Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
New AMA with a US police officer (he's back!). You can ask your questions here

Ghostbusters Afterlife (Jason Reitman)

  • 20-11-2018 10:29pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 9,825 ✭✭✭ py2006


    Well this is outta the blue but according to Mr Akroyd, this is looking a reality with a script that may even have Murray interested.

    His comments on the female version are a body language experts dream.

    Personally. I think Dan is a fantasist as it's not the first time in the last 20 odd years that he has said this...




    https://youtu.be/ui5dM5lqIPM
    Post edited by Sad Professor on


«13456717

Comments

  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 27,774 Mod ✭✭✭✭ pixelburp


    Dan Akroyd has been talking about a Ghostbusters 3 for years, decades even at this stage; there has always been some script or another ready or nearing readiness. Bill Murray has also been 'interested' for years too. It's pure fantasy and honestly it reflects so badly on Akroyd at this stage, kinda makes him look a bit of a crank.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,333 ✭✭✭✭ nullzero


    I thought Dan Rather was dead...

    Glazers Out!



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,517 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Sad Professor


    Akroyd will never let this go.


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,478 ✭✭✭✭ CastorTroy


    I actually liked the recent one.

    And with a quarter of this team no longer available, would we really want a new one?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,207 ✭✭✭ p to the e


    I'd say he's just keeping in the public eye to promote his tequila.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,150 Johnmb


    CastorTroy wrote: »
    I actually liked the recent one.

    And with a quarter of this team no longer available, would we really want a new one?
    Yeah, I thought the recent one was very good, and would have liked to see some sequels to that. It was a shame about the undeserved hate it got, often from people who didn't even see it!

    My worry about another sequel to the original is that they'll destroy the happy(ish) ending that the characters had at the end of the last movie in order to set it up, in the same way that they did for the first sequel.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,834 ✭✭✭ nix


    Jesus.. how could anyone like the recent one? It's that fucking dire it blows my mind someone even liked it.. or worse.. found it funny :eek::rolleyes::(


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,150 Johnmb


    nix wrote: »
    Jesus.. how could anyone like the recent one? It's that fucking dire it blows my mind someone even liked it.. or worse.. found it funny :eek::rolleyes::(
    It was funnier than the second one, and was an excellent premise. Since it wasn't a sequel, they didn't have to remove the original characters. Since it wasn't a remake, they didn't have to reimagine the original characters. The originals were left alone. The new characters were interesting, and had a good dynamic for the most part. It had flaws, as every film does, but nothing to deserve the hate it got.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,222 ✭✭✭✭ the dunne


    Johnmb wrote: »
    It was funnier than the second one, and was an excellent premise. Since it wasn't a sequel, they didn't have to remove the original characters. Since it wasn't a remake, they didn't have to reimagine the original characters. The originals were left alone. The new characters were interesting, and had a good dynamic for the most part. It had flaws, as every film does, but nothing to deserve the hate it got.

    I disagree. I found it to be absolutely atrocious


  • Registered Users Posts: 826 ✭✭✭ El Duda


    Ghostbuster 2016 was an abomination.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,706 ✭✭✭ Doctors room ghost


    El Duda wrote: »
    Ghostbuster 2016 was an abomination.

    It was fcukin cat and that’s an insult to cats


  • Registered Users Posts: 300 ✭✭ pcadhain


    Ghostbusters: the videogame from 2009 is Ghostbusters 3. Dan even said so himself. Well worth playing


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,517 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Sad Professor


    Seems this might actually be happening. Jason Reitman (whose father directed the first two) writing and directing. Aiming for a summer 2020 release. Doesn't indicate if original cast will be returning but it will have no connection to the 2016 remake.

    https://variety.com/2019/film/news/jason-reitman-ghostbusters-director-1203109264/


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,942 ✭✭✭✭ peteeeed


    Seems this might actually happening. Jason Reitman (whose father directed the first two) writing and directing. Aiming for a summer 2020 release. Doesn't indicate if original cast will be returning but it will have no connection to the 2016 remake.

    https://variety.com/2019/film/news/jason-reitman-ghostbusters-director-1203109264/

    "However, this new movie will follow the trajectory of the original film."
    ME LIKEY


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 27,774 Mod ✭✭✭✭ pixelburp


    My god this project truly is a ghost itself, haunting the halls of Hollywood and its press, never finding rest or peace.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,013 ✭✭✭ SharpshooterTom


    Ghostbusters was great in the 80s, but why does it need to be brought back for?

    Why are so many of the modern day films about rebooting old franchises from the 20th century? The whole industry is seemingly based on that now, I thought we all absolutely hated the 70s and 80s? (at least according the recent AH thread we did) We live a more multicultural world, with better views on LBGT rights, minority rights, views on women, yet we keep harking back to getting nostalgic about eras where this was not celebrated.

    I'm sorry but I just this constant obsession with the 20th century nostalgia deeply troubling. The 70s, 80s and 90s were not popular decades for most people. We really should cut all music and entertainment off before the year 2000 now and just move on.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,539 The Specialist


    Ghostbusters was great in the 80s, but why does it need to be brought back for?

    Why are so many of the modern day films about rebooting old franchises from the 20th century? The whole industry is seemingly based on that now, I thought we all absolutely hated the 70s and 80s? (at least according the recent AH thread we did) We live a more multicultural world, with better views on LBGT rights, minority rights, views on women, yet we keep harking back to getting nostalgic about eras where this was not celebrated.

