|
Noxville posted:That's just bizarre that they're not willing to greenlight it unless it's 3D, and bizarre than Aronovsky would rather not make it than do it 3D. He probably has a very distinct look he wants for the film and making it a proper 3D film will probably ruin it or change it too significantly in one way or another.
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2010 04:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 00:39 |
|
|
Timby posted:Pretty sure that I just read that Aronofsky's RoboCop has been put on hold, because the very, very broke MGM wants him to make it in 3D (and probably PG-13, knowing studio morons), and he has no intention of doing so. This is balls. Though it's probably better to disappear than to turn out some weird groupthink 3D RoboCop project.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2010 22:10
|
|
|
I just rewatched The Exorcist for the first time since I really got into film, and I was amazed at just how much Ghostbusters took from it in terms of dialogue and referencing actual horror. I was actually really impressed with this because it was tone they borrowed from a twisted it into a comedy film without mocking it. There's at least two bits of dialogue, but I can only recall one. "It's not her bed, it's her brain" directly becomes "It's not the girl, Peter, it's the building". There is another almost direct take later on after that, but I've forgotten it (the film is more intense than I remember). The levitation scenes are obvious, but that use of silence during them both to make them that much more profound is there both times. For me The Exorcist is still the last word in creeping, uneasy dread so as sources to crib from go, I can't fault that. It's never parody. You know Danny is really into that sort of stuff so I'm sure it wasn't coincidental. Colour-wise they both also feel very similar - purple hues seem to feature a lot in The Exorcist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2010 02:44
|
|
|
echoplex posted:Colour-wise they both also feel very similar - purple hues seem to feature a lot in The Exorcist. Wow, I'll have to look for this some more. My favorite GB lift from The Exorcist is the phone (when her mother calls her)--sudden loud RIIIIIIIIINNGGG that sounds awfully similar to the one in The Exorcist. (Might it be the same one?)
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2010 05:24
|
|
|
Icon-Cat posted:Wow, I'll have to look for this some more. That's a stock sound effect from the period. It's been in many, many movies and TV shows; so many, in fact, that I remembered reading a short article about it a few years back. Originally, there was a very obvious reference to "The Exorcist" in "Ghostbusters:" One of the earlier scripts had the "Venkman burn in Hell" graffiti" as "Venkman sucks cocks in Hell," but was changed when it was decided to go for a slightly more family-friendly tone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2010 20:58
|
|
|
Not sure if anyone posted this but: http://www.cinematical.com/2010/01/13/ivan-reitman-to-direct-ghostbusters-3/ We got some actual news. quote:And if that's not good enough news, even Rick Moranis is said to be willing to leave retirement to reprise his role as their accountant, Louis Tully!
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2010 20:45
|
|
|
YourEvilTw1n posted:Not sure if anyone posted this but: Moranis is my favorite part of Ghostbusters. The party scene in the first movie is perfect. I could not be more excited about this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2010 22:16
|
|
|
And this. http://moviesblog.mtv.com/2010/01/13/exclusive-ghostbusters-3-script-is-in-ivan-reitman-confirms-he-will-direct/ quote:Reitman said that the script from "Year One" writers Lee Eisenberg and Gene Stupnitsky is in and that a second draft is currently in the works.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2010 22:30
|
|
|
Reitman bailed on Ghostbusters III back when Aykroyd was doing everything in his power to get the Hellbent script made, so if he's officially directing this one, then the Office guys must have made at least a halfway decent pitch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2010 22:44
|
|
|
Timby posted:Reitman bailed on Ghostbusters III back when Aykroyd was doing everything in his power to get the Hellbent script made, so if he's officially directing this one, then the Office guys must have made at least a halfway decent pitch. Just the fact that the script has been going between Ramis and Aykroyd over and over and is still kicking impresses me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2010 22:53
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:And this. I still can't believe that Year One involved all these people. There's too much talent there for that unfunny pile of poo poo to have been made.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2010 00:32
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:And this. gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2010 00:45
|
|
|
I want to be excited but then I think of things like Evolution (which wanted to be the NEW GHOSTBUSTERS FOR THE NEW MILLENIUM so badly it was painful). I would actually be more excited with a different director. As long as they don't have anyone driving in a car singing along to "Play that funky music white boy" in a CELEBRATORY BONDING SCENE I guess it might be ok. Noxville posted:gently caress. Roman fucked around with this message at 01:44 on Jan 14, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2010 01:42
|
|
|
Eisenberg and Stupnitsky have written for Curb Your Enthusiasm and The Office, however. I don't think they're total losses. Look, if the pitch was good enough to get the four guys back together, plus Reitman agreeing to the director's chair (as opposed to him telling Aykroyd, "gently caress off, this is terrible, if you want to make it, go right ahead, but I'll have no part of it," back in 1999, when Hellbent was the script ready to be made) ... I'm willing to hear more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2010 01:59
|
|
|
