|
mojo1701a posted: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. I blame Jack Black 100%. The movie was written around his tired shtick (One could say the same of Michael Cera, but I am of the persuasion that thinks the Cera Hate train is retarded and people are whiny bitches.) so the people who would normally shine sort of wallowed in the lovely unfunny that is Jack Black. Ramis usually does way better, even in his middling stuff. I am sure these guys, with better actors, better production values, Ghostbusters 3 will be fine.
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2010 16:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 06:00 |
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:I blame Jack Black 100%. The movie was written around his tired shtick (One could say the same of Michael Cera, but I am of the persuasion that thinks the Cera Hate train is retarded and people are whiny bitches.) so the people who would normally shine sort of wallowed in the lovely unfunny that is Jack Black. Interesting username/post content combo there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2010 16:08
|
|
|
The Twinkie Czar posted:And to the left of ET is a Scoleri brother. Both shots are from Conan's hilarious trip to ILM. I found this from a page of 90s Late Night graphic bumpers shown between ads and the show.  "I tried to think of the most harmless thing. Something I loved from my childhood. Something that could never ever possibly destroy us."
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2010 03:05
|
|
|
Bill Murray confirms the Ghostbusters III rumor that he dies in the first part of the movie and returns as a ghost. So that's one element from Hellbent that's still around.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2010 18:04
|
|
|
Timby posted:Bill Murray confirms the Ghostbusters III rumor that he dies in the first part of the movie and returns as a ghost. That's a little... well, disappointing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2010 18:18
|
|
|
Bill Murray sounds like a dick in that article.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2010 18:27
|
|
|
YourEvilTw1n posted:That's a little... well, disappointing. No poo poo. At this point i'd rather they cancelled the whole thing. It's only going to be crushingly disappointing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2010 19:40
|
|
|
Supernorn posted:No poo poo. At this point i'd rather they cancelled the whole thing. It's only going to be crushingly disappointing. I'm not sure I'd go that far, but I was hoping they wouldn't keep any aspect of the Hellbent script going. That and it is hard for a movie to recover after killing Bill Murray.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2010 19:43
|
|
|
YourEvilTw1n posted:I'm not sure I'd go that far, but I was hoping they wouldn't keep any aspect of the Hellbent script going. That and it is hard for a movie to recover after killing Bill Murray. Especially after Zombieland, I don't see how they can still want to even attempt this.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2010 20:38
|
|
|
YourEvilTw1n posted:I'm not sure I'd go that far, but I was hoping they wouldn't keep any aspect of the Hellbent script going. That and it is hard for a movie to recover after killing Bill Murray. It's really quite incredible: Murray's initial demand to return for a Ghostbusters III, which had been tossed around as early as 1990, was something like 18 percent of Ghostbusters II's gross revenues. As this was well before the days of Jim Carrey's $20 million paydays and the like, Columbia told him to gently caress off. Then, somewhere in late 1998, Murray got this crazy idea of only wanting to work a few days on the set, so he came up with the demand that he'd only return if he was killed off in the early goings (in Hellbent, it was Page 12, I believe) and then come back at the end to save the day. Aykroyd apparently thought it was the best thing ever, as it persisted in every single draft of Hellbent. Apparently that hard-on still exists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2010 21:14
|
|
|
Timby posted:Then, somewhere in late 1998, Murray got this crazy idea of only wanting to work a few days on the set, so he came up with the demand that he'd only return if he was killed off in the early goings (in Hellbent, it was Page 12, I believe) and then come back at the end to save the day. Aykroyd apparently thought it was the best thing ever, as it persisted in every single draft of Hellbent. Apparently that hard-on still exists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2010 05:39
|
|
|
Yo, Derek. I'm sort of ok with this in a way - if Murray gets his way, then maybe he'll put the effort in this time. Wouldn't be the same without him, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2010 12:20
|
|
|
echoplex posted:Yo, Derek. I wonder how they'll do him as the ghost though. I keep imagining one of the Scolaris.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2010 15:36
|
|
|
He'd probably walk in in street clothes with a gnarly beard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2010 15:40
|
|
|
Is it known how much pull Murray has with Anderson on his films? He's spent the last 25 years basically refining the Venkman character - Steve Zissou is probably the most direct descendent - if you were thinking of Dr V as a "real" character the bitterness and flaws would basically turn him into Dr Z. He obviously doesn't say no to Anderson for playing these sorts of roles so I don't understand his Ghostbusting reticence. I know he's always hated the GB fandom side of things and rightly so, but you'd think at this stage it's the kind of role he'd not mind slipping back into. Eh, I dunno. No Murray would be bad but Murray against his will would be worse (GB2). If that's what he wants, and it's enough to get the 4 back together, I'll roll with it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2010 15:42
|
|
|
I don't see why people have a problem with Ghost Venkman. It could be a lot of fun, and sounds much better than no Venkman.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2010 15:45
|
|
|
Diabolik900 posted:I don't see why people have a problem with Ghost Venkman. It could be a lot of fun, and sounds much better than no Venkman. It just strikes me as completely stupid. "Hey, you know what Venkman really loving hates? GHOSTS. WHAT IF HE WAS ONE? HOW FUNNY WOULD THAT BE?"
