Blue Sky - The Cloud Hosting Company


10 things that Ghostbusters 3 would need to get right

FEATURES - MOVIES

Who ya gonna call? Shadowlocked, with handy tips for New York City's favorite parapsychologists to help avoid sequel-itis...

Harold Ramis, Dan Aykroyd, Bill Murray, and Ernie Hudson in 'Ghostbusters' (1984)

Nostalgia. It's a powerful thing. All of us have experiences in our life that we look back on with something beyond fondness, often wishing, sometimes desperately, that we could go back and relive those moments. Numerous scientific studies have shown that the mind tends to amplify happy moments into something far larger than the actual events. So in that vein, nostalgia tends to work as a reward system for the brain. Happiness is a natural state for human beings. We want to be happy and, when we take part in experiences that make us happy, our brain loves revisiting and magnifying those times so that it can be made happy again.

Movies in particular evoke an incredible amount of nostalgia among the movie-going public. And lo, we come to one of the greatest, if not the greatest, film franchise of the 1980s - Ghostbusters. The NYC comedy about the adventures of four parapsychologists captivated kids of my generation, as well as adult fans of SNL alums Dan Aykroyd and Bill Murray, writer Harold Ramis, and actor Ernie Hudson. Now, over two decades since the proton packs were holstered for the last time, Ghostbusters has become a template for that Hollywood rarity - the near-perfect comedy - remembered with nothing less than fierce and protective nostalgia. Naturally, with the news in recent years that a possible Ghostbusters 3 may be inching closer to reality, fans such as myself have strong opinions as to what should and should not be contained within, so as to avoid a disappointing return to an old franchise (see Tron: Legacy). Here are the 10 things that I think the cast and crew of a potential Ghostbusters three-quel would need to do to make the film not only a success, but a worthy successor to the franchise's legacy.

1. Don't leave New York City

55 Central Park West, aka

Inexplicably, under the pretense of "keeping things fresh", some film franchises have ultimately elected to send their beloved characters from the settings that helped make them famous. The result? Near-universal disaster. I know it's not exactly in the geek genre, but a great example of this is Sex and the City, a New York franchise through and through. Sending the four main characters to Dubai in the TV series' second film foray elicited none-too-subtle Ishtar references and rightly so. Also, does anyone remember what actually happened in Home Alone 2? No? Not exactly a shock. The second film was a pale shadow of the first and one BIG reason for that was sending Kevin McAllister and the Wet Bandits to the "big city". Gee, I thought the name of the movie was Home Alone. One of the absolute worst things that a successful franchise can do is take a setting that moviegoers expect and are comfortable with and completely change it. If the Ghostbusters scriptwriters are suicidal enough to think about sending their heroes on some kind of ill-advised road trip to other climes, the third film is certain to tank.

2. Keep the deadpan humor

Dan Aykroyd as Ray Stantz

Ghostbusters, along with many other successful 1980s comedies, employed a more subtle humor than today's younger generation is generally used to. Something as minor as an arched eyebrow, a turn of the head, or a frozen smile was enough to attract laughter, because the comedy or absurdness of the situation needed nothing more. Yes, there was some physical comedy, largely provided by Rick Moranis as goofy nerd Louis Tully, but it was just an added facet and not something the film had to constantly rely on as a crutch. If you write a comedy properly, you will often find that you needn't include a dozen shots to the groin, imbecilic line screaming posing as humor, or over-the-top pratfalling slapstick. Suffice it to say that I am not going to be pleased if Dane Cook or Jack Black end up in the GB3 cast. Black can be funny, but I'm not interested in his particular brand of humor in this instance. And no, Dane Cook is not funny. Pretty much ever.

3. Write in a pro-active villain

Ghostbusters II antagonist Vigo the Carpathian

Before Lord of the Rings villain Sauron's physical form was portrayed as a giant eyeball stuck at the top of a tower, reduced to looking around his neighborhood somewhat impotently, there was Vigo the Carpathian in Ghostbusters II. He was that guy who spent 90% of the film trapped in a painting. Now, as lame as that idea is, the cast was certainly game, pumping up Vigo's murderous reputation at every opportunity. Unfortunately, the climax left a lot to be desired, with actor Wilhelm von Homburg clumsily feeling his way through the role a la Hercules in New York era Arnold Schwarzenegger. Not even a Max von Sydow voice dubbing job could manage to steer Vigo's characterization away from its accidentally-comical outcome. A return to the Ghostbusters franchise will require villainy on a much larger scale than Vigo the Painting Guy. And with that being said...

