Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Movie News

Goldfinger looks at why Ramis left GALAXY QUEST!!!

I've been following this film pretty closely and when it was announced that Harold Ramis had left the project, my interest began to plummet, and when I got this news.... well it nosedived even further. And that just plain sucks cause the world could always use another Harold Ramis comedy.... that guy's just among the best with it. Oh well... unless a miracle happens... we'll just put a scratch mark through this project for a bit.... ok?

Goldfinger here.

As I drove by DreamWorks the other day, I noticed a memo sitting out on the sidewalk. Intrigued by it, I noticed that it had something to do with GALAXY QUEST.

It seems that Harold Ramis has left the project. According to Variety, it was because he wanted to "take a break".

Whatever! What really happened was that after Kevin Klein passed on the project, Alec Baldwin was Ramis' #1 pick. But DreamWorks felt that Baldwin was too risky (and not a box-office draw), and they want: Tim Allen. Ramis, who doesn't want Allen, decided that he would rather leave the project instead.

Too bad - Ramis would have been the perfect director for this project.

Goldfinger

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Feb. 3, 1999, 1:42 p.m. CST

    Superman Movie comments from Warrior

    by Warrior

    Who are these no-name directors?? Tupac Shakur? Isn't he dead? And "Norrington"? Isn't that where Robin Hood is from? What is wrong with Warner Brothers? Don't they realize that a Superman movie, if done well, could give them a very profitable franchise to replace the Batman franchise (that is DOA thanks to that asshole Schumacher)? Get a good director. No-names who directed junk like "Blade" are not the way to go. Admittedly, Blade was fun junk, but there won't be a "Blade 2", will there? Didn't think so. I still can't imagine why they threw out Kevin Smith's script. Now I don't worship Smith as others do. He *is* a competent writer who knows a little about comic books, though. The new director, whoever he is, should definitely be someone who knows a bit about comic books. All I keep thinking is that some Schumacher-clone will come along, and suddenly Lex Luthor's thugs will all have neon weapons or something. Either that, or Richard Pryor will show up. In an ideal world the Justice League whould be featured in the new Superman movie. With the oafs at Warner Brothers running the show, however, we'll probably see the return of the Nuclear Man from Superman 4.*ugh*

  • Feb. 3, 1999, 1:42 p.m. CST

    Superman Movie comments from Warrior

    by Warrior

    Who are these no-name directors?? Tupac Shakur? Isn't he dead? And "Norrington"? Isn't that where Robin Hood is from? What is wrong with Warner Brothers? Don't they realize that a Superman movie, if done well, could give them a very profitable franchise to replace the Batman franchise (that is DOA thanks to that asshole Schumacher)? Get a good director. No-names who directed junk like "Blade" are not the way to go. Admittedly, Blade was fun junk, but there won't be a "Blade 2", will there? Didn't think so. I still can't imagine why they threw out Kevin Smith's script. Now I don't worship Smith as others do. He *is* a competent writer who knows a little about comic books, though. The new director, whoever he is, should definitely be someone who knows a bit about comic books. All I keep thinking is that some Schumacher-clone will come along, and suddenly Lex Luthor's thugs will all have neon weapons or something. Either that, or Richard Pryor will show up. In an ideal world the Justice League whould be featured in the new Superman movie. With the oafs at Warner Brothers running the show, however, we'll probably see the return of the Nuclear Man from Superman 4.*ugh*

  • Feb. 3, 1999, 1:43 p.m. CST

    Superman Movie comments from Warrior

    by Warrior

    Who are these no-name directors?? Tupac Shakur? Isn't he dead? And "Norrington"? Isn't that where Robin Hood is from? What is wrong with Warner Brothers? Don't they realize that a Superman movie, if done well, could give them a very profitable franchise to replace the Batman franchise (that is DOA thanks to that asshole Schumacher)? Get a good director. No-names who directed junk like "Blade" are not the way to go. Admittedly, Blade was fun junk, but there won't be a "Blade 2", will there? Didn't think so. I still can't imagine why they threw out Kevin Smith's script. Now I don't worship Smith as others do. He *is* a competent writer who knows a little about comic books, though. The new director, whoever he is, should definitely be someone who knows a bit about comic books. All I keep thinking is that some Schumacher-clone will come along, and suddenly Lex Luthor's thugs will all have neon weapons or something. Either that, or Richard Pryor will show up. In an ideal world the Justice League whould be featured in the new Superman movie. With the oafs at Warner Brothers running the show, however, we'll probably see the return of the Nuclear Man from Superman 4.*ugh*

  • Feb. 7, 1999, 7:32 a.m. CST

    Harold Ramis = GHOSTBUSTERS 3

    by Warrior

    Please, Mr. Ramis, go somewhere where you will be able to fully exercise your fantastic directing skills...GHOSTBUSTERS III !!! Get that ass Bill Murray in line and work with Dan again to make the magic one more time! Legions of fans beseech you.... I'd personally give trade fifteen more Star Wars movies for one more GHOSTBUSTERS.