Timby posted:Eisenberg and Stupnitsky have written for Curb Your Enthusiasm and The Office, however. I don't think they're total losses. Curb has writers? I thought Larry just wrote short outlines for all the episodes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2010 05:26
|
|
|
Ehud posted:Moranis is my favorite part of Ghostbusters. The party scene in the first movie is perfect. I could not be more excited about this. It really is the best scene in the movie. Everything Moranis does in both movies is gold. I wish he'd been in the game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2010 05:29
|
|
|
This probably shouldn't surprise anyone, but it looks like it'll be 3D. http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/18802 quote:The obvious is being reported via Market Saw who writes that Columbia Pictures is moving forward with Ghostbusters 3 in 3D, news that isn't all that surprising considering the upward trend. "Yes - I have word from one of my top sources that a friend of his at a certain well known effects house (I can't say who it is, but their initials are ILM) said that GHOSTBUSTERS 3 is proceeding as planned - but - with the added benefit of stereoscopic 3D!" Not sure how I feel about this. I'll camp out overnight to be first in line for anything called Ghostbusters 3, but I hope they don't pull another GB2 and give the visual effects priority over the story and comedy. And it better be done tastefully, and not "Holy poo poo that ghost just came right at me!" At least they're not tacking it on in post like they're apparently doing with Clash of the Titans.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2010 16:59
|
|
|
Timby posted:Look, if the pitch was good enough to get the four guys back together, plus Reitman agreeing to the director's chair Hell, if its good enough to drag Moranis out of his self-imposed exile....
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2010 20:40
|
|
|
Cdishwalla posted:This probably shouldn't surprise anyone, but it looks like it'll be 3D. What you said. But if it is 3D, I want to see a proton stream shoot out over my head. Ohhhh... would IMAX be too much to hope for? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2010 01:36
|
|
|
I saw this on the "I'm with Coco" Facebook group... Terrible graphics work, but it made me smile. Max looks quite a bit like Egon, here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2010 21:52
|
|
|
Ema Nymton posted:I saw this on the "I'm with Coco" Facebook group... There is a great photo out there of Conan standing around, staring down the ET prop, with Vigo in the background. I'll try to hunt it down.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2010 22:18
|
|
|
Cdishwalla posted:but I hope they don't pull another GB2
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 04:20
|
|
|
It's weird when you think of Rick Moranis. It's like, your first thought of him is that he's just some B-grade supporting actor, but then if you really think about it, he's been in some truly great, classic, beloved or otherwise ground-breaking films, usually as part of the main cast. I mean, look: 1) Ghostbusters 1 2) Ghostbusters 2 3) Honey I Shrunk The Kids 4) Little Shop of Horrors 5) Spaceballs 6) Parenthood He did a lot of kids movies, but those made some serious buck, so I can't blame him. He's generally in great stuff, though. If he shows up in GB3, I will be really happy.  v Yeah, I'll give you that one, too. 
Crows Turn Off fucked around with this message at 05:06 on Jan 26, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 04:36
|
|
|
7) Little Giants
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 04:55
|
|
|
8)The Flintstones. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 05:26
|
|
|
9) Big Bully It wasn't bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 05:56
|
|
|
10) My Blue Heaven
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 06:02
|
|
|
I like Strange Brew, and am glad to hear Moranis will be acting again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 06:50
|
|
|
BetterWeirdthanDead posted:I like Strange Brew, and am glad to hear Moranis will be acting again. Yes, I am too glad that he is acting again in Ghostbusters, and definitely nothing not related to Ghostbusters.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 07:15
|
|
|
I was having dinner with my father tonight and the subject of Ghostbusters came up. As I was 5 or 6 the first time I saw it I don't remember much of my day to day life but my dad shared this with me. When I was a boy I announced I wanted to be a Paralegal when I grew up. Dad tells me I thought they were like Ghostbusters on with badges, like the police. I wish my life had turned out how I wanted when I was 6.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 08:27
|
|
|
Cdishwalla posted:Not sure how I feel about this. I'll camp out overnight to be first in line for anything called Ghostbusters 3, but I hope they don't pull another GB2 and give the visual effects priority over the story and comedy. And it better be done tastefully, and not "Holy poo poo that ghost just came right at me!" At least they're not tacking it on in post like they're apparently doing with Clash of the Titans. The first Ghostbusters was kind of like that too, it's probably quite a bit of luck and great chemistry between the cast that caused it to come out as well as it did. IIRC they never had a finished scipt during shooting and didn't have an ending until they thought to reference back to the 'cross the streams' moment while on set, and the effects budget was enormous and unprecedented for a comedy. The effects probably had more planning at the time of shooting than the script did.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 10:45
|
|
|