4. Bring back Gozer the Gozerian

Gozer the Gozerian

A far more challenging opponent than Vigo, Sumerian god Gozer the Gozerian nearly turned Manhattan into a rest stop for the entirety of Hell's incorporeal demons in the franchise's first go-round. Only a last-second and desperate plan to 'cross the streams' destroyed Gozer's dimensional portal and fried its latest incarnation as the giant Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man. But who said Gozer was out of the picture forever? (I realize that Gozer's history was fleshed out in subsequent videogames, but they aren't exactly canon, now, are they?) A huge selling point for a potential screenplay is that Gozer is a shape-shifter, so another visit by The Traveler could assume literally any form that the production desires. Why not envision Gozer finding a loophole and making its way back to Earth in another form, looking to wreak revenge on the puny humans that banished it previously? Done right, it would be a tip of the hat to the first film and help bring in a new generation of younger fans that may not be all that familiar with the Ghostbusters mythology.

5. Talk Rick Moranis out of retirement (and get Annie Potts, too)

Annie Potts and Rick Moranis in Ghostbusters II

In my view, no Ghostbusters film would be complete without quirky accountant Louis Tully, played with hilarious perfection by Rick Moranis. Sadly, the death of Rick's wife Anne in 1991 struck Moranis incredibly hard and he retired from live action film soon after. In the ensuing years, Moranis has dabbled in music and taken a handful of voice-over jobs, but he hasn't acted onscreen since Honey We Shrunk Ourselves in 1997. News regarding his possible return hasn't been good, as sources as close to the potential production as Harold Ramis have claimed that Moranis is wholly uninterested in rehashing Louis Tully.

Another minor character that is integral to Ghostbusters canon is Annie Potts' sharp-tongued, but lovable, receptionist Janine Melnitz. Especially since Louis and Janine began an awkward courtship in Ghostbusters II, both are nearly crucial to a truly satisfying return to the franchise. Of course, if Moranis and/or Potts ultimately decline to reprise their roles, their absence can be written off by claiming that Tully and Melnitz married and moved away, but that is hardly what legions of fans want to see. If and when Bill Murray reads and approves the script, the entire ghost-busting team, along with Sigourney Weaver, will reportedly be on board. Hopefully, a green light from all involved will be enough to temporarily prod Moranis out of retirement and convince Potts to sign as well.

6. Do NOT mention the World Trade Center

Commemorative WTC skylights on the Manhattan skyline

Ghostbusters was filmed in 1984, Ghostbusters II in 1989, and the World Trade Center towers were destroyed in 2001. So now in 2011, we must make reference to the changed Manhattan skyline if another film is to be made, right? Absolutely NOT. Cinema patrons watch films to escape from reality. If somebody were to watch Paul Greengrass' United 93, for example, they'd know what they were about to experience and (presumably) prepared themselves for said experience. So imagine enjoying yourself in a return to a light-hearted adventure with the parapsychologists from NYC and suddenly a somber explanation about the Twin Towers' absence barges onto the screen like a nine-billion pound elephant. Talk about killing the mood. Everybody and their grandmother knows what happened on 9/11 and I'm sure as hell not looking for a reminder while watching a Ghostbusters movie, of all things. As important as it would be for GB3 to heavily feature New York City's spectacular urban scenery, the WTC disaster is not something that belongs in that particular parallel universe.

7. Just get Dana and Peter together already

Dana Barrett/Zuul and Peter Venkman

The first film saw a charismatic, albeit pushy, Venkman continuously attempting to charm Sigourney Weaver's Dana Barrett and getting rebuffed at every turn. However, in classic 'guy gets girl' Hollywood fashion, Venkman and the rest of the busters save Barrett and Louis Tully in the end and the two share a smiling kiss. But by the time the Ghostbusters II plotline rolls around, Barrett has been married, divorced, and had a baby boy and her ex-husband/baby's father is not Peter Venkman. Once again, the paranormal professionals save the day, this time rescuing Dana's son Oscar from demonic possession, and once again it seems as if Dana and Peter might finally be an item. But are they? I can't say for certain, but they should be. Opening GB3 with yet another "Peter and Dana like each other but aren't together" subplot would be a bit much by this point. I think the proper course of action would be to finally throw the two together and allow the screenplay to explore a bit of relationship humor when the situation allows. Hasn't Peter waited long enough?