  • Feb. 7, 1999, 8:25 a.m. CST

    Don't Make GHOSTBUSTERS 3

    by mrbeaks

    If made, I can all but promise you another BLUES BROTHERS 2K. And, that "ass" Bill Murray is rather wise to steer clear of this project. Unlike Day Aykroyd, he isn't desperate to jump start his career (hell, he might have an Oscar nomination for the great RUSHMORE on Tuesday,) and would rather continue to choose films that aren't dead out of the starting gate (as GB3 is, from what I've heard of Aykroyd's treatment.) As for Ramis, his choices sometimes confound me (STUART SAVES HIS FAMILY, MULTIPLICITY,) but when he hits the bullseye (CADDYSHACK, GROUNDHOG DAY, VACATION,) he really is one of our best comic directors. A thought..... since two of his best movies star Murray, why not team up again? Makes perfect sense to me.

  • Feb. 7, 1999, 10:11 a.m. CST

    um... okay...

    by Phinx

    to the poster above: it's SHEKAR KHAPUR, not 2PAC, Shekar directed 'ELIZABETH" And where Robin Hood came from, it's NOTTINGHAM. And there is a BLADE 2 in the works, NEW LINE announced it. But I'm sure you knew all this, you were just being 'cleverly' "uninformed" Right? take care.

  • Feb. 7, 1999, 11:53 a.m. CST

    Alec Baldwin Sucks S-H-I-T!!!

    by Pubicbone69

    Alec Baldwin is one of the worst actors to ever have a seven figure payday is fat and talentless-- the only good movie he has been in they replaced for the sequels

  • Feb. 7, 1999, 11:53 a.m. CST

    Alec Baldwin Sucks S-H-I-T!!!

    by Pubicbone69

    Alec Baldwin is one of the worst actors to ever have a seven figure payday is fat and talentless-- the only good movie he has been in they replaced for the sequels

  • Feb. 7, 1999, 12:37 p.m. CST

    Mrbeaks and Ghostbusters III

    by Blok Narpin

    Mrbeaks comments on GB3 are truley ridiculous. Ghostbusters I and Ghostbusters II were both terrific movies that made a lot of money and were FUNNY. Both were written by Dan AKroyd. Given this, there is no reason why GB3 would not be every bit as good as the first two. It's a movie that is LONG overdue. Bill Murray DEFINATLY needs a career boost. Rushmore might be good but look at what else he's done recently. Larger then Life. The Man who Knew too Little. God is this REALLY the man who gave us Ghostbusters and Groundhog Day? If he wins the award for Rushmore (or is even nominated for that matter)he will be on the right track. To go from an acadamy award winning role in Rushmore to a sure fore hit like GB3 would be very smart. Two hits in a row are good for your career. Just look what ID4/Men in Black did for Will Smith and Pulp Fiction/Get SHorty did for John Travolta. Ghostbusters III has to happen. It'll be good for Murray and Akroyd, and VERY good for Colombia/Tri-Star. By the way there is most DEFINATLY going to be a Blade 2. That is old news.

  • Feb. 7, 1999, 2:56 p.m. CST

    Ghostbusters III

    by Fixxxer

    Sorry to burst everyone's bubble, but "Ghostbusters III" would be a TERRIBLE idea. We all saw what Aykroyd did with "BB2K;" he took a beloved film and pretty much bastardized it into a silly mish-mash of horrible comedic setpieces and (in contrast) high-energy musical sequences. "Ghostbusters III" woudl not have any musical sequences, therefore it would be nothing but pure drivel. Aykroyd can't do much of anything anymore; his Elwood in "BB2K" was not a character but more a caricature. Ramis is still capable of good things, but the last thing we need is another "Ghostbusters," people!! Do you really want to watch Ramis and Aykroyd run around busting ghosts again? Have you seen those two lately? They're not exactly young, lean, mean, ghost-fighting machines. And neither is Bill Murray. The new Ghostbusters would have to introduce new blood, and all I see are two possible avenues: 1) They shell out the cash and get Will Smith, who would ruin everything by playing his "ID4" and "MiB" character AGAIN, or 2) they populate the cast with people from the fledgling new generation of "SNL," thereby creating one of the worst films EVER. Think about it y'all: "Ghostbusters III" is one idea that just shouldn't happen.