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2010 17:19
|
|
|
egon_beeblebrox posted:It just strikes me as completely stupid. "Hey, you know what Venkman really loving hates? GHOSTS. WHAT IF HE WAS ONE? HOW FUNNY WOULD THAT BE?" Yeah, kinda that. Plus I can't think of a way to kill of Venkman that wouldn't be a downer. It reminds me of the story from the comic, The Otherside, which was a really goofy story.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2010 17:32
|
|
|
d_osborn posted:timby... do you know which draft of HELLBENT shows venkman's death? the only draft i'm familiar with (3/99, i think) has it happening off-screen, years before the film starts. god takes on the appearance of venkman while talking the GBs through their bullshit near the end of the script. i've been on the lookout for other drafts or treatments for years. The March 10, 1999, draft has the return at the end as you mention. I've seen another draft that I believe was dated June 1999, which had Venkman getting bumped off in the opening ghost battle, saving the rest of the team, and then coming back in the climactic fight against Luke Sifler. (There was an awful throwaway line from Stantz, when he says, "Yeah, it figures he'd be in hell.")
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2010 17:49
|
|
|
egon_beeblebrox posted:It just strikes me as completely stupid. "Hey, you know what Venkman really loving hates? GHOSTS. WHAT IF HE WAS ONE? HOW FUNNY WOULD THAT BE?" I think if Murray and Aykroyd like the idea enough, maybe it's a better idea than the angry fanboys want to give it credit for. I've loved Ghostbusters all my life, but I've learned to take what comes. Instead of celebrating the idea of a new Ghostbusters movie, people have to focus on something stupid like Venkman becoming a ghost like they're some retarded manchild. I can't wait to see the bitch fits when they decide to kill off Leonardo in the next Ninja Turtles movie. Or how about when Optimus Prime died in the animated Transformers movie? Did you whine all over the sandbox about that? Peter Venkman as a ghost? Why the gently caress not? I'm down. Happy actors make better movies.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2010 13:01
|
|
|
Diabolik900 posted:I don't see why people have a problem with Ghost Venkman. It could be a lot of fun, and sounds much better than no Venkman. Honestly, my only real problem with it is that I think the "friendly ghost" poo poo is stupid. If they manage to make it work, then I'll be all for it, but I'd rather not just have Wacky Ghost Venkman peeking in Dana's shower or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2010 13:09
|
|
|
If you go back to my point earlier in the thread, that Venkman represents the masculine id of the Ghostbusters team, then his transformation into a ghost is rife with story potential. Remember that the ghosts in the first film are always characterized as female or effeminate. In ghostbusters one you have feminine vs masculine, secular vs spiritual and so-forth. If Murray dies in 3, those qualities get called into question. Murray basically turns into a chick. However, there are problems here. In Ghostbusters 2, they already teamed up with the slime and 'became' lady liberty to fight Viggo, the first/only manly villain in the films so far. Plus Rick Moranis joined the team, so you know the testosterone level's dropping (the not-really-funny gag at the end is that he can't blast through the slime wall, if you get my meaning). Basically 2 was a weak remake of the first because it already tried to flip the symbolism and feminize the crew - but didn't do a particularly good job of it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2010 14:22
|
|
|
And Ray chomps on that cigar quite a lot in GB2.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2010 14:29
|
|
|
Die Laughing posted:Peter Venkman as a ghost? Why the gently caress not? I'm down. Happy actors make better movies. Look, basically all I am saying is that once Venkman dies I will spend the rest of the movie weeping like a small child and I'll probably miss all the funny jokes due to the sobbing and I'll ruin the movie for everyone else around me and it has nothing to do with being a manchild, I'm just sensitive (some ladies like that).
