Ghostbusters Director Says Third Movie is on The Way

Ghostbusters Director Says Third Movie is on The Way

Ghostbusters Screen Grab

Ghostbusters director Ivan Reitman says the third film is coming, but he won't be directing it.

Rumors of a third Ghostbusters movie have been floating around pretty much ever since Ghostbusters II premiered all those years ago. Now, despite the news that Ghostbusters actor/writer Harold Ramis died earlier in the year, Ghostbusters director Ivan Reitman says the third film is indeed coming, but that he won't be at the helm, due to Ramis' untimely death.

"When I came back from Harold's funeral, it was really moving and it made me think about a lot of things," Reitman told Deadline. "I just finally met with Amy [Pascal] and Doug Belgrad [from Sony Pictures] when I got back. I said I'd been thinking about it for weeks, that I'd rather just produce this Ghostbusters. I told them I thought I could help but let's find a really good director and make it with him."

"It was such an amazing time in my life 30 years ago, and I felt that way on the second film," he added, reminiscing on his time spent working on the films with Ramis. "With Harold no longer with us I couldn't see it." Reitman says shooting for Ghostbusters III should begin in 2015 - even though there's still no official director or cast

Sony's Amy Pascal confirmed Reitman's plans to help find a new director and produce the future movie, and said that Sony was "eager to make this film."

Source: Deadline via The Verge

Permalink

Seeing as Bil Murray isn't going to be in it -- and even if he was his heart wouldn't be in it, like with Ghostbusters 2 -- all we're left with is an old Dan Aykroyd. Murray, Ramis, and Aykroyd were the superglue that made the first movie such a solid structure. Without that trio this movie is dead at the starting line.

Without Harold Ramis I didn't think people would still try for this movie. As said above, the only one left is an old Dan Akroyd and only one of what I liked to call "the 3 Musketeers" doesn't really work.

Murray for years was the reason the third movie could not be made, but now that there won't be an Egon anyway, I guess the road is open for a "Next Generation" or a reboot without any of the old actors involved, except for maybe a cameo by Aykroyd or whoever of the surviving members they find to be willing.

Could be good, likely won't be.

Reitman,
You Ramis, Akroyd and Murray all left a great legacy.

Don't ruin it with a pointless sequel.
Bill Murray has the right idea; just let it be.

I get the horrible feeling that since they are now never going to get the original trio that made the movie great they will do a reboot that tries to make it a gritty political satire about terrorism and government surveillance. If they want to milk the franchise just make a cheap-and-easy 3D version and release it in cinemas.

Never mind the fact that doing a sequel 30 years later is rather stupid, how are they going to do it without Harold Ramis? You can't do a Ghostbusters movie without Ramis!

canadamus_prime:
Never mind the fact that doing a sequel 30 years later is rather stupid, how are they going to do it without Harold Ramis? You can't do a Ghostbusters movie without Ramis!

It's probably going to be a reboot with the Judd Apatow crew. Think Seth Rogen, James Franco, Jay Baruchel, and Jonah Hill.

Casual Shinji:

canadamus_prime:
Never mind the fact that doing a sequel 30 years later is rather stupid, how are they going to do it without Harold Ramis? You can't do a Ghostbusters movie without Ramis!

It's probably going to be a reboot with the Judd Apatow crew. Think Seth Rogen, James Franco, Jay Baruchel, and Jonah Hill.

Ugh, that's even worse than trying to coble together a sequel with whoever in the original cast is still willing.

Ghostbusters was the original cast, they made the movie what it was. This is a complete waste of time...

It *could* work. Given the right casting, and since the original folk are so far over the hill being a Ghostbuster wouldn't make much sense. I also feel Reitman would do it in the spirit of Ramis' memory and Akroyd's writing and love for the supernatural and funny can make a great movie. All the need not do is cast the usual comedy suspects of this era as mentioned before. And don't let the Apatow crew anywhere near this, Ghostbusters doesn't need to be one long dick joke.
That being said, I believe in Ivan Reitman, and I believe he wouldn't make a movie that DIDN'T honor the late great Harold Ramis' memory. Hell I'm still broken up over his death and maybe a sequel that wasn't the original cast done the right way, in his memory, could give me some closure.
I have always been a Ramis fan, and he was on my list of folk to have coffee with once in my life (along with Bill Murray and many others).
I also believe Murray might do it if things were right, like the script. He has wavered in the past and maybe Ramis' death (if that affected him) might push him to say "we should, for Harold because he loved the series".

Just have Akroyd as the boss and 3 new people to work as the ghostbusters. Do something new and different. When movies try to hard to be like the 1st one they end up train wrecks with zero originality and to many nods and winks to the the original. Murray said he would do it a few years ago if he could be a ghost, i say let him be a ghost and be the comedy element in the Ghostbusters HQ.

SonOfVoorhees:
Just have Akroyd as the boss and 3 new people to work as the ghostbusters. Do something new and different. When movies try to hard to be like the 1st one they end up train wrecks with zero originality and to many nods and winks to the the original. Murray said he would do it a few years ago if he could be a ghost, i say let him be a ghost and be the comedy element in the Ghostbusters HQ.