  • Feb. 7, 1999, 3 p.m. CST

    Harold Ramis ==> Ghostbusters 3

    by BiggBoss

    I also believe that Ramis should do a GB3 movie. And I don't think it will be like BB2K. Ghostbusters had a much more impact on society when he was released, also created a whole new concept which is more creative and expandable than the Blues Brothers. Consider also that GB1 is set in heater for a relelase in June as well as a DVD (GB1 & GB2) for the movie's 15th anniversary. There's no better time for Columbia to release a 3rd movie. To correct some mistakes written here. GB1&2 where both written by Aykroyd AND Ramis. Escpecially the first movie has suffered of a more Ramis influcence which gave and amazing movie and the "Biggest grossing comedy" until MIB. (BTW GB1 is the best of the two. In fact , w/o wnating to discredit Aykroyd, Dan has done most of the job for GB2 and left out the comedic part of GB1 for a more-action fick portraiting the Ghostbusters as heros instead of normal guys doing their job) So, Mr Ramis , I believe , should made a Ghostbusters 3 : Firstly because it had REAL chances to be a kicking-azz movie and becuase He would make a favour to the fans, to Colubia, and I think to himself too 'cause Ramis and the team got a real good time shooting the previous movies!

  • Feb. 7, 1999, 3:44 p.m. CST

    If

    by Stenbeck

    If there was a GB3, I'd see it, of course. I'd hope Bill Murray would be in it, that would definitely help. Regardless of quality, curiosity would be pretty high, a big opening fairly assured. But... for having all of the same cast and 'right' elements in place, I thought GB2 was pretty awful. Didn't most people? We don't NEED a third, that's for sure. We do NEED more good movies. Like Rushmore, for instance.

  • Feb. 7, 1999, 5:48 p.m. CST

    More Ghostbusters 3 Comments (Warrior)

    by Warrior

    OK time to kick some ass. MrBeaks: Have you lost what little brains you once possessed? Your comments are pathetic. While you say Bill Murray is "wise" to steer clear of GB3, by the end of your post you conclude that it would be "great" to team up with Ramis again. So let me get this straight: Murray and Ramis should team up again, just not on a sequel to their biggest ever blockbuster? What kind of logic is this? By the way what is wrong with the treatment for Ghostbusters 3 that has been leaked onto the net? New York gets turned into a hellish city full of ghosts. WOW, THAT SOUNDS AWFUL DOESNT IT!! HOW LOUSY! You knucklehead. Fixxxer: Your comments sound like the ramblings of a brain-damaged crack addict. Of COURSE there would be new Ghostbusters introduced. With all the hundreds of great young actors in Hollywood today, why would you think the folks at Sony would have trouble finding actors to play Ghostbusters? Why would they need Will Smith or SNL characters? Pull you head out your ass! Stenbeck: Ghostbusters 2 was awful? What movie did you see? I didn't think it was as great as the CLASSIC GB 1, but it was enjoyable. Janosz Poha (Peter MacNicol) was as funny as ANYTHING in #1! Blok: I agree with almost everything you said. BiggBoss: Did you say GHOSTBUSTERS RE-RELEASE THIS JUNE??? TELL ME MORE!!!!!!!! WHERE DID YOU HEAR THIS?

  • Feb. 7, 1999, 6:01 p.m. CST

    Ghostbusters II and Warrior

    by Blok Narpin

    First off I want to say one thing to Warrior: Your my kinda guy. We're on the same page, dude. As for the poster who said nobody liked Ghostbusters II you are dead wrong. Eveyone I know loves the movie. It was one of the biggest hits of '89 (after Batman of course). Ghostbusters II was a hit film. A film doesn't become a hit unless people like.

  • Feb. 7, 1999, 7:17 p.m. CST

    In My Defense

    by mrbeaks

    To Warrior & Blok: allow me to dumb down my comments a shade. My reasoning against GBIII is pretty simple; Aykroyd's involvement is an impediment. He has a losing streak dating back to 1991's NOTHING BUT TROUBLE (a debacle which I'm sure you two loved,) and, until ABC took a rare ounce of mercy on the viewing public, was recently embarassing himself weekly on his ill-conceived sit-com, SOUL MAN. The difference between Murray and Aykroyd is that Murray can save a film from in front of the camera (just watch certain isolated bits in the much-maligned duo of LARGER THAN LIFE and THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO LITTLE. BTW, they look like minor masterpieces compared to BLUES BROTHERS 2K.) Meanwhile, Aykroyd, with his well-known inflated confidence in his fading abilities, has an uncanny knack of sinking films in the scripting phase and then turning bulldog when anyone suggests changes. There won't be a GBIII anyway, because Murray would sooner golf with his good buddy Chevy Chase than jam his pot-belly into those damned uniforms again (he stated as much in a recent New York Times Magazine interview.) For the record..... yes, I am a Bill Murray fan, but that's beside the point. Stack his track record up against Dan Aykroyd and it will quickly become apparent why the guy would do well to stay away from a man who tried to revive his career with what was essentially TOUCHED BY AN ANGEL with a laugh track. Also, I will note that Aykroyd did some nice work in ANTZ, but I'll give the credit to the writers.

