Ghostbusters: Answer the Call

[crows]

Why be so resentful of Murray? Who's career is it? He's making what he wants to make, what if someone kept complaining that you don't work at McDonalds anymore and they resent you for your current career choice?

I'm in the camp that is thankful there was no GB3, as I loathed GB2. Anything they made was unlikely to be anywhere near as good as the original.

he had it in his contract that he HAD to approve the script of GB3.... they wanted to make it without him but he just HAD to approve.
then he started to troll the crap out of the guys and the studio... F him. He didnt have to be in it but he could have let them make whatever they wanted.... there were versions of the script where he was a ghost (and all he had to do was voice over like in Garfield) and there were versions without him.
he rejected all of them while being a ******. now we have this....

 

[Wor-Gar]

I just heard they want to do an all-gay remake. A lot of screaming and slapping.

"Tell him about the Twinkie" takes on a whole new meaning.

 

[crows]

 

[rushmore223]

he had it in his contract that he HAD to approve the script of GB3.... they wanted to make it without him but he just HAD to approve.
then he started to troll the crap out of the guys and the studio... F him. He didnt have to be in it but he could have let them make whatever they wanted.... there were versions of the script where he was a ghost (and all he had to do was voice over like in Garfield) and there were versions without him.
he rejected all of them while being a ******. now we have this....

Did he have to okay this monstrosity!? If so, I will no longer defend him.

 

[Shawpaw]

I just heard they want to do an all-gay remake. A lot of screaming and slapping.

"Tell him about the Twinkie" takes on a whole new meaning.

It would probably earn more money and be a better film

 

[LIBBY1957DOG]

I'm willing to give a film a chance based on its merits, without pre-judging based on superficial factors, like making all the cast women or integrating a gay character or whatever. But of course, if the script is bad, if the humor isn't well done, if the pacing is off, and if the director doesn't seem engaged or to have any vision at all, then it's gonna suck.

But enough about Batman V. Superman, this Ghostbusters movie also looks terrible.

]

I also agreed that Spy wasn't as bad as you might think. McCarthy was also good in St. Vincent, and Wiig was terrific in the Skeleton Twins, so I don't attribute the fault to the actors, either.

But I don't agree with their point about Murray. Very unlikely that any Ghostbusters film that could have been made in the last 15 years or whatever was going to be very good. I think that's a geek fantasy. The fact that Murray held it up for as long as he was able to was probably to our collective benefit. Ghostbusters 2 came out just a few years after the first, and had the same team involved, yet it was already a very pale shadow of the original. If you got all those guys back together 20-25 years later, would folks really expect it to be special? Sure, in my mind I can imagine a great film with the old guys dusting off their proton packs, but realistically, that wasn't going to happen. The comics are probably the best things folks can expect, and none of those that I've read are all that great. It does feel like Murray got forced into doing a cameo and promotion for some reason here, or I'm sure he wouldn't have been involved in this version, either.

I also cannot stand by their comment about Freaks and Geeks. That show was frickin awesome.

yeah yeah thats all well and good
but why dont you tell us again ,what you thought of batman v superman :

 

[crows]

Did he have