8. Don't overdo the special effects

The proton packs at work in Ghostbusters II

The proton pack beams in the first two films were nothing necessarily groundbreaking, but they looked great for their time. Happily, they also hold up quite well even under present scrutiny. Not only are the effect great, but the interwoven orange and blue beams motif is an iconic image. Rightfully or not, diehard fans of a franchise expect certain things out of future installments, and Ghostbusters fans are no different. One of the puzzle pieces of a GB3 film that would be most heavily critiqued would be the special effects. If there's one thing that recent Hollywood blockbusters have taught us, it's that a focus on style over substance can lead to cinematic catastrophe (I'm looking at you, Star Wars prequels). No amount of eye candy can properly take the place of a great story. So don't "update" the proton packs, special effects guys, or turn the Ecto-1 into KITT from Knight Rider. Sharpen the edges, brighten the colors, and then leave it alone, so you can focus on writing a worthy narrative. It's what the fans want.

9. Pick the right guys for the new team

Bill Hader and Will Forte just two of many rumored cast picks

Many opinions have been bandied about concerning what the possible plot in a third Ghostbusters film might be, but one thing that seems almost universally agreed upon is that the old team will be retiring and passing the torch to a younger and fresher crew. As the rumors have flown with ever-greater velocity pertaining to possible Ghostbusters 3 casting news, it seems as if dozens of new cast members have been rumored to be strapping on the proton packs. From Bill Hader and Will Forte (pictured above) to Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill, Paul Rudd, Anna Faris, and more, there is no end to the possibilities. It is here that the screenwriters may be tested most thoroughly. The new team needs room to shine, but not enough that they upstage the Ghostbusters that we've come to know and love. And not only will the screenwriters need to be careful of how they draw up such an event, but the actors will need to be of the proper cloth. Excessive mugging for the camera, a propensity for overt physical comedy, and an inability to play off Bill Murray's famous ad-libbing are traits of actors that need not expect a second phone call during auditions. Wooden relationships between characters and implausible, forced interactions between actors that are just wrong for the part will sink a third movie as surely as the worst villain or shoddy special effects.

10. Dead or alive, give Venkman a chance to shine

Bill Murray as Dr. Peter Venkman

Another famous rumor regarding Ghostbusters 3 is that Bill Murray was quoted months ago as saying that the only way he would participate in the shoot was if Venkman was killed off in the first reel. He later allegedly modified that somewhat to saying that he wanted Venkman dead and wandering about for the rest of the film as a ghost. Whether his opinion has again changed or not is unknown, but what is certain is that Murray is currently the lone roadblock to getting the ball rolling on production. No disrespect meant to the rest of the brilliant original cast, but Murray is the undisputed star of the franchise and he needs his opportunity to shine. In the years since the Ghostbusters films ended, Murray has, if anything, emerged as an even more famous and indecipherable figure, with amazing stories of popping up uninvited at frat parties and taking all job offers through a secret 800 number becoming part of Hollywood legend. If the series' third film does indeed get off the ground, whether Venkman is alive and kicking or a collection of ectoplasmic goo is beside the point. Filmgoers will have one last shot to see Murray don the famous gray jumpsuit and go "we came, we saw, we kicked its ass" on the worst that NYC's apparition population has to offer. It's Murray's movie and everyone else is just along for the ride. So give him what he wants, Sony, and I'll think you'll happily find that it's what we want, too.

(With bated breath, cast and crew await Bill Murray's thumbs up or thumbs down, and will then either begin or scrap production on Ghostbusters 3. If Murray agrees to participate, filming is scheduled to begin sometime in the Spring of 2011.)

The merits or otherwise of revisiting franchises have been explored at length at Shadowlocked. Take a look at these:

There can be only one: Why the first Highlander is the Best

Is a classic film ever going to be left alone again?

