Ghostbusters 3 still happening, script being reworked

News Simon Brew 26 Feb 2014 - 06:57

The tragic death of Harold Ramis is, as you might expect, leading to a change or two in Ghostbusters 3.

The tragic, keenly felt death of Ghostbusters co-star and co-writer Harold Ramis earlier in the week still feels like a real shock to the system. As we said at the time, our thoughts very much remain with Ramis' family and friends as they come to terms with their loss. With that in mind, this post will be brief, update on a project he was involved with, and move on. Hope that's okay.

Ramis had been involved in the long-gestating Ghostbusters 3, which remains an active project on the Sony slate. It still is too, and Ramis had been set to make a cameo appearance in the film. As it turns out, it looks like that was set to be the extent of his involvement.

The Hollywood Reporter has broken the news that director Ivan Reitman is set to meet with Sony in the days ahead to work out how and when to move forward. Lee Eisenberg and Gene Stupnitsky's script will need to be reworked. But Ghostbusters 3 is still going to happen, and it's been all but confirmed that it's still a film the studio is pursuing.. It's not expected to start shooting until next year.

The Hollywood Reporter.

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Disqus - noscript

Maybe he can still make that cameo appearance - as a ghost.

They really need to stop and think about this now.

No Bill Murray was bad enough but no Ramis either? Even if it was just going to be a cameo, personally I think the handover to a new team sounds bad anyway, they need more than Just Ackroyd and Hudson in there for it to feel properly connected to the original films.

And how big a cameo was this going to be? Like the sunbed scene in 'The A-Team' (albiet with different characters meeting) or more involvement like....Highlander:Endgame (yes I think that's the quality level I think we're currently looking at)?

So for me, unless Murray now decides that he'll do it as a tribute to his pal they should drop the passing of the torch aspect of this. Of course even better would be Murray doing it AND they drop the passing of the torch!

This really sounds a bit desperate doesn't it? I cannot imagine it will result in a decent movie. I'm all for a good tribute to Harold Ramis's genius, but I suspect this is going to be a bit of an insult. Did we not learn anything from Blues Brothers 2000?

Talk about bad taste you dick

I agree, that's just completely wrong. There are ways they could address Ramis' absence without being crass and insensitive. Off the top of my head, possibly Egon's funeral being the event that brings Ray, Winston and (with any luck) Peter back together and talk about recruiting the next generation. Or one of the new Ghostbusters knew him well, so uses the grave as somewhere calm to go and think in times of trouble... actually, that might be a bit mawkish. But you get what I'm saying, there are ways and ways of doing it and Eric's is simply wrong.
Will say now, I expect the film to carry a dedication to Harold Ramis, hopefully at the beginning of the credits.

"It's not expected to start shooting until next year."

And may it continue in that perpetual state of shooting next year, for many years to come.

I agree it sounds desperate and I agree that the hand over sounds a bit toilet but if it *is* rubbish then the original Ghostbusters still stands as one of the finest memories of my childhood...and it's still there for me to revisit whenever I want. Ghostbusters 3 might (might) even be good. It's a no lose situation for me.

The guy was a comedy actor best known for starring in a movie about ghosts. I won't claim to know how he'd react to that suggestion but it's not hard to imagine he'd have a sense of humour about it. In the context of his career it's not really as distasteful as you suggest....what's more distasteful is you calling someone a dick.

EDIT: I should add that I don't think they should make him a ghost in the film. I'm just pointing out that I don't necessarily agree about the bad taste part.

We know nothing about the story or who they're casting yet still people are rubbishing the idea. It's been 30 years since the first one and a lot of comedy talent has arrived in that time. With a decent script/story and the right cast I think its going to be brilliant. A lot of people lost a big chunk of their childhood with his death, so however they choose to remember Ramis, Im sure it will be in good taste.

Seth Rogen - Jonah Hill - Jay Baruchel - James Franco as the new bunch. Technically the same cast from the "this is the end" but it was so funny and they are amazing together, as was Bill, Dan and Akroyd in the 80's.

Meant Ramis.

You're really comparing quality levels of these guys to 'Ghostbusters'? Really? REALLY?

Er.. what comedy talent is that? Chris Morris is busy, and I doubt he'd do it anyway.

Yes really and also REALLY. Bill Muray was the funny one, the rest were scenery.

No, it's called 'playing off a foil'. Not to be rude, but the straight men make the comedy as much as the 'funny one'; obviously Murray was the joker. I'm sorry, but from what I've seen of those guys (and it's a couple of films), they're certainly okay, but just don't have the same 'chuzpah'. That's just like... my opinion.

Ok we agree to disagree. But to say that Jonah Hill or Seth Rogen aren't funny is doing them an injustice. I mean have you seen Jonah Hill in Wolf of Wall Street, he's amazing in that.

If this is just a 'reboot' with a few cameos for the sake of it then I hope this doesn't get made. If this is a genuine continuation, with Ray, Winston (and HOPEFULLY Peter) training up new recruits, helping them save the world etc- along with perhaps a few scenes from Rick Moranis etc, then it could still be brilliant.
I just don't want it to be a reboot with a few old faces chucked in to justify it all. It needs to be a proper Ghostbusters 3

Honestly, if they're going to do it, I would like it to be a reboot. Have a nod to the originals sure, but no cameos, no hand-over of equipment. Just let it be a new thing.

You never know, it might turn out to be a massive hit that captures the imaginations of countless children much like Ghostbusters did for us.

For what its worth I do think Rogen et al are best placed to pull this off so if they were involved I'd have at least a good level of optimism about it.

That sounds horrible, and totally pointless, why do we neet a reboot?

Of course we don't need a reboot. When has anything, excluding Doctor Who, ever needed a reboot? The point is that they seem to be set on going ahead with it and I would prefer if they started fresh. Let this generation have their Ghostbusters and we can have ours and we can bicker about which is better for the rest of our lives.

C'mon, theres tons of them. Ben Stiller, Chris Rock, Sean William Scott, Jack Black to name but a few. Any of these guys could play as new Ghostbusters and be brilliant with it.

'starting fresh' is a reboot surely?

Yeah. You can substitute 'starting fresh' for 'reboot' in my last comment and still extract the same meaning.

To clarify:

- It doesn't need a reboot
- If they decided to go ahead with a new film then it should be a reboot and not a sequel

So you've just completely contradicted yourself then?

No, not even slightly. Let's try this again.

Ghostbusters doesn't need a new film, reboot, sequel, prequel or otherwise. It is wonderful as it is. BUT it seems someone in Hollywood thinks it does need a new film and I would prefer it to be a reboot so as to keep it separate from the original films.


Why do we need another Ghostbusters? The first one was a bona fide classic, the second not so good but better than a lot of sequels. Now that the film world has lost Harold Ramis, let the Ghostbusters name rest in peace also. Don't sully Ramis' work, if you need a GB fix, stick on the original and sit back and enjoy a real class movie. doesn't need a reboot...yet you'd rather have a reboot than a proper sequel?
Yes...perfectly clear...

Are you purposely ignoring the bit where I say I don't think it needs a sequel either? Or a prequel?

No, but (as per this article) it is getting a sequel

Right and I'm saying I would prefer a reboot over a sequel even though I feel that neither is a particularly great or warranted idea.

I think HR would have at least cracked a smile at the thought. :D

I was a believer in a 2nd film until Harold Ramis passed away, now, I feel like they need to just not do this. From the comments I can see that not many people are aware of the fact that GB3 was always going to be a passing of the torch film, go

Sponsored Links