    I'm sorry but I just this constant obsession with the 20th century nostalgia deeply troubling. The 70s, 80s and 90s were not popular decades for most people. We really should cut all music and entertainment off before the year 2000.

    Give me 80's/90's entertainment any day over "Woke" bull****.


  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 17,098 Mod ✭✭✭✭ cherryghost


    I thought the recent Ghostbusters film wasn't bad at all.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,539 The Specialist


    I thought the recent Ghostbusters film wasn't bad at all.

    Apart from being a massive steaming pile of feminist **** over the spirit of the originals?


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,333 ✭✭✭✭ nullzero


    I'm sorry but I just this constant obsession with the 20th century nostalgia deeply troubling. The 70s, 80s and 90s were not popular decades for most people. We really should cut all music and entertainment off before the year 2000 now and just move on.

    How is it troubling?
    How were those decades "not popular" for "most people"?
    Cutting all music and entertainment from before the year 2000 is the only troubling thing you mentioned. What complete nonsense.

    Glazers Out!



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,834 ✭✭✭ nix



    I'm sorry but I just this constant obsession with the 20th century nostalgia deeply troubling. The 70s, 80s and 90s were not popular decades for most people. We really should cut all music and entertainment off before the year 2000 now and just move on.

    lol cut music prior to 2000? Are you ****ing insane? :rolleyes:
    I thought the recent Ghostbusters film wasn't bad at all.


    Its not bad, its just utter garbage, you should probably watch more movies tbh (Actual good ones)


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 27,774 Mod ✭✭✭✭ pixelburp


    Apart from being a massive steaming pile of feminist **** over the spirit of the originals?

    Ghostbusters 2016 was as much 'feminist', as the 1984 film was some bastion of masculinity.

    The social media frenzy was an embarrassment to all involved, but at the end of the day the resulting film was just another shallow, flat reboot. I've seen much, much worse at the cinema.

    No more offensive than the Total Recall, (Tim Burton) Planet of the Apes, or King Kong remakes, to name three.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭ RayCun


    Some people hate the recent Ghostbusters movie because it cast women in roles that men had ("feminazis stealing my childhood:mad::eek::mad::eek:" :rolleyes:), and doubled down by mocking losers on the internet (you know, the kind of people who complain about their childhood being stolen and political correctness gone mad).

    It wasn't a great film - but rewatch the original and a lot of that was fairly crap. And like the original, the recent version had plenty of good moments (many involving Kevin)


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,333 ✭✭✭✭ nullzero


    RayCun wrote: »
    Some people hate the recent Ghostbusters movie because it cast women in roles that men had ("feminazis stealing my childhood:mad::eek::mad::eek:" :rolleyes:), and doubled down by mocking losers on the internet (you know, the kind of people who complain about their childhood being stolen and political correctness gone mad).

    It wasn't a great film - but rewatch the original and a lot of that was fairly crap. And like the original, the recent version had plenty of good moments (many involving Kevin)

    The issue was that the casting of women in thr roles was just tokenism by a corporation looking to piggyback the women =good men = bad modern culture. Nobody's childhood was hurtbinnthe making of it but i was still a misjudged and poorly executed idea.

    Glazers Out!



  • Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭ RayCun


    nullzero wrote: »
    The issue was that the casting of women in thr roles was just tokenism by a corporation looking to piggyback the women =good men = bad modern culture.

    Or, you know, an attempt to make a comedy with women in the lead roles, directed by someone who had just recently made an enormously successful comedy with women in lead roles, and casting two of the stars from that enormously successful comedy, plus one of the stars of the leading American television sketch comedy series.

    Nah, you're right. It was all an attempt to brainwash men. Keep taking those red pills!


  • Registered Users Posts: 468 ✭✭ w/s/p/c/


    The reboot is in the past, they tried to do something different and it didn't work, move on people!

    Hopefully this continuation of the original franchise will work and the original cast will be in there mentoring on a new team. I see entertainment weekly have a little teaser trailer that Jason Reitman put together posted on their website. Shows the old Ecto-1 rusting away in a barn with some proton pack action....


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 27,232 CMod ✭✭✭✭ johnny_ultimate


    nix wrote: »
    you should probably watch more movies tbh (Actual good ones)

    Mod note: This kind of disrespectful comment is not welcome in this forum, please see the charter. You can debate someone without this sort of nonsense.

    Any more like it will be actioned.


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭ RayCun


    w/s/p/c/ wrote: »
    move on people!

    :pac:
    w/s/p/c/ wrote: »
    Hopefully this continuation of the original franchise will work and the original cast will be in there mentoring on a new team.

    Yeah, I'm sure Dan Ackroyd is on for that.
    Bill Murray not so much.

    Remind me, which one is funny?


  • Registered Users Posts: 468 ✭✭ w/s/p/c/


    RayCun wrote: »
    :pac:



    Yeah, I'm sure Dan Ackroyd is on for that.
    Bill Murray not so much.

    Remind me, which one is funny?


    I'm sure if enough cash is flashed, Bill Murray will play some part in this film.

    Don't get your question on being reminded? Of what?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 15,704 ✭✭✭✭ RayCun


    w/s/p/c/ wrote: »
    I'm sure if enough cash is flashed, Bill Murray will play some part in this film.

    Don't get your question on being reminded? Of what?

    I don't think Murray is interested in money at this stage. The history of Ghostbusters sequel talk is of Ackroyd being very enthusiastic and Murray pouring cold water on the idea.

    Remind me which actor, Ackroyd or Murray, is the funny one. Who was responsible for the funny parts of the original movie, and who is still making good movies? Which one is essential to any sequel?


Advertisement