Ghostbusters 3 News

So Sigourney Weaver, who played Dana Barrett in both Ghostbusters and Ghostbusters 2, has talked briefly to ComingSoon. We’ll skip over her Avatar comments and go straight to what interests us – her comments about Ghostbusters 3:

“I have yet to read the script,” she said. “I’ve had a couple of calls and I know they’re rewriting and all I said was that I hope my son, Oscar, has grown up to be a Ghostbuster and Ivan Reitman said yes. Beyond that, I have no idea. I hope it comes together, but we already did two wonderful films and, if we have to let this one go, that’s fine.”

So she knows just as little as everyone else, and there’s nothing new. Bill Murray is still holding everything up by not giving any answer one way or the other. Just thought you’d like to know.

So BigShinyRobot.com (got to love that name) has talked to Ernie Hudson about many things, not least Ghostbusters 3. It seems everyone wants to get it made, but they just can’t agree on how. Here are some of the things Ernie said:

“Over the past year or so I’ve talked to the main players. I’ve talked to Sigourney Weaver. I’ve talked to Bill, Danny, Harold and Ivan Reitman. Everybody is like, “Yah, we want to do [Ghostbusters 3], but…” And that’s the “but”. Getting everyone to agree with what needs to be done. I think Bill especially wants to make it something exceptional. What that means to him may be different to what it means to Ivan Reitman or Danny Aykroyd. I know everybody wants to do it. But getting them to agree on a script [is the key]. For me, I think if we just get a script together, so much of it happened on the moment of the set that it’ll be fine. But that’s just my opinion. I’m the last guy *chuckles* that has any input. But I’d love to see it happen.”

So would we. But not all of this is up to the cast, of course. Sony also want to have their say:

“[...] when you get the studios involved… In the first one we were kind of left alone. And that’s why I think it came through so strong. We were making this movie, and it was our movie. And I think even with the second one you started to get a lot of people wanting certain things. Wanted to make certain things happen as opposed to really making a movie. So I would imagine this is going to be even worse. But we’ll see. I’d love to see it happen, but like I said I don’t have any input into it.”

So there you have it. It sounds as if everyone wants Ghostbusters 3 to get made, they just can’t agree on how.

Is that good news? Projects have been torpedoed for good by smaller problems than that. And Bill Murray is of course right in wanting to make it exceptional, but what that means to him is anyone’s guess. His 2004 movie The Life Aquatic was indeed exceptional, but possibly not in the good way. Lots of people want to have their say in this, it seems.

We’ll choose to consider this good news. At least no one is definitely opposed to making Ghostbusters 3.

Bill Murray called Ghostbusters 3 “a nightmare” when he was a guest on the David Letterman Show recently. His lack of enthusiasm was tangible and remarkable, since this movie has the potential to be his biggest payday ever.

But we think he’s right to be worried that this is just about the money for most of the people involved. Bad sequels or remake of a classic movie are so common that they’re practically cliché – just think of Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull. Actually, don’t think about that movie. Ever.

But does Ghostbusters 3 have to be a nightmare? We think and hope that Aykroyd, Ramis and Reitman, at least, have a certain affection for the franchise, and are inclined to treat it less like a cash cow and more like an opportunity to make a really good movie.

Fine, Ghostbusters 2 was probably not the best movie of all time. Or even of the month. It was made because of the guaranteed profit and little else. But it kept the fans sated at a time when the demand for a new movie after the first one was very strong.

Here are some reasons why Ghostbusters 3 could suck, but doesen’t have to:

The budget.

With a popular franchise as strong as this one, the studio will not put it on a small budget. It will be huge.
Con:

• The studio will expect correspondingly huge profits, and might put pressure on the creators to dumb it down and make it palatable for everyone. Disaster will ensue.

Pro:

• Endless funds will enable the creators to do whatever they want with the movie. It could be spectacular.

The people.

The individuals involved so far are some of the best in the business. Sigourney Weaver, Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis and Ivan Reitman all have a LOT of experience.
Cons:

• Most of these probably don’t care about anything but the paycheck.
• They are close enough to the end of their careers to want to make a whole lot of money from Ghostbusters 3 and then retire.

Pros:

• You’d think that they know how to make a movie good.
• They are close enough to the end of their careers not to want to sully their names with a lackluster product.
• They’ve all been in the business for so long that they must have made all the mistakes they had to make by now.

The script.

Cons:

• When was the last time a sequel had a good script?
• Do rent-a-writers ever produce good stuff? The best, most creative scripts usually come from out of the blue.

Pros:

• The franchise needs a fresh take, and it’s probably a good idea that scriptwriters Gene Stupnitsky and Lee Eisenberg come from the outside.
• Stupnitsky has written for The Office and Curb Your Enthusiasm. Those are intelligent shows with first-rate writing.
• Eisenberg has also written for The Office.
• They are young and have a lot to prove. This could be their big break- they have to give it their all.

The special effects.

Special effects do not a good movie make – witness the last three Star Wars travesties, the Troy travesty, the Indy (oh no, not again) travesty, and so on.
Con:

• Movie studios can be so awestruck by the effects they can get that they forget the actual movie. It has happened many times.

Pros:

• The first Ghostbusters flick was pretty heavy on the effects back in the day – it’s one of the things that made it cool.
• A Ghostbusters movie does need effects.
• Talented and experienced people will be able to use effects as an integral part of the plot, not a showcase of what can be done technically (we’re looking at you, George Lucas).

Ghostbusters 3 could come out sucking in 2011. But we think there’s good hope that it won’t.