So...basically have Ray training a bunch of new guys? Sounds like the plot of Extreme Ghostbusters.

The fact that this is even being seriously considered directly after Ramis' death kind of sickens me. They didn't want to make it, didn't want to make it, didn't want to make it...wazzat? One of the major players died? There's a sudden surge of interest in his old works? Quick, sequel time!

Casual Shinji:

canadamus_prime:
Never mind the fact that doing a sequel 30 years later is rather stupid, how are they going to do it without Harold Ramis? You can't do a Ghostbusters movie without Ramis!

It's probably going to be a reboot with the Judd Apatow crew. Think Seth Rogen, James Franco, Jay Baruchel, and Jonah Hill.

*covers ears with hands* LALALALALALA IF I DON'T HEAR IT, IT'S NOT TRUE LALALALALALA

Seriously, though, if that happens, there will be protests outside the studio.

Anyway, I have no idea how a Ghostbusters 3 will work now.

At this point... I'd be more interested in a non-Ghost busters movie.. because you know what this is going to be like. They are going to shoe horn references in at every turn, recycle the same jokes, etc. Look hollywood. You need to get over this 'remake' thing. Oh That's right it would in all honestly be a reboot movie.. not another sequel.

See with a reboot they can do whatever they want and paint it as 'reimagining' while a clever way to get around the age and non-life of the original cast... you'd just have 4 guys acting like the original cast in the original film.

There's also the fact that Ghostbusters 'movie wise' has had a 50% fail rate... Very few would call Ghostbusters 2 a good movie even on it's own merits. Ghostbusters may just be one of those one-hit wonders that through some alchemy of talent, place and timing, managed to spin gold from straw... trying to recreate that effect however tends not to work. Same thing happened with Robocop.

Rather than a movie, perhaps they should take that budget and use it for a TV series...which would actually be a better over all thing. It'd allow better arcing plots with time to get to know the new actors and or new characters.

Damn it Reitman just let it go and make Evolution 2 or something.

The_Lunatic25:

SonOfVoorhees:
Just have Akroyd as the boss and 3 new people to work as the ghostbusters. Do something new and different. When movies try to hard to be like the 1st one they end up train wrecks with zero originality and to many nods and winks to the the original. Murray said he would do it a few years ago if he could be a ghost, i say let him be a ghost and be the comedy element in the Ghostbusters HQ.

So...basically have Ray training a bunch of new guys? Sounds like the plot of Extreme Ghostbusters.

The fact that this is even being seriously considered directly after Ramis' death kind of sickens me. They didn't want to make it, didn't want to make it, didn't want to make it...wazzat? One of the major players died? There's a sudden surge of interest in his old works? Quick, sequel time!

Thing is they have been talking about making a 3rd movie for years, its not a spare of the moment thing to cash in on Ramis death and has only been picking up steam over the last 6 months or so. I remember when Ghostbusters 3: Hellbent was going to be about a rip in reality that opens to a hell version of New York. lol. Also, Ramis was discussing G3 movie in the months before his death about the script and talking to producers. If anything it was Murray keeping it from being made though my thoughts are you dont really need him in it, dont really need any of the original cast in it. Also their have been more Spiderman films than Ghostbuster movies - i think if they have a good story and have a good director behind them then they should make it.

Also his death and them making the movie is just coincidence. Fact Ramis died isnt an issue in this movie being made, he isnt that well known director to a majority of people as most will say "whos he?" Also the Ghostbusters movies are not a well known series of movies, most people dont care or are aware of it. Ghostbusters 2 came out in 1989 so i think a new movie would be well received.

If it sucks, then fine. But what if its good? There is a lot of great things they could do with this series. Could bring new interest in the series and new attention to the originals. I just think people moaning about milking a franchise when the last movie was released 24 years ago is silly.

With 25 years between this and the previous movie, no Ramis, no Murray, and an ageing Aykroyd, it sounds to me like a reboot would be more appropriate than a sequel. Isn't that a thing at the moment, anyway?

Chester Rabbit:
Damn it Reitman just let it go and make Evolution 2 or something.

Yes. Just let Ghostbusters go and let some shmucks make a gritty reboot that will bomb like the Tsar Bomba and bite them in their financial asses, if they're stupid enough(hint: someone in Hollywood sure is). Make Evolution 2 before David Duchovny, Orlando Jones, Seann William Scott, and Julianne Moore get too old for their parts. Ghostbusters 3 is turning into what I fear the new Star Wars films will be: 2+ hours of an average to poor film riding on nostalgia of the old days and extended cameos of the originals' cast.

Casual Shinji:

canadamus_prime:
Never mind the fact that doing a sequel 30 years later is rather stupid, how are they going to do it without Harold Ramis? You can't do a Ghostbusters movie without Ramis!

It's probably going to be a reboot with the Judd Apatow crew. Think Seth Rogen, James Franco, Jay Baruchel, and Jonah Hill.

Part of my soul just died . . .

Yeah, as much as I loved the original Ghostbusters (didn't like the sequel), I can't be made to care about another at this point. I'll stick with the original, thanks.

While I like the idea of a sequel, I doubt that it'd be any good.

While mentally I can think of a lot of good things they could do, emotionally I'm just sad and disturbed by the idea.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here