman: Yeah. I mean, look, my friend Bob Zemeckis told me that he doesn’t ever want to work with actors but he’s in fact working with actors all the time which this sort of motion capture. He had some goofy name for it but it sort of feels like rotoscope still to me from the old days. I think you’re still relying on the performance, both the vocal performance and even the physicality of a real human being for that. So yes, it allows you to do unique things, but for me the magic is in the skill of the performer. So for me to get to work with Bill Murray, nothing could be more exciting. To try to harness that kind of skill and allow people to see what he can do both with his brain and with his body is the most exciting thing a person can do in a creative process. Yeah, technology is all fine and good however it’s done, whether it’s animated films or the kind of special effects that now are within our ability to use, but what counts is story. Finally, are we involved in the story or not? That trumps everything.
Crave Online: Whether it’s Ghosbusters 3 or something else, do you look for the same inspiration in any project you’d direct?
Ivan Reitman: It’s really tough to find something like Ghostbusters again. The one time I sort of traveled into the area, it was not a very happy experience. I normally just try to tell a good story, nothing to do with genre, nothing to do with trying to imitate myself. I think that’s kind of dangerous. Over the years, I’ve been lucky, I’ve worked with great writers and great actors and been able to tell some pretty good stories.
Columbia’s plan to reboot Ghostbusters is being haunted by a Mike Ovitzorchestrated deal made in the early eighties on behalf of the series’ original director-producer, Ivan Reitman. The studio’s strategy is to revitalize the franchise for next year by having the original ‘busters train a dramatically younger crew in Ghostbusters III, while a correspondingly younger director handles things behind the camera. However, Reitman’s old contract – made at the height of his and Ovitz’s powers – still gives him exceptional creative control over the series, including director approval. “Those deals were made in the eighties,” explains one insider. “So his rights in this circumstance have a great deal of teeth.” Therefore, while it’s true that Reitman can’t force Columbia to make Ghostbusters III with him, he can make it nearly impossible for the studio to make the film without him.
In fact, a source tells us that Reitman and all three original principals (Dan Aykroyd, Bill Murray, and Harold Ramis sorry, Ernie Hudson!) have a deal that says that if any of the four of them don’t like any element of a new Ghostbusters, they can singlehandedly veto and kill the project; it has to be unanimously approved before going forward. (Considering that both Aykroyd and Ramis have been consulting on the story, Murray is likely the only unknown quantity on the actors’ side.) However, the key difference is that Columbia would love for these actors to be onboard to pass the torch and cross the streams. Not so with Reitman.
Reitman was just 42 years old when he directed the first Ghostbusters sequel in 1989, and at the time had the most lucrative track record in comedy filmmaking: Twins and Ghostbusters II grossed some $300 million that same year. But now, at 63, Reitman (whose last movie was the bomb My Super Ex-Girlfriend) is precisely what the studio isn’t looking for: While the second draft of the script for Ghostbusters III – penned by The Office writers Lee Eisenberg and Gene Stupnitsky – won’t be handed in until May, insiders say that by introducing a group of twentysomething ‘busters, Columbia’s brass hopes to do with the franchise what it’s doing with Spider-Man by hiring on (500) Days of Summer director Marc Webb.
But the studio can’t fully realize that plan unless Reitman bails. Sony hoped the problem would be solved for them if Reitman were too busy on another project, which they thought just happened: Vulture has learned that Paramount green-lighted a new comedy to be directed by Reitman called Friends With Benefits (originally titled Fuckbuddies). Co-financed by the director’s Montecito Picture Company, FWB will star Ashton Kutcher and Natalie Portman in what’s described as “an inverse Harry Met Sally,” a sex comedy wherein two friends in a purely physical relationship begin to develop true romantic feelings for one another. Pressed for details, a source close to the project laughed and said, “It’s pretty much what you’d expect from a spec script that was originally entitled Fuckbuddies.”
(In its defense, Fuckbuddies is the offspring of Liz Meriwether, youngest member of the “Fempire” – the chick screenwriting cabal that also includes Dana Fox (What Happens in Vegas), Diablo Cody (Juno), and Lorene Scafaria (Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist). The script also made 2008’s Hollywood Black List of great-but-unproduced screenplays.)
However, Sony’s hopes that FWB would lead to Reitman making a graceful exit from Ghostbusters III will likely be dashed. Insiders familiar with Reitman’s plans say he thinks the two comedies are not mutually exclusive, and still plans to direct both, raising serious questions about whether Sony will want to proceed with Ghostbusters III at all. However, losing Ghostbusters would make a tough 2011 even tougher, as the studio has no other franchise blockbuster scheduled.
Either way, the studio might want to revisit the words of Reitman himself from a 1989 Los Angeles Times interview, in which he downplayed the merits of ever doing another Ghostbusters again: “Ghostbusters II wasn’t as much fun to make as the first one,” Reitman explained. “In comedy, the element of surprise is everything. And I think once that element of surprise is gone, once people know there’s going to be ghosts, there’s going to be big ghosts, and they’re expecting something big at the end, a lot of the tools that are at your disposal are gone.”