Tired indispensables: The 'throwback' film

Ten reasons why a Goonies sequel will work

3 + 1 = Poor: Four trilogies that took it too far

See also:

9 potential new epochs for the Assassin's Creed franchise

The quandaries and possibilities of Mass Effect 3

Lists at Shadowlocked


IF YOU ENJOYED THIS ARTICLE, PLEASE HELP SUPPORT OUR SITE, AT NO COST WITH ONE CLICK ON THE FACEBOOK 'LIKE' BUTTON BELOW:


If you're interested in writing for Shadowlocked (disc and screening reviews, etc, or just getting some extra coverage for your extraordinary writing talent, get in touch with us.

 

Comments 

 
#1 RE: 10 things that Ghostbusters 3 would need to get right Jayce 2011-02-18 08:22
#11 - Need a female ghostbuster. I nominate Renee O'Connor for the part. Cute and kick-a$$, she would do well, I think.
Quote | REPORT THIS COMMENT
 
 
#2 Home Alone 2 and Annie Potts Joaquin Serrano 2011-02-18 13:53
I agree with everything you say, except for the part about Home Alone 2. I think it was right to give it another setting. Another round in the McCallister's residence would make the sequel even more of a "pale shadow of the first movie" (I consider it to be a great and hilarious movie), and NYC was the perfect setting for that movie, imho. Having said that, I totally agree they should keep the Ghostbusters in NYC. Everywhere else will be wrong.

As of Annie Potts, I would think it will be an easy job getting her to reprise her role as Janine, since they already got her to voice Janine in the video game :)
Quote | REPORT THIS COMMENT
 
 
#3 RE: 10 things that Ghostbusters 3 would need to get right SchottGun 2011-02-18 15:41
Agree 100% with the article, except for bringing back Gozer. References to Gozer and Vigo would be welcomed, but they need a new villain. I'm afraid bringing he/she back would be too much like re-hashing the 1st movie. I sort of liked the idea of the "Ghostbusters: Hellbent" script that was written in the 90s, where Hell is getting full and the demons are crossing over to our realm, and they cross over through a dimension that can be exposed like that of a negative take of a photograph. Also, the Ghostbusters video game that came out in 2009 is in fact canon, as said so by Dan Aykroyd who helped with the script and story of the game. I would LOVE for Sam Hain to at least make an appearance as a nice reference to the cartoon. Also, I would love references to the video game, maybe referencing the new recruit or some of the modifications to the proton pack (preferably the slime blower being attached to the proton pack). I could go on and on about stuff I would love to see. It's exciting anyhow that GB3 has made it this far!
Quote | REPORT THIS COMMENT
 
 
#4 Yep, you're right, but... Gabriel_Ruzin 2011-02-18 16:05
[quote name="... the Ghostbusters video game that came out in 2009 is in fact canon, as said so by Dan Aykroyd who helped with the script and story of the game...

I do remember him quoted as saying something to the effect of the video game being, in essence, Ghostbusters III. I suspect, though, that he may have said that out of frustration that an actual GB3 movie would never be made, because of Murray's ambivalence to the project. If Murray does, in fact, give the green light, I'm sure that the video game's script wouldn't exactly get in the way of the upcoming film's script.

That's the irritating thing about spreading a franchise over multiple forms of multimedia. Such a small percentage of those familiar with the films have ever played the video game and you could hardly convince some 60-year-old fan of the movies that the official plot continued in some silly video game.

It's like in Star Wars III when you first see General Grievous and he's coughing up a lung for some reason. They don't explain why he's coughing and hacking AT ALL in the movie, but if you happened to see the Genndy Tartakovsky Clone Wars cartoon, you saw that Grievous was attacked and slightly injured just prior to the events of SWIII. So if you saw the cartoon, you totally get it. If you didn't, it makes absolutely no sense. hehe

Thanks a lot for the comment. :)
Quote | REPORT THIS COMMENT
 
 
#5 RE: 10 things that Ghostbusters 3 would need to get right SchottGun 2011-02-18 16:25
Quoting Gabriel_Ruzin:
It's like in Star Wars III when you first see General Grievous and he's coughing up a lung for some reason. They don't explain why he's coughing and hacking AT ALL in the movie, but if you happened to see the Genndy Tartakovsky Clone Wars cartoon, you saw that Grievous was attacked and slightly injured just prior to the events of SWIII. So if you saw the cartoon, you totally get it. If you didn't, it makes absolutely no sense. hehe

