Ghostbusters getting a 3rd movie to follow the 1984 original and 1989 sequel (1 Viewer)

Optimus Prime

Subscribing Member
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jul 18, 1998
Messages
21,842
Reaction score
44,565
Offline
Curious what direction they'll take, direct sequel to original (with original cast in major roles), sequel to 2016, soft reboot/sequel (new cast set in original universe with cameos of 1984 characters) or another total reboot unrelated to 1984 or 2016
========================================================================================================================

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Ivan Reitman is passing the Ghostbusters torch to his son.

Four-time Oscar nominee Jason Reitman is set to direct a new installment in the Ghostbusters series for Sony Pictures set to come out in the summer of 2020. Reitman tweeted Tuesday night that he’s “finally got the keys to the car.”

Ivan Reitman directed and produced the original “Ghostbusters,” which came out in 1984, and its sequel in 1989.

The studio says that this new Ghostbusters will be going back to its roots and will be the next chapter in the original story. Sony attempted to reboot Ghostbusters in 2016 with gender-flipped leads, but the costly film disappointed at the box office...……...

https://apnews.com/ec92e5b21fb8415cb63d69aa5ba33db5
 
Curious what direction they'll take, direct sequel to original (with original cast in major roles), sequel to 2016, soft reboot/sequel (new cast set in original universe with cameos of 1984 characters) or another total reboot unrelated to 1984 or 2016
It says "the next chapter in the original story" which implies original cast involvement in their original roles at least, but if I was speculating (and I am) I'd expect some mix of that and new cast in original universe, with the original cast having something between cameos and major roles depending on how involved they can get them.

Could be good, but I'll wait and see. I don't have high expectations from Sony Pictures these days.
 
I actually just watched the 2016 one last week for the first time. The decisions they made with that were just so bizarre. And I don't care about the all-women cast. That's fine and could have worked. The ghosts looked bizarre. Like the 1984 special effects were MUCH better. Having three white women be scientists and the black woman be blue collar was strange in today's climate. The writing was oddly bad. "That's gonna leave a mark" after getting slapped. "Let's DO THIS!" to get pumped up. Like it was just so lazy. And I think a reboot was the wrong choice. Have the old cameos, but make them all retired or whatever.

Anyway, I know that's not what this thread is for, but since I just watched it, there it is.

I think any new one would need to basically start over with all new writers. Every single one. Just use 1984 special effects technology and use the money savings on better writing.
 
Harold Ramis died in 2014 so they would have to find a replacement or do it without him.

I agree, new cast with cameos of the old guys to pass the torch, which is what they should have done in 2016.
 
Harold Ramis died in 2014 so they would have to find a replacement or do it without him.

I agree, new cast with cameos of the old guys to pass the torch, which is what they should have done in 2016.


I wonder why they didn’t do exactly that

The plot of the 2016 movie wouldn’t even have had to be changed that much to include the old characters
 
I love the original movie. I thought the 1989 sequel was....underwhelming, at best. Frankly, with Ramis gone, I'd rather this not happen.
 
Watched Ghostbusters 2 this morning in 4K, the slime tunnel scene looked awesome!!! Haven’t seen the 2016 movie and don’t really plan to, the teaser trailer for next years one has me interested though
 
I was a fan of the movies and the cartoon series when I was a kid. I had a dream once when I was a kid, that the ghostbusters were in the firehouse and suddenly a staircase opened up from the ceiling and dan aykroyd looked up into it as a green light was glowing from out of the opening. It was obviously a portal to a ghost realm. They got their gear and started to go up the staircase. Then I woke up.

So, I think it would have been a completely different movie idea, kind of crossing goonies with the metroid videogame. When I was a kid, it was a cool dream.
 
I wonder why they didn’t do exactly that

Bill Murray, mostly.

Dan Akroyd and Ivan Reitman had been trying to get Ghostbusters 3 off the ground for forever. Years and years and years. Murray always balked at it and every time it seemed like it would get some traction, his refusal to be involved would stop it dead in its tracks.

We actually have hard evidence of this from the Sony/North Korea email scandal. Amy Pascal (then head of Sony) at various points straight up threatens to sue Murray for various non-compliance reasons. Eventually Pascal says "screw it, we've got an IP to leverage and won't be held hostage" and decides to do the Ghostbusters reboot which wouldn't need Murray or any of the originals at all. This leads to ideas of this grandiose Ghostbusters universe (remember, this is back when everyone tried to do a cinematic universe before they figured out it's really hard to do well and that's why only Marvel has had meaningful success with it) of spinoffs and animated movies and everything else.

Then they release the reboot and...well. Look, not even getting into the internet firestorm issues and gender politics and all that, the numbers don't lie: it was not a financially successful movie. It limped to $128 million domestic and barely cracked $100 million global against an announced $144 million budget (not including advertising and promotions). I'm not going to get into Hollywood accounting standards and practices (that would be a thread all on its own), but with those numbers it didn't turn a profit. That's a really weak showing for what is supposed to be a tentpole level property. Those international numbers in particular are indefensible on any level. GB 2016 actually did less business internationally than Ghostbusters 2 did in 1989. If you don't follow box office, just know that that is almost a statistical impossibility given how much international grosses have grown in the decades that separate those two films.

It has also been reported that the merchandising for the reboot was a total crash and burn. They invested a lot in tie in promotions, toys, branded products etc. and from all accounts it was dead out of the gate. Toys were being marked down and bargain binned within a week of the movie's release. Basically the only things that had some success were anything with Slimer and the Ecto-Cooler re-release. And that was pure nostalgia. Everything else was a total misfire.

Sony essentially lost money on the Ghostbusters reboot. Big time. And Sony has struggled a lot in recent years as a studio and they really needed it to be more successful than it was. So now we're getting GB 3 in an attempt to turn the property back into a cash cow. Leslie Jones is ranting about this on social media, but the bottom line is the 2016, dumpster fire social and political arguments aside, was not the money maker Sony needed it to be. Sony needs successful properties. So they're going back to the original well to try and make something happen again.

As to how Murray finally came around to this..who knows why Bill Murray does anything he does.
 
Last edited:
Looks like one of the actresses from the 2016 flop is upset about the reboot.

https://www.thewrap.com/leslie-jones-calls-new-ghostbusters-squel-insulting/

Leslie Jones is not happy with Tuesday’s announcement that Sony is planning another “Ghostbusters” sequel, which will ignore the 2016 female-driven revival in which she starred.

“So insulting,” she wrote in a tweet Saturday, adding that it’s like the version she starred in “dint [sic] count.”

“It’s like something trump would do,” she tweeted. “(Trump voice) ‘Gonna redo ghostbusteeeeers, better with men, will be huge. Those women ain’t ghostbusteeeeers’ ugh so annoying. Such a d–k move. And I don’t give f–k I’m saying something!!”


Why in the hell bring Trump into it?
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom