Ghostbusters 3 (old rumour)

[MR W,AXL ROSE]

i read a while back on the official ghostbusters site (sad i know ) that a ghostbusters 3 could be in the making soon.has anybody else heard anything about it.

ps- is there any other ghosybusters fans here (go ahead take the piss outta me,i can take it  ).

[Hammy]

i read a while back on the official ghostbusters site (sad i know ) that a ghostbusters 3 could be in the making soon.has anybody else heard anything about it.

ps- is there any other ghosybusters fans here (go ahead take the piss outta me,i can take it? ).

I'm a fan both films rule.  With legends like Bill Murray, Dan Akyroyd & Ernie 'Nobody Knows Who I Am' Hudson what do you expect?

I heard the rumour to.  Actually on my Blues Brothers DVD, in the extra's section it actually had Ghostbusters 3 (1998) listed on Akyroyd's biography, i asked my mate about it he said it was planned and their was a script but for one reason or another the idea got ditched, i forget why now......

[Jim]

My guess would be script problems, Bill Murray wouldn't sign up... But as I say, that is purely guess work. I think that it would have to be a really good script for him to even consider doing another one. Dan Akyroyd on the other hand will film anything... A ton of scripts get written that never get made. Shit happens. Indy 4 is on like it's third script. But it looks like that bad boy is actually comming now! Nobody thought that Superman would, either...

But, Ghostbusters is gold! The first and second. You can pick them up on DVD for something like thirteen pounds for both of them these days. Quality!

[Izzy]

Ghostbusters 3 was slated for a release in about 97/98 - there is even so early promotional work on the net.

The reason it was aborted was because they couldnt get everyone involved, which is a damn shame - the first one especially, is one of the 80's best films

[Jim]

I knew it! Any idea who it was? My money is on Murrary and Weaver.

[sic.]

Last I heard, Weaver was written out of the script. Possibly a good call, considering she also has the Alien franchise earmarked for her, and it took a good-sized paycheck to get her do parts 3 & 4 on that series. I'm not sure how expensive Ripley was in GB2, but she'd be likely to hit serious paydirt with part 3. As for Bill Murray, Aykroyd alluded something about some creative authority (Ivan Reitman, Harold Ramis, Aykroyd?) having had disagreements with Murray in the past. Ol' Bill retributed by refusing to co-operate for a time.

This script review should provide some insight, it's on a draft dated March 10th, 1999. Murray had been convinced to come back (if not as a leading man anymore), but the money wasn't there to do the movie anymore.

---

Edit to add: Some Ramis comments from 2005.

Ramis Plans ?Ghostbusters 3? with Stiller

HOLLYWOOD - Moviemaker Harold Ramis is trying to bring his Ghostbusters movie franchise back to the big screen--and he wants Ben Stiller to star in a third film. Ramis reveals Ghostbusters star Dan Aykroyd has written a new script, called Ghostbusters in Hell, and Ramis is keen to get the project started. He tells InFocus magazine he wants Stiller to join Aykroyd and Rick Moranis in the sequel.

Read full article

[Hammy]

Stax here with my reaction to the screenplay for Ghostbusters 3: Hellbent! This 122-page first draft dated March 10, 1999 is by actor Dan Aykroyd, based on a story by Aykroyd and co-star Harold Ramis. Sadly, this highly anticipated sequel appears quite dead now. The many reasons why this Columbia Pictures-based project likely won't get off the ground are cited below.

Dan Aykroyd last addressed Ghostbusters 3 back in November 1999, several months after this draft is dated. The original Ghostbuster advised Access Hollywood that GB3 "doesn't look like it's going to happen for the same reason they aren't going to make Men in Black 2." (And we all know what happened with that project now, don't we?) "The cost is too excessive for the studio to see it to be economically feasible," said Akyroyd. "It is a shame too because everyone wants to do it. Even Bill Murray said he would work a few days on it. I did finish a script. Harold Ramis liked parts of it. [Series director] Ivan Reitman liked parts of it too. There is definitely an interest from all of the original parties involved to make it. However, the studio just does not want to take the risk. In my opinion, the successes of the other two give the impression that there is a good chance of profit for a third sequel. So unfortunately, it looks like its just not going to happen based on the studio's feelings, not from anyone else."

Harold Ramis told Entertainment Weekly back in February 1999 that the "dream plan is that Danny and I would produce it, I would direct it, and we would recruit some newer, younger, popular Ghostbusters to star." Cinescape Online reported in 1998 that the "film is rumored to follow Raymond Stantz (Aykroyd) and Egon Spengler (Ramis) as they cope with Peter Venkman's (Bill Murray) departure with Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver), plus their attempt to stay employed while fighting a new otherworldly entity, possibly Hades, the Greek god of the underworld."