  • Feb. 7, 1999, 8:28 p.m. CST

    Ghostbusters/Bill Murray (by Warrior)

    by Warrior

    OK first off, a tip of the ol' Warrior hat to Blok. Nice to know there are still a few people posting here who have respectable IQ scores. Stick around, the talkback can't afford to lose ya! Now, on to a trio of glimmering ten-watt dimbulbs...first, MRBEAKS: I want to assure you that there is never, EVER any reason to "dumb down" your comments. They are about as dumb as they can get to begin with. Now as for your comments, Bill Murray would probably only be "jamming himself" into the grey overalls for a cameo or minor role. No one has suggested that he star in GB3. He would be required, however, to do a Shatner-like bridge between the original lineup and the "next generation" as it were. Your criticism of Aykroyd is noted, although why you devote time to bashing him is beyond me, since he would most likely only have a small role also. LANEMYERS: I was with you right up to the part where you dissed Rick Moranis. What is up with that? He provided some of the biggest laughs in the first two movies. Oh yes, now I see, you don't like the humor and want Ghostbusters to be horror movies. Here's a tip, clown: go rent Poltergeist. GB movies are comedy-suspense-sf-horror, and if you don't like any one of those aspects, well, you can just go watch something else. Me, I'll be camped out front of any theater showing GB3. HOLDENPIKE: You are perhaps the most cretinous specimen I have ever encountered on this board. You don't like muddled plots, but you are eagerly awaiting a movie starring Robert DeNiro and Billy Crystal? BILLY CRYSTAL? I'm sure the plot to that one will be tight as a drum. Yah, riiiight. As for Ghostbusters 2, it wasn't the best movie ever, but I was thoroughly entertained. I think it could have been edited down a tad, it was a little long. Your comments about Sandler and Carrey puzzle me. No, I don't think they are fantastic actors in Bill Murray's class, but...what have you got against them, dude? Do I detect a note of jealousy on your part? Can you do what they do? Nope, don't think so! .............And, while I'm speaking on this Ghostbusters issue, some of you seem to think I am anti-Murray. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm a huge fan of his, HOWEVER...he's the DUMMY who nearly derailed GB1, he's the DUMMY who caused GB2 to be made FIVE YEARS LATER, and he's the DUMMY who's held up GB3 for TEN YEARS now. Considering that the Ghostbusters franchise has made him more money and garnered him more attention than anything else he's ever done to date, I am always wondering why this guy likes shooting himself in the foot so much!

  • Feb. 7, 1999, 11:28 p.m. CST

    G3 if and only IF...

    by Doc Phibe

    1. Ivan Reitman directs again. 2. Aykroyd writes the script and Harold Ramis and Len Blum (Stripes) REWRITE it. 3. Sigourney Weaver doesn't appear in it. 4. ILM does the effects 5. All the original leads return. Rick Moranis in a cameo - nothing more. 6. McDonalds has nothing to do with it. 7. It's funny 8. It's tested in areas where the average IQ is above 120 9. It doesn't cost more than 80 million. 10. The studio suits pay attention to the above.

  • Feb. 8, 1999, 12:43 a.m. CST

    Ghostbusters' Return

    by BiggBoss

    Here we go. 1. GB2. GB2 is not a bad movie, it a kind of action-comedic flick. It's fun , that's all. GB1 is great , the level reached both in the script than in the acting (Bill and rick were perfect and the trio , Dan, Harold and Bill worked too well togheter ), GB2 was "Okay", if we consider it as a movie itself and not as a sequel of such a flick as Ghostbusters. 2. GB1 Horror side. GB wasn't supposed to be dark and I believe that it should not be changed in GB3. I've a lack of arguments here , it's just a matter of feeling. 3. GB3 Lotta stuff here. It's true that Dan worked on most of the script of GB2 and so I can be held responsible of what GB2 became , however Dan is still the father of GB and it's absence would be noticed in my opinion. He introducedthe technical aspect of busting ghosts in GB1 ( such as the ECtoplasm .. PKE..), I believe it's an important aspect of the movie , absent unfortunately in gb2. Remember that a script seems to be already made and Ramis colaborated again, I only hope that uin the good way this time. Continuing on Ramis , I would prefer him to direct than Reitman , sure he did a great job in 84 and his influnce as been really important , but it's lastest productions were not so noticed (6 days 7 nites..). I've seen Ramis working on Groundhog Day an multeplicity. WOW. Groundhod Day bring the hottest subject : Bill Murray. First thing you should know; Bill wanted not do GB2 so GB3 may seems impossible for him , however, this kind of practice (avoiding to be always the same character) is commonly used by actor to avoid to loose his real identity. ( ex: people seeing bill and yelling "look! Peter Venkman" instead of 'Look Bill Murray!'). The guys who played Clark Kent is Superman 1-4 got this prob. However , we have to be honest , who does not think of Venkman when seeing Bill on screen? It's automatic , so this security measure for Murray is useless by now. As reprising it's role in GB3 would not bee so bad. 15 Years passed and seeing the guys back would be positive in my opinino. and what has been told here , about Murray being back as peter after his , predictable, succes in Rushmore would be quite an advertising for him. ( Imagine: "GB3? What's that? Oh, it's the guy in rushmore..Cool! Then GB1 back in theater , DVD realsed huge advertising by columbia, "THIS guy made such a legedndary moive as GB1? WOW!! Its too great!) Yes , Bill iss older now , as the rest of the team , but I still beleive that the old team should be maintaided w/o any new addtitons. The forrsare the "Best, the beatufful , the ONLY ghostbusters!) Notice also that most of GB Fans are aboutt their 20 now and new generation riks to not have seen GB before so seeing the guys in action will be new to them. Sound alittle confusing maybe... As for Moranis. I would like t see him back but it's also true that it's presence would be useless as in GB2. in the first movie he was the keymaster in the 2nd ..nothing. However it's now part of the family , no way a GB w/o him. Anyway if Luis Tully fail to be in GB3 .. that's a pity but hats OK. Same for Dana/Sigurnay Waever. Man it soounds to good to me : 10 YEARS later: They are back to save the world ..once again!

