Mar 07 2010
Does Ghostbusters 3 have to suck?
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.


We have learned quite a lot of things about Ghostbusters 3 in the last couple of months. Both the actors, producers, visual effects experts, and the director himself, Ivan Reitman, have given many hints about the movie.