Having now read this March 1999 draft, I can confirm that the sequel does adhere to that general plot line (at least in this draft). Without revealing too many spoilers, Ghostbusters 3: Hellbent suggests that hell (portrayed as a stygian mirror image of The Big Apple dubbed ?Manhellton?) has grown overcrowded and congested. As a result, hell is literally evicting people back into the world of the living in order to alleviate their congestion problem.

Obviously, this isn?t good for our world so the Ghostbusters must use their latest technology to literally go to hell and ask the devil why he?s doing this and to see what they can do to make him stop. Naturally, the devil ? portrayed here as a Donald Trump-like mogul named Siffler ? has a secret agenda that leads to a grand conflict with our titular heroes. The Ghostbusters must once again save New York City from the evil forces of the afterlife.

There is indeed a younger crop of Ghostbusters (or, as the script abbreviates it, GBs) introduced that perform much of the otherworldly legwork here. This new crew includes: Franky, a body-pierced, tough New Jersey punker; Lovell, a dread-locked dude; Moira, a pretty but uptight gymnast and science grad; and Carla, a Latino beauty. There?s also Nat, a prepubescent genius whose powerful brain has made his head abnormally large. Despite his youth, Nat serves as a supervisor for the new GBs. That?s all we ever get to know about these characters (we don?t even learn their last names!) and they?re our guides throughout most of the story.

I?m not exactly asking for brilliantly delineated characterizations here but even the original team had their own distinct personalities, voices, and senses of humor. These young bucks are practically interchangeable. They all behave and sound alike, and get along relatively well. There?s no real conflict between them nor is there a dominant personality as there was amongst the original GBs. These would be the script?s worst mistakes if it weren?t for the revelation that these young turks aren?t especially funny or charming, either.

That?s what shocked and disappointed me the most about this draft of Ghostbusters 3: it was more jargon than jokes. Bill Murray/Peter Venkman doesn?t appear until the end and then it?s only a cameo (he?s portrayed in a way you?ve never seen before, which was the script?s most memorable gag). There?s also no sign of Sigourney Weaver?s character Dana nor is there any mention of her kid Oscar (remember him?), who you?d think might be included among these new, younger GBs given his importance in the last film.

Ray (Aykroyd), Egon (Ramis), and Winston (Ernie Hudson, now referred to as ?Dr. Zeddemore?) have prominent supporting roles here. (Louis Tully and Janine have cameos.) The action is driven forward by the younger GBs. Whenever the original GBs are in a scene, my interest ? and the story itself ? picked up. I?ve never been a huge fan of TV series or films featuring ?the next generation? of characters, with Star Trek being an arguable exception (although I still prefer the classic Trek).

You fall in love with some characters for very specific reasons and sometimes it?s just impossible to see new actors take over those series/franchises. I think Ghostbusters might be such a case but if these new GBs had more personality, if they were developed further, perhaps I?d have accepted the transition. I just never cared about these new Ghostbusters, though.

The plot line about hell being overcrowded and needing to evict people was relatively amusing but isn?t the whole ?New York is Hell? sentiment rather tired now? And I don?t even want to get into the post-9/11 issues that any film about New York City being endangered will likely face now. (Of course, I compartmentalized those issues given that this script predates the tragedies.) Rather than it being the wrong time for GB3 perhaps now might actually be the perfect time for it. After all, the Ghostbusters films offer pure escapism, politically correct villains, and a wish fulfillment/fantasy about being able to save The Big Apple from (excuse the phrase) phantom menaces. I just can't say that I liked the GB3 yarn that this draft offered.

As a huge fan of the original film, I?d much rather see a GB3 where the old gang must strap their backpacks on for one last mission (even without Murray, though he?d be sorely missed) rather than see pretenders to the throne get the bulk of screen time. That?s just me, though. Obviously, the series? creators see the sequel differently so I must respect their ideas. I just wasn't as entertained by this draft as I wanted to be (and I really wanted to love this script). Given that there has been no development on this project for almost three years, however, my reservations about Ghostbusters 3 appear to be moot. ? STAX

After reading that i'm happy it hasn't gone ahead.

Bill Murray is the man and without him in a major role my interest would be limited and the prospect of the film being focused around a bunch of new Ghostbusters just gives me scary visions of the awful teen actors we've had to endure in recent years.....

[SLCPUNK]

Ghostbusters 3 was slated for a release in about 97/98 - there is even so early promotional work on the net.

The reason it was aborted was because they couldnt get everyone involved, which is a damn shame - the first one especially, is one of the 80's best films

The first one was one of the funniest movies ever.

Second....not so good.

Interesting fact: Eddie Murphy was offered a role in the first one and he turned it down.