  • Feb. 8, 1999, 4:45 a.m. CST

    More Ghostbusters (Warrior)

    by Warrior

    DOC PHIBE: Listen up, subcreature! 1. HAROLD RAMIS, not Ivan Reitman. What has Reitman done lately? Even GB2 wasn't what it could have been, and part of the blame rests with him (but I still like the movie). 2. Aykroyd & Ramis can write the script themselves, just don't give Dan too much creative control over the final edit. 3. You have obviously lost what little brains you may once have had. You got a problem with Sigourney? How can you possibly criticize her performances in #1 and #2? That having been said, a GB movie *could* be made without her, but I always got the impression that she is a focus for the supernatural, for whatever reason. She stays, PERIOD. 4.You have a problem with other effects-houses? ILM did #2, but I don't think they did #1. What's the difference? As long as the effects house is competent, it doesn't matter. 5. All the originals return CAMEOS AND SUPPORTING ROLES. They will most likely help introduce the "new blood" - the next generation of Ghostbusters. What have you got against Moranis? That court scene in #2 was one of the movie's best - and it wouldn't have been the same without Louis Tully. 6. Got something against Big Macs? 7. They are ALWAYS funny. GB2 was a scream, although sure, Peter MacNicol was a huge reason why. Rick Moranis was another. 8. Test audiences are dumb? Never heard that one before. 9. Agreed. 75M-80M is ideal. 10. Sony's not stupid. BIGGBOSS: Your enthusiasm is obvious in your postings. You are clearly a huge Ghostbusters fan! I'll probably see you at the theater on opening day, salivating with anticipation just like me!! A tip of the Warrior cap to ya!!!!!

  • Feb. 8, 1999, 1:54 p.m. CST

    Comedy is Not Pretty

    by Angus

    Who'da thunk...? A discussion of GHOSTBUSTERS 3 turns out to be the day's angriest Talk Back. I'll bet you guys get into fist-fights during FULL HOUSE!

  • Feb. 8, 1999, 1:59 p.m. CST

    Stuart Saves His Family

    by smilin'jackruby

    I doubt that anyone on the planet would agree with me, but if you took the script to "Stuart Saves His Family" and shot it without any references to SNL and just made the script as if it was an entirely original independent film with a no-name cast, it would have been the darling of the critics at every film festival in the nation as a remarkable, off-beat, often dark comedy. I know that that is not a popular opinion, but I thought "Stuart Saves His Family" had some truly interesting moments. As for "Ghostbusters III," I'd be first in line to see a brilliant version, but am so afraid it would be like "BB2K" which was a shockingly unwatchable disaster.