Thanks a lot for the comment. :)


Ah yes, I remember that as well. I remember before seeing Episode III, I made sure the people I went to see it with watched the Genndy Tartakovsky cartoon just so they could see where Grevious's cough came from and how the end scene with the ships from the cartoon was essentially the beginning battle of Episode III. Plus the cartoon was just plain awesome. It's funny how the cartoon was better than all 3 prequels combined :)

Anywho, back to Ghostbusters, my first passion. Read the script already, Bill! The anticipation is killing me! :)
Quote | REPORT THIS COMMENT
 
 
#6 Well done... Gabriel_Ruzin 2011-02-18 17:00
The Tartakovsky cartoons were so, so great. Better than the prequels for sure, and 100 times better than the abysmal wood-cut Clone Wars cartoon that's playing these days.

Anyway, this is what happens when I mention Star Wars - a discussion of what's gone wrong over the past decade. lol ... Agreed that we must steer back to the proper subject. Please read the script, Bill, you lovable eccentric. Or send it to me and I'll read it for you and tell you what I think. ;)
Quote | REPORT THIS COMMENT
 
 
#7 #9 Pick the right guys Brodie 2011-02-18 17:06
Idea I came up with in the midst of reading the article.... what if one of the new team members was a grown up Oscar? And as for exploring new plots, Oscars past experiences with Vigo have left him open to paranormal activity, he's sort of the catalyst for a big event. And might I suggest Jesse Eisenberg? Oscar would be 22 now. Or maybe Christopher Mintz-Plaase? And to round out the new team- Bill Hader, Jason Segel & Elizabeth Banks. And how about Timothy Olyphant in a Walter Peck type role?
Quote | REPORT THIS COMMENT
 
 
#8 11 things that ghostbusters 3 would need to get right samuel giarratano 2011-02-18 21:24
The eleventh thing in my opinion would be for them to add some of the video game references such as having the proton pack attachments to add some variety to the GB's arsenal plus it would just look awesome, and may mention the "Rookie" from the game too.
Quote | REPORT THIS COMMENT
 
 
#9 Don't be TOO heavy-handed J. P. 2011-02-18 22:42
Quoting samuel giarratano:
The eleventh thing in my opinion would be for them to add some of the video game references such as having the proton pack attachments to add some variety to the GB's arsenal plus it would just look awesome, and may mention the "Rookie" from the game too.


While I agree that some sort of reference would be cool, it would have to be handled just right. If they over-did it, it would be an in-joke that ONLY those that played the game would get, and would leave out a lot of people that didn't, possibly slowing down the movie. A passing reference to the "Rookie" could work, like say a line stating "We've tried something like this before." in relation to training the new team, but going out of their way to point out there was once a new trainee could raise a bunch of questions for some. Just my opinion though.

As for the new equipment, if it doesn't fit into the story, I say leave it out. Just more unnecessary eye-candy.
Quote | REPORT THIS COMMENT
 
 
#10 RE: 10 things that Ghostbusters 3 would need to get right Superstarseven 2011-02-18 23:23
Gozer's earthly form returned in the game but it Ivo Shandor was the bigger star. Also, the game was "Not exactly canon"?

Yeah it is. Where have you heard anything contrary?
Quote | REPORT THIS COMMENT
 
 
#11 RE: 10 things that Ghostbusters 3 would need to get right LJRich 2011-02-19 02:21
Of course Rick Moranis is wholly uninterested in reviving this series, wouldn't you be? With the absolute shameful state of Hollywood, right now? Nothing would be more depressing than to even bother trying to revive this series. Every other reboot has been an absolute mockery of the originals, I don't know why they're even toying with this idea. Hollywood has had precious few good ideas in the last 15 years. I'd run away from this if I were Moranis.
Quote | REPORT THIS COMMENT
 