Noxville posted:The first Ghostbusters was kind of like that too, it's probably quite a bit of luck and great chemistry between the cast that caused it to come out as well as it did. IIRC they never had a finished scipt during shooting and didn't have an ending until they thought to reference back to the 'cross the streams' moment while on set, and the effects budget was enormous and unprecedented for a comedy. The effects probably had more planning at the time of shooting than the script did. I strongly disagree. I think a lot of thought went into the script for the first one, and it shows. I've never read Akyroyd's original script, but it sounds so far removed from what actually appears on the screen. Reitman and Ramis obviously knew what they were doing in how to take the wonderful concept of catching ghosts and ground it in a more realistic and believable setting. I have no idea what the evolution of the second film's script was, but what I've always found strange was the large drop in quality between the first and second film when they're essentially the same movie. Also, the crossing the streams bit most definitely was not improvised. According to the DVD's liner notes, production on the film began on October of 1983, which is also when the final revision of the shooting script is dated (which the scene does appear in). There's a pretty interesting discussion about the evolution of the script as well as the movie's reliance on special effects. The one anecdote that really sticks out to me was that the movie was screened for a test audience during the post-production stage before many of the effects shots had been completed. Unsurprisingly, the audience still loved the film, even without all the eye candy that the release version had. I'm not sure if it's been brought up yet, but I would encourage everyone to check the script out for the first one. "Ghostbusters" is usually cited as one of the great comedies to heavily utilize improvisation, but there's actually not that much of it. The actors generally stuck pretty close to what was on the page, and only gave the dialogue slight tweaks here and there to improve the timing and flow. A lot of people seem to assume that Murray, in particular, improvised most of his dialogue, but he actually sticks extremely close to the script--nearly all of his most memorable lines appear verbatim. I'm not sure about SA's policy in regards to linking off-site, but it's rather easy to find using Google.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 14:04
|
|
|
CaptAwesome posted:I'm not sure about SA's policy in regards to linking off-site, but it's rather easy to find using Google. Just go for it, we like to read. Also I found the image I referred to a few posts up: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 14:49
|
|
|
And to the left of ET is a Scoleri brother. Both shots are from Conan's hilarious trip to ILM.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2010 20:26
|
|
|
YourEvilTw1n posted:Just go for it, we like to read. Ugly little spud, isn't he? But the kids love him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2010 14:12
|
|
|
CaptAwesome posted:A lot of people seem to assume that Murray, in particular, improvised most of his dialogue, but he actually sticks extremely close to the script--nearly all of his most memorable lines appear verbatim. Isn't that a lot of what started the feud between Murray and Ramis? I recall reading that Ramis effectively created the persona of Bill Murray through the script, and when Bill became popular he somewhat resented Ramis for it. Then came the butting of heads with Groundhog's Day and they had a falling out. The flip side is that Moranis pretty much ad libbed half his lines, IIRC.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2010 17:41
|
|
|
Rupert Buttermilk posted:Ugly little spud, isn't he? But the kids love him. Conan or ET? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2010 18:00
|
|
|
I love Ghostbusters II, it's probably my second favorite movie ever. But it never felt as loose or down to earth as the original. Sure, there were loads of great lines, but everything else kind of felt by the numbers, as if everybody was still dumbfounded by the success of the original, and didn't want to risk loving it up now that they had this enormous thing on their hands. Murray briefly discusses the difference in this interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsZc7v2K3tg&feature=related And here's how Roger Ebert put it in his review of the original: "Ghostbusters" is a head-on collision between two comic approaches that have rarely worked together very successfully. This time, they do. It's (1) a special-effects blockbuster, and (2) a sly dialogue movie, in which everybody talks to each other like smart graduate students who are in on the joke....This movie is an exception to the general rule that big special effects can wreck a comedy. Special effects require painstaking detail work. Comedy requires spontaneity and improvisation." When I originally said that I hope they don't "pull another GB2", I mean I hope they treat it like a comedy with some action and special effects, and not a big special effects-ridden blockbuster with some one-liners. It's the characters and the comedy that keep people coming back after 25 years, not the special effects.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2010 20:53
|
|
|
Mortanis posted:Isn't that a lot of what started the feud between Murray and Ramis? I recall reading that Ramis effectively created the persona of Bill Murray through the script, and when Bill became popular he somewhat resented Ramis for it. Then came the butting of heads with Groundhog's Day and they had a falling out. Groundhog's Day is quickly becoming my favorite movie. I've re-watched it a few times lately and it's really amazing. Bill Murray is great in it. Between this and Scrooged, you can definitely see his performances becoming more like they are in Wes Anderson's movies: Surprisingly subtle and touching at times, but still hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2010 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 00:39 |
|
|
ChickenMedium posted:Even after all these years, I'll periodically scan Amazon to see if they carry the Speight's Catalog or Tobin's Spirit Guide. Oh dear God yes, this is Bill Murray's finest hour. Beg, borrow or steal a copy, but this film is magnificent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2010 12:17
|
|