  • Feb. 8, 1999, 4:07 p.m. CST

    Clarity among Confusion

    by LiquidNitrate

    A little straightening up seems in order, gang. A) GB1 vs. GBII... Ghostbusters played in theaters for nearly a year, and grossed $238 mil (US). It was an intelligent FX comedy that spoofed the previous decade's horror classics (The Exorcist, Poltergeist, etc.) using an "elegant" SNL approach. It blended dumb, mainstream, silly, gross-out humor with layers of subtly-crafted/clever wit and intriguing comic characterizations. The research into supernatural mythology and apocalyptic prophecies; the imaginative technology and FX; the ad-libbing chemistry of the actors (all in top form); and blending of so many societal elements paid off with a grand piece of fine entertainment. Many critics sung its praises, which resulted in the Criterion Collection hailing this one-time #1 comedy blockbuster in a lush boxed-set LD. The film was ranked by over 4000 IMDb visitors, with a score of 7.2 out of 10. Ghostbusters II, on the other hand, was somewhere in the middle quality between its predecessor and Aykroyd's later abortion Blues Brothers 2. Ghostbusters II, a critical disaster, opened to a record-setting all-time weekend box-office (a week prior to Batman's ever bigger weekend) but quickly sank, winding up in the second-run $1.00 houses a mere month later. It did manage to peter out at $112 million, but considering its vast budget (far far more than the original) and its front-loaded box-office arrival, Ghostbusters II is hardly a classic flick. Most people I know were very disappointed (as with Alien 3, etc.). As a film, GBII is pretty sloppy. It was written, acted, and directed with lazy arrogance by all, as if the gang KNEW the public would eat up anything whatsoever, and thus a lame retread of the first formula would somehow be the highest achievement possible. The villain is a poor comparison to Gozer, as is his depressing plot for the world, his menace against the irritating infant, and his takeover of Yanosh. WORSE, the characters in GBII are NOT consistent with the originals! By the conclusion of Part 1, Bill Murray HAD finally proven to Sigourney that he was the right kind of guy for her, yet rather than developing their sequel relationship further (as with Leia and Han), the II gang decided to start all over from scratch and repeat the original's romance. It's so phony. Also, in the original, Ramis' character and Annie Potts' character are a twisted intellectually-nerdy version of an oddball romance, but that notion is ignored by the sequel in favor of her lame and inexplicable new romance with Rick Moranis, which was NEVER alluded as a possibility by the original story. Yes, Yanosh was somewhat amusing, and the sequence in the sewer with the rising pink lava-goo was creepy-cool-fun, but by and large Ghostbusters II was a very mediocre rehash without an ounce of the careful craftsmanship and originality of the first film. Witness the Statue of Liberty as the woefully-predictable stand-in for the Sta-Puft Marshmallow Man. I was extremely disappointed by the sequel's lack of creative ambition, and the only reason I'd see 3 is if I heard from advance reports that it was in fact more in the direction of the original. A New Generation trained by the originals is fine with me. If Rick Moranis' character is handled as cleverly as in the original, fine, but if like the sequel, then leave him out. As for Ernie Hudson, that joke was already handled on SNL. Eddie Murphy or Chris Tucker would be more appropriate. (John Candy also would have been nice). I apologize for the long post and way-too-deep analysis, but since this board has attracted such attention today, I figured it fit. WARRIOR: You're too easily taken in by the GB shrine (same goes to Blok Narpin). The first was great, but not that great. The sequel bit. Double-posting is an irritating though occasionally understandable error, but triple-posting is ridiculous. Blade 2? New Line announced their considerations of the possibility way back last fall when they saw Blade's opening grosses. PUBICBONE69: Alec Baldwin is a fine campy comedian (ala SNL hosting), but he cannot be taken seriously in a drama... he's just too cheesy. With the exceptions of Beetlejuice and Red October, his movies have all LOST money, so he is box-office poison (now he's starting to do straight-to-vid flicks). STENBECK: AMEN! Totally agreed with you. MRBEAKS: I heard bad things about The Man Who Knew Too Little, but was pleasantly surprised when I finally saw it. People who hate it must have been expecting a laugh-out-loud balls-to-the-wall comedy riot, when in fact the movie merely aimed to be a pleasant, gentle, subtle smile-inducer, almost in the charming vein Ivan Reitman's DAVE mastered so well. LANE MEYER: Tim Allen is evil, nearly as evil as Bob Saget. The previews for Santa Clause made me cringe like never before, and its success made me ill. As for the comments that Ghostbusters 3 should be darker and more horrific, that was the direction Aykroyd planned for the original (it was to be verrry depressingly dark and hellish), but Ramis was brought aboard the project specifically to lighten the tone with more Stripes-like comedy situations and humorous characters. BiggBoss: Was your dog transcribing? Your rant wasn't as long as mine, but the further you got, your nearly indecipherable attempts at spelling left me baffled as to what you were trying to say. OK, I'm done, and again I apologize for the length but your many points, questions, and arguments cried out for the necessary info.

  • Feb. 8, 1999, 6:06 p.m. CST

    Ghostbusters III (by Warrior)

    by Warrior

    OK Time to kick some ass! KAMEHAMEHA: Ghostbusters 2 was NOT a "critical disaster". Most critics at least gave it a reasonable review, and one guy (Leonard Maltin, I believe) rates it higher than the original. Of course he's wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that your statement was wrong! It made $112M, which is more than enough to justify another sequel. Don't forget, if Batman hadn't opened the next weekend, GB2 would have most likely been a $175-200M movie! By the way, since you don't know how to spell "Janosz Poha" makes me doubt you know anything about Ghostbusters. If someone went around talking about Star Wars, and referred to a "Hands" Solo, would you think he knew anything about Star Wars? NO. And why do you think that the fact that Dana Barrett and Pete Venkman got a divorce was "phony"?? Do you believe in happily ever after? Thats not the way life works. They got married, and it didn't work out. Thats reality, not phoniness. Same with Egon and Janine. Do you realize that its FIVE YEARS LATER? Why do you criticize the Statue of Liberty? I agree that the sequence wasn't done as well as it could have been, but the fact that there was a huge, walking statue isnt bad on its face. Why not? I Agree with you about the poor villain. Vigo was a magician in a painting, not exactly the same caliber villain as Gozer the Traveller, who was a god. I think Gozer should return in #3. And before you start blasting that idea as unoriginal, I have only three words for you: "SECOND DEATH STAR". By the way, I *SAW* The Santa Clause. It was horrible. A tip of the ol' Warrior hat to you for having the good sense to avoid seeing that mess. I wish we could find more ground to agree on about Ghostbusters, cause you sound like a semi-intelligent poster.