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2010 15:01
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:However, there are problems here. In Ghostbusters 2, they already teamed up with the slime and 'became' lady liberty to fight Viggo, the first/only manly villain in the films so far. Plus Rick Moranis joined the team, so you know the testosterone level's dropping (the not-really-funny gag at the end is that he can't blast through the slime wall, if you get my meaning). Basically 2 was a weak remake of the first because it already tried to flip the symbolism and feminize the crew - but didn't do a particularly good job of it. Uh, no SMG. The climax of the second movie starts with the Ghostbusters reclaiming their masculinity by getting inside Lady Liberty, getting her lubed up inside by spraying their slime all over the place, and taking her out for a night on the town. Considering that the movie begins with them legally castrated, the whole thing makes sense. Also note that the whole thing centers around two men laying claim to the life of a child and the companionship of the mother. The movie starts out with Venkman legally castrated/impotent, has him regain his masculinity over time, and in the end he is the manly victor of a family. ...And winston has a big train in a long dark tunnel go through him and then a few minutes later he's covered in slime and very angry about it. Can we stop doing the sex based analysis. It's starting to make my childhood movies a lot creepier. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2010 15:56
|
|
|
Die Laughing posted:I think if Murray and Aykroyd like the idea enough, maybe it's a better idea than the angry fanboys want to give it credit for. I think it's more that Aykroyd hasn't had a single good idea since about 1990.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2010 16:21
|
|
|
Timby posted:I think it's more that Aykroyd hasn't had a single good idea since about 1990.  http://crystalheadvodka.com/SuperMechagodzilla posted:Remember that the ghosts in the first film are always characterized as female or effeminate. Slimer was unruly and hungry and left a trail of slime, like a woman. His eating hot dogs evokes the earlier scene where a ghost eats Ray's hot dog.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2010 17:16
|
|
|
Timby posted:I think it's more that Aykroyd hasn't had a single good idea since about 1990.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2010 17:54
|
|
|
Timby posted:I think it's more that Aykroyd hasn't had a single good idea since about 1990. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIW-5Zau9Pw This was 1991. So 1990, yeah, that's probably the cut-off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2010 18:33
|
|
|
Xealot posted:
Just noting that this was a very good idea. egon_beeblebrox posted:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIW-5Zau9Pw And this was an awful movie.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2010 19:12
|
|
|
Xealot posted:
I have one of those chilling in my freezer, though I didn't manage to get Aykroyd to sign it. I'm not sure it's as cool as my Stay Puft Marshmallow Man coin bank though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2010 19:20
|
|
|
Cinnamon Bastard posted:Uh, no SMG. The climax of the second movie starts with the Ghostbusters reclaiming their masculinity by getting inside Lady Liberty, getting her lubed up inside by spraying their slime all over the place, and taking her out for a night on the town. I think this is why Ghostbusters 2 didn't 'work'. Your reading and my reading seem about equally valid, despite being entirely opposite. GB2 is far less clear and specific with its themes than GB1, and the result is an altogether incoherent film.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2010 20:54
|
|
|
What's incoherent about Ghostbusters 2?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2010 23:21
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:That's a very good argument. Also it was a total downer throughout, and the badguy was a painting. Seriously, the badguy went from a Lovecraftian other-realm destroyer god that exists in a cycle of ritualistic destruction spanning multiple dimensions.... to an evil wizard king stuck in a painting trying to kidnap a baby. That, combined with the mixed up themes and constant depressing overtones really weakened the whole thing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2010 00:08
|
|
|
And it was just so dark and palid to look it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2010 00:10
|
|
|
Ghostbusters II would've been an awesome episode of "The Real Ghostbusters." The comic book adaptation was pretty neat. As a movie, it's pretty boring, with flashes of comedy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2010 00:14
|
|
|
Cinnamon Bastard posted:Seriously, the badguy went from a Lovecraftian other-realm destroyer god that exists in a cycle of ritualistic destruction spanning multiple dimensions.... to an evil wizard king stuck in a painting trying to kidnap a baby.  NOW IS THE SEASON OF EVIL!
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2010 01:39
|
|
|
Like, I know Gozer didn't look impressive, but when the motivation is "kill and destroy everything, the first to die will be the luckiest" compared to "kidnap baby, be evil", it doesn't matter. The point is made.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2010 01:45
|
|
|
Cinnamon Bastard posted:Like, I know Gozer didn't look impressive, but when the motivation is "kill and destroy everything, the first to die will be the luckiest" compared to "kidnap baby, be evil", it doesn't matter. The point is made. He is Vigo! You are like the buzzing of flies to him!
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2010 01:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 06:00 |
|
|
Gotta admit though, every goddamn line that came out of Janosz's mouth made me crack up laughing. "everything you are doing is bad. I want you to know this...you be careful there, avright? ...no one listens to me"
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2010 02:12
|
|