Ghostbusters 3 (Rumours and Discussion)


Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...

Reitman Confirms He Will Direct Ghostbusters 3

Speaking to MTV, Ivan Reitman confirmed he will return to direct Ghostbusters 3. Reitman directed the first two films, which were released in 1984 and 1989.

Reitman said that screenwriters Lee Eisenberg and Gene Stupnitsky had turned in a first draft of the script and are working on a second draft right now. "Good work is being done and all of us have our fingers crossed... There's some very cool things in the new draft," he said.

While he wouldn't comment on recent rumors about the story, he added that he hopes to start shooting in this next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

'Ghostbusters 3' Adds a Whole New Dimension.... 3-D

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!" Can you imagine ghosts floating around the theater in 3-D? Awesome! As we previously reported, Ivan Reitman is tapped to produce and direct (although he has the option to opt out at any time) with Harold Ramis, Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson, Rick Moranis, Sigourney Weaver all rumored to be returning. The sequel is said to bring a new breed of Ghost Busters into the world. Talk about this news below. Is 3D here to stay or is it just a gimmick? I'd say it works well for a Ghostbusters movie.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

please no. I don't like 3d movies.

Then don't see it in 3-D? Avatar was offered in both and a lot of full length films are that have been coming out in 3D. They have to have both as people don't have 3-D tv's in their house yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then don't see it in 3-D? Avatar was offered in both and a lot of full length films are that have been coming out in 3D. They have to have both as people don't have 3-D tv's in their house yet.

3D still works whether you have a 3D TV or not. It's all about the image that is displayed. Haven't seen UP, Coraline? They are both 3D and you watch them with 3D glasses. IMO 3D tvs are useless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3D still works whether you have a 3D TV or not. It's all about the image that is displayed. Haven't seen UP, Coraline? They are both 3D and you watch them with 3D glasses. IMO 3D tvs are useless.

Depends on the 3-D method used. If polorization is to be used, its not as straight forward as using the red/blue or red/green glasses, which I think the 3-D TV's are going for polorization or shutter for 3-D, I could be wrong. A movie like Avatar would have to be done non-porlarized method for the average person. After seeing Avatar I think I prefer for the polarized glasses than the red/blue or red/green ones that are out there.

I haven't used the shutter 3-D glasses before so not sure if they really have any visible noise (I'd hope not) and seeem to be bigger than other glasses which I wouldn't want either, and probably require batteries! :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

In an article in the Sunday Mail, Bill Murray has confirmed that he will be appearing in Ghostbusters 3. He also revealed some spoiler-ish details of what he will be doing in the third installment of the sci-fi comedy franchise. You can read those details, after the jump. You have been warned.

It has been long rumored that Bill Murray?s character Dr. Peter Venkman would appear in Ghostbusters 3

as a ghost. Yes, that?s right ? a ghost. Well Murray has confirmed that the only way he?ll appear in the film is if he gets to appear as a dead Ghostbuster. Here is the quote from the Mail:

?I?ll come back in Ghostbusters III only if I get to be a ghost. I said to them, ?I?ll do it if you kill me off in the first reel.? So now they are going to have me as a ghost in the film.?

I actually don?t think this is a half bad idea, especially if Murray is only willing to film a scene or three. However, some of Murray?s best material comes out of improv. And I wonder how Ivan Reitman will shoot these special effects heavy scenes, and if the set-up will allow for Murray to stray from the script and interact with some of the live-action actors. You can read the whole interview with Murray on mailonsunday.co.uk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

imrpov wise, it doesn't matter. Just film Murray doing the imporv with hand gestures and etc then let the animators do their stuff to replicate what Murray did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's about time for some more news rather then the ghost news :p

eh I'll take what I can get. lol. Something is better than nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In an article in the Sunday Mail, Bill Murray has confirmed that he will be appearing in Ghostbusters 3. He also revealed some spoiler-ish details of what he will be doing in the third installment of the sci-fi comedy franchise. You can read those details, after the jump. You have been warned.

It has been long rumored that Bill Murray’s character Dr. Peter Venkman would appear in Ghostbusters 3

as a ghost. Yes, that’s right — a ghost. Well Murray has confirmed that the only way he’ll appear in the film is if he gets to appear as a dead Ghostbuster. Here is the quote from the Mail:

“I’ll come back in Ghostbusters III only if I get to be a ghost. I said to them, ‘I’ll do it if you kill me off in the first reel.’ So now they are going to have me as a ghost in the film.”

I actually don’t think this is a half bad idea, especially if Murray is only willing to film a scene or three. However, some of Murray’s best material comes out of improv. And I wonder how Ivan Reitman will shoot these special effects heavy scenes, and if the set-up will allow for Murray to stray from the script and interact with some of the live-action actors. You can read the whole interview with Murray on mailonsunday.co.uk.

fame truly has rotted his mind. Him being a ghost sounds so cheesy. In all the films he's been in recently I haven't found him amusing at all. He's lost it. Still can't believe he did that crapfest of movie lost in translation. *shudder*. I watched that with my family and we all thought it was boring. He's dead to me....after ghostbusters II he become "unfunny". This stupid "I want to be a ghost in gb 3" proves he's become a douche lame actor now. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally found it his most poignant role.

same, imo lost in translation is a magnificent film plus lets also add Bill Murray in Zombieland that cameo made the film just that little bit more awesome!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Once again, Bill Murray says he'll only be in this film if he's killed off in the first reel, and apparently the writers have found a way to make that happen. Mostly, he gives the impression he's not very interested in doing this movie. [Slashfilm]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again, Bill Murray says he'll only be in this film if he's killed off in the first reel, and apparently the writers have found a way to make that happen. Mostly, he gives the impression he's not very interested in doing this movie. [Slashfilm]

that couple must be some old hags.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Murray has been said to be one of the big holdouts for Ghostbusters 3, and with good reason. (It sounds like a studio nostaliga grab; Murray is by far the most vital of the original crew; many doubts about the script.) The second film sucked and there?s plenty of reason to be afraid the third could be just as bad. Murray infamously called the idea of the third film his nightmare and said it?s just crazy talk.

Now, while doing press for Get Low, he?s gone a step beyond, saying that Ghostbusters 3 is ?just a myth.? Now, what he means by that is?

CinemaBlend caught Murray in the proper mood while he did press for Get Low, and in addition to the myth comment he said that the film is ?like the white alligator in the sewer, you know? Who?s seen it, really?? He went on to say,

It?s just really the movie studio. They love the franchise, they?d just like to re-create it again. All this talk is just talk. It drives me nuts, it?s just people talking?Until someone actually creates a great script it?s just hogwash, it doesn?t mean anything. It?s interesting that people are interested in it, they?d like to see it. It was a great thing, it really was fun. Maybe it should. And if it?s such a good idea, then someone will write the screenplay.

ComingSoon got some similar quotes,

?it?s really the world of sequels and bringing these things back again, and then some wiseacre said, ?Hey, we got a couple of new writers who are gonna write something.? And I thought, ?Oh, well, maybe there?ll be some writers? and there was always this joke, sort of a half-true, half-joke thing like, ?Well, I?ll do it if you kill me off in the first reel.? That was my joke, you know? So supposedly someone was writing a script where I actually got killed in the first reel and became a ghost, which I thought, ?Well, that?s kind of clever anyway.? But then these guys that were supposedly the writers that were going to do it, they wrote a film that came out and people saw the film and went? ?We?re not going to do it after all, are we?? So it?s just a kind of a dreamy thing.

(Slash Film)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.