[MR W,AXL ROSE]

wow...eddie murphy.i didnt know that?

as for that script? .to make this film work it would NEED BILL MURRAY and the old crew but more bill.that idea of the old crew strappin the proton packs back on for one last mission sounds much better.maybe an updated ECTO 1 like a big new FORD or sumthin.maybe set it somewhere else in the world like london UK,which has some spooky tales of its own.I CAN SEE IT NOW? .

we should use this thread to do a script for GB3 and then forward it to ivan rietman and see what happens?

CAST- bill murray,dan akroyd,harold ramis,ernie hudson,sigourny weaver,and maybe some new big names like the devil being jack nicholson and a new janine melnitz (the secretary) beyonce

LOCATION - London UK

SET DATE - 06/06/06

PLOT - hell becomes full so the devil (jack nicholson) starts sending the dead back to earth through a time loophole in a famous venue in London.then the ghostbusters get a call from Tony Blair asking them to come to London and save the whole city.as the ghostbusters find they cant trap all the ghosts that the devil sends back to earth they come up with a way of sending them back to hell.this upsets the devil so he makes an appearance in the streets of london in a STAY PUFT style ending to the film.the ghostbusters manage to capture the devil and communicate with him.they then come to a truce and the devil agrees to accept anyone who god wishes to send to hell wether its overcrowded or not.so the ghostbusters send the devil back to hell the same way they sent the dead THE END.

now you add your ideas 

[SuperMike]

oh man, good ol' Ghostbusters, those films never get old.

 I don't know about a 3rd sequel but I seriously hope they don't fucking remake it like what happens to all these other movies.

[ClintroN]

another interesting fact-  Bill Murray's part was origenaly written for John Belushi (RIP)

Dan Aykroyd always called Slimer the ghost of his friend John!!

[ClintroN]

Oh yeah....GHOSTBUSTERS FOREVER!!!   

[D]

I loved the first one but like SLC said, I wasnt a fan of the 2nd one.

Its one of those movies to me that sequels just kill the magic.

[ClintroN]

I loved the first one but like SLC said, I wasnt a fan of the 2nd one.

Its one of those movies to me that sequels just kill the magic.

i think if they made pt. 3 it'll definatly kill the magic, but i'd love to see a 3rd so i just cant fkn win!!

............pt. 2 rocks i reckon!!

[Danny Top Hat]

I really hope this 3rd film doesn't happen - it sounds like they don't have a good story, or any new gags.  A sequel for the sake of it is a total waste of time.

The first two films are fantastic, you've gotta love 'em.

[MR W,AXL ROSE]

if they did make a third film,do you think it should be close to the storyline of the first two or something totally different.

ps. did you have any of the toys when you were a kid

 1. proton pack
 2. P.K.E meter
 3. ecto 1
 4. ecto 2
 5. ectoplasm
 6. HQ
 7. STAY PUFT
    ETC ETC ETC

[SuperMike]

I'm sorry that I'm bringing back an old thread but I just wanted to bring up something.

Recently,I heard another old rumor that Dan Akyroyd wrote a script for GIII and Chris Farley was going to be the new ghostbuster and main character in the story, something about the old cast wouldn't come back so he thought having a new character written just for another well-known comedian would make it work. But things fell apart when he died.

Chris Farley is one of my favorite comedians, it sucks that he's not around anymore. Does anybody else know about this?

[Izzy]

A few months ago IMDB had Ghostbusters III (in production) which seems to have vanished again

Frankly the Ghostbusters in Hell idea is a digracefully bad.

I would prefer no film then a 'next generation' Ghostbusters film with some godawful teen cast

The first film was a brilliant fusion of effects, acting, personalities and a darn good script

The second one seemed to be missing something - though what it is...i'm not sure - any one got any ideas?

A third one has to feature the original cast and with the a script that someone with a clue wrote....

[AtariLegend]

A few months ago IMDB had Ghostbusters III (in production) which seems to have vanished again

Frankly the Ghostbusters in Hell idea is a digracefully bad.

I would prefer no film then a 'next generation' Ghostbusters film with some godawful teen cast

The first film was a brilliant fusion of effects, acting, personalities and a darn good script

The second one seemed to be missing something - though what it is...i'm not sure - any one got any ideas?

A third one has to feature the original cast and with the a script that someone with a clue wrote....

The age of the original cast should be thought about.

[Izzy]

A few months ago IMDB had Ghostbusters III (in production) which seems to have vanished again

Frankly the Ghostbusters in Hell idea is a digracefully bad.

I would prefer no film then a 'next generation' Ghostbusters film with some godawful teen cast

The first film was a brilliant fusion of effects, acting, personalities and a darn good script

The second one seemed to be missing something - though what it is...i'm not sure - any one got any ideas?

A third one has to feature the original cast and with the a script that someone with a clue wrote....

The age of the original cast should be thought about.

Dont see why

The original was a classic because of the performances - they are still capable of great performances, great actors often get better with age like a good wine