  • Feb. 8, 1999, 6:33 p.m. CST

    Ghostbusters Three

    by BiggBoss

    KAMEHAMEHA: I totally agree with what you says on GB 1 2 3 .Your movie analisys is detailed and correct,except for two things : No NEW GBs! And as for Winston's actor substitute . I don't know if there is a better actor for Winston's part , however certanely Murphy, Candy and Tucker are not the right choice. The reasons are in Winston character: It's the normal guy. How do you exxept Murphy and Tucker plaing such a subject. Althog Murphy was planned in one of the early Aykroyd ideas, it was not for Winston, which has been added near the end of the project. Murphy and Tucker just are too particular guys ; Murphy with his BH Cop way of being and Tucker with his rapper/Hip-Hop stuff. Also Murphy would have taken too much show time to the movie but this imply a discussion on Winston's importance as a part of the GB team which is not the case to do here. As for Candy, well, It's a comic actor , his apperance alone would have made him not suitable for this part. (BTW: Candy was supposed to play a way different Tully in one of the nearly-final draft). I'm going ot make it shoerter this time and clearer I hope: 1. Ramis should direct , Reitman has lost his magic touch. 2. Dana/Luis should be back too but only if they are involved in the story, althogh seeing Tully again would be funny. 3. Ramis should...no ...MUST have a more consistent participation in the GB3 script than in GB2 as he did for GB1 4. Bill Murray should have no probs rejoining the team since if he's trying to let people forget that he played Peter Venkman in 84 , he lost in advance. 5. Murray participation to the movie would be a great push for him since his outstanding performance in Rushmore recently, which gave him credits from the audionece and the huge advertising project Sony/Columbia seems to have planned for the 15th anniversary of GB. 6. GB3 can be a great movie (probably to the level of GB1) if condition 3 is respected and if the authors go back to the roots as Kamehameha stated. 7. There's no better time to release the movie , the 15th anniversary, a DVD relased is set for June and a GB re-relase in theatter for July.What Columbia excpect to have additionally? 8. For those who are scared of a possible failure like BB2K, consider that GB is a much bigger thing. It led for 10 Years , until the Ninja Turtles arrived, set a new concept, very expandable and re-usable and has entered , I belive, in the people subconscius by now. Remember step 3 also. For info , since this topic has been discussed, ILM made GB2's SFX , GB1's were made by Boss Film , A company founded by an Ex-ILM who worked on SW:ROTJ. The studio made SFX fo titles like Die Hard. Unfortunately the studio has gone in bankruptcy. PS: My previous post was so sh**ty written. Sorry! to everyone. I was damn tired ( 7:00 am w/o smleeping for 36 hours) and I write quickly on the keybord but I'm too lazy to correct myself.

  • Feb. 8, 1999, 7:24 p.m. CST

    Ghostbusters 3 Again!

    by BiggBoss

    I've the inspiration today! To begin with, one note I forgot to tell to KAMEHAMEHA: GB1 WAS a GREAT MOVIE!! no not that great...Better! Yes, obviously I'm a GB Fan but I've to tell you that my actual status of GB addict started when I was 4-yaer-old to stop at 12 because of TMNT. Then it restarted 2 Years ago, when I saw the movie on VCR again. And I've seen it in a different way; not only as a funny movie with cool sfx as I did back in 1984,I also started to appreciate the cinematic quality of the movie, acting , plot etc.. so when I support GB as really great I'm not doing it as a blind GB Fan but, I believe, as a critic viewer. I've to admit however that there's still in me love for SFX, Ghost etc. Also, you destroy GB2, while your statement are corrct , GB2 is still a nice-to-see movie. WARRIOR: The arguments you use in the last post are questionable. 1. How can you tell than someone do not know GB only because he can't spell correctly a name? Poah's name is not obvious so some mistake are possible. It would have been disastrous if he would name someone "Egon Venkamn". By the way I challenge you to write 3 times in a discussion "Dan Aykroyd" correctly! Kamehameha demostrate to know what he's talking about, with arguments , deep analisys and behind the scene infos known only by people interestend in the matter. (probably he has read the "Making Ghostbusters" book). I wont act like Kamehameha's lawyer but I believe that your conclusions were too erratic. As for the GB2 gross , you are probably right , GB2 would have made more w/o Batman. On the other and I think that a Gozer returns would be a bad idea. Something new is better!It would leave a feel of "we made GB3 copying GB1" which is not what we are looking for. If you wonder , I'm not too excited about the 2nd deathstar in SW:ROTJ neither. As for Pete and Dana, yes in 5 years a lot of stuff can change but it's the job of a writer to let's change them in a interesting manner. Continuing, Libby's Ride was one of the worse scene in GB2. The idea was good, using a symbol, but this is exagerated! It's so unrealistic in sci-fi universe of GB. Stay Puft , in GB1, is unrealistic too, you gonna tell me, however in that case he's a part of the comedic aspect of GB1, Libby has been used only for a spectacular purpose. Dan Aykroyd himself admitted , in a interview, that it has been a mistake and that the idea would have been developped in another way. Finally a friendly advice: Be more diplomatic when posting ; some people could get seriously upset.