 
#12 Right on! Thommy 2011-02-19 15:18
Quoting SchottGun:
Agree 100% with the article, except for bringing back Gozer. References to Gozer and Vigo would be welcomed, but they need a new villain. I'm afraid bringing he/she back would be too much like re-hashing the 1st movie. I sort of liked the idea of the "Ghostbusters: Hellbent" script that was written in the 90s, where Hell is getting full and the demons are crossing over to our realm, and they cross over through a dimension that can be exposed like that of a negative take of a photograph. Also, the Ghostbusters video game that came out in 2009 is in fact canon, as said so by Dan Aykroyd who helped with the script and story of the game. I would LOVE for Sam Hain to at least make an appearance as a nice reference to the cartoon. Also, I would love references to the video game, maybe referencing the new recruit or some of the modifications to the proton pack (preferably the slime blower being attached to the proton pack). I could go on and on about stuff I would love to see. It's exciting anyhow that GB3 has made it this far!


I agree with you on all points. Well said.
I truly hope this movie happens! It would make my day, my year!
Quote | REPORT THIS COMMENT
 
 
#13 Keep it 'realistic'! Howard Timberlake 2011-02-21 22:18
Agree with most of this article (apart form the Gozer and NYC bit perhaps).

What made the original Ghostbusters great was it's err... realism (I guess that's the right word). It was an ordinary NYC, real science involved, a very darkly lit film etc etc... plus, especially to a young kid, it was quite scary. To me I've never completely seen it as a 100% comedy.

What this new film needs is to keep those same values and keep it fairly dark yet funny. Sending the Ghostbusters to hell (a very possible story line) would drop kick the film in to the realms of stupidity. Films like Poltergeist, The Exorcist and the Amityville Horror have all kept supernatural things on a very 'it could happen to you' level. It's how we can relate to things.

Thought I think we're all half prepared for Sony to blow most of the budget on some special effects-laden, 3D, over-the-top flop.

Finally, please don't change Ecto 1/1a Sony!
Quote | REPORT THIS COMMENT
 
 
#14 A few disagreements Todd Smitts 2011-02-21 22:22
First off I don't agree that it's essential to bring back or even mention Gozer to have a worthy sequel. I would point out that none of the Lethal Weapon or Indiana Jones films had the same badguys (Yes, "Raiders" and "Last Crusade" both featured Nazis, but they weren't the SAME Nazis). Surely it would be better to at least attempt to come up with a new adversary.

I would also point out that both GB films featured villains who were largely offscreen up until the climax, at which they were portrayed somewhat awkwardly by dubbed actors, so I really don't consider Vigo any less effective storywise than Gozer.

A return of Rick Moranis and Sigourney Weaver would be nice, but isn't absolutely essential, as the wonderful Ghostbuster game showed us.

Since baby Oscar would be all grown up by now, it might be interesting to establish him as a new Ghostbuster, perhaps played by someone like Michael Cera (who's already been directed by someone in the Reitman family).
Quote | REPORT THIS COMMENT
 
 
#15 Yes...Oscar by Michael Cera suzyq 2011-02-22 05:49
Great piece! It needs to still have that original chemistry. I'd like to see as many of the original cast as they can get. Rick Moranis and Annie Potts were great in them also, even if not major players.

I like the idea of baby Oscar grown up played by Michael Cera. I think he would do a good job with the character.

Gotta get Bill Murray though, it wouldn't be the same without Venkman....
Quote | REPORT THIS COMMENT
 
 
#16 Ms Rhonda Short 2011-03-05 08:32
Make it already! I always think that there is a Ghostbusters 3, so that could mean that there's supposed to be another in the making. All the main cast would be great, & only a few new ones. Everyone loves a supernatural theme that leaves something to the imagination...
Quote | REPORT THIS COMMENT
 
 
#17 How about combine 4 and 10? bambam 2011-07-13 06:40
How about combining items 4 and 10? Venkman/Murray is killed off in the opening, and the new incarnation of Gozer is... Venkman!
Quote | REPORT THIS COMMENT
 
 
#18 It will never happen now. Meg Hammil 2014-09-01 18:05
And frankly that's a good thing. One of the most perfect comedies ever...there should be no renoots or rehashes.
Quote | REPORT THIS COMMENT
 

Report an error in this article
Add comment (comments from logged in users are published immediately, other comments await moderator approval)


RECENT COMMENTS
MOST COMMENTED
Shadowlocked FULL TEXT article RSS Shadowlocked RSS