  • Feb. 8, 1999, 8:06 p.m. CST

    Ghostbusters Stuff (by Warrior)

    by Warrior

    BIGGBOSS: This one's directed straight at ya. You seem to be a true Ghostbusters fan, and for that reason I can't really say anything bad about you. I have to disagree with some of what you say. So here goes! 1. I think that if #3 were to be the last one, then a return of Gozer would be a nice bookend, to tie in with the first movie. Its like the Death Star 2 in ROTJ. Besides, after they fought a GOD in #1, what tyoe of villain would match up in #3? Vigo in #2 was a disappointment (Just a magician). Imagine the boys in gray actually going to Gozer's dimension or something...wow!! Now, a little background on me. I'm a huge movie buff. Saw Ghostbusters in the theater in 84, it was an incredible experience. Saw #2 in 89 five times in theater and both of them many more times since at home. I know they are not high art, but for movies none remotely captured the same feelings of wonder as GB did (although I will never forget the awesome experience that was Starship Troopers in a digital THX theater)! I've seen The Real Ghostbusters, The Extreme Ghostbusters, the Ghostbusters comic books, the Ghostbusters movie novelizations, the Ghostbusters Technical manual (thats a collector's item now) and even those HORRIBLE Filmation's Ghostbusters. Anyway, GB is my all-time favorite film, and any discussion of GB3 brings out the fire in this ol' Warrior!!

  • Feb. 9, 1999, 1:13 a.m. CST

    Please shut the @#$% up

    by Sicuv Uyall

    Once again, for no reason other than I've got nothing to do for the next hour, I click on to the talk back and I get nothing but a bunch of dumb comments from a bunch of wannabe Siskel & Eberts. Just when I think someone is about to make a sensible point, that person screws it up with an idiotic one. If Ghostbusters III ever makes it to the screen, with Dan Ackroyd, that 300 lb., looking like Dan Ackroyd's dad, ham sandwich eating, House of Blues owning, wanna-be lone Blues Brother HAS-BEEN,...... and Bill Murray, who obviously is getting too old for the part and has gone on to better things, and obviously will look like he doesn't wanna be wearing that Ghostbuster outfit...... if this ever makes it to the screen, my friends, then we will all know the true nature of Hollywood's desperation in milking something that has long been past. Ghostbusters II was bad enough.... who doesn't agree with me? Anyone who doesn't laugh at Jim Carrey... and maybe even Adam Sandler... seriously have a big stick up their ass, and one they prefer to keep in their ass in fear of having their "intelligence insulted." Please. And Blade was a serious kick-ass movie... but then there are some out there who think otherwise because maybe it didn't meet up to their high standards of how a "comic book action movie" should be....? To sum up, the point i'm trying to make here is.... well, just look at the subject title.

  • Feb. 9, 1999, 5:48 a.m. CST

    Stupid Trolls...(by Warrior)

    by Warrior

    Hey SICUV UYALL: Obviously you are just looking for some attention, so I'll keep this short and sweet. 1. You are a clown. 2. Get this through that thick, empty head of yours...if Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd appear in a Ghostbusters 3, they will have SMALL, MINOR roles! They will be used to introduce the new, younger Ghostbusters. Haven't you read any of the stuff at Spook Central? Go to http://prudoff.interspeed.net/sc/ and get educated before you make an even bigger fool of yourself posting here. 3. Jim Carrey is OK...certainly not the funniest man in Hollywood, but OK. Ace Ventura 2 was HORRIBLE and unfunny. Ace #1 and The Mask were good, and Dumb & Dumber was his masterpiece. He's peaked already and its all downhill into "serious" dreck like The Truman Show. As for Sandler, The Waterboy was hilarious, but Wedding Singer was average and everything else sucked HARD. 4. BLADE was a mediocre movie all around. 5. Did I mention that you are a clown?

  • Feb. 9, 1999, 11:02 p.m. CST

    Um... you took all that seriously?

    by Doc Phibe

    YO! WARRIOR! I'll let your smug pompous insults slide only because you're probably 13 but please don't tell me you ACTUALLY took my top 10 list seriously. Surely you jest.

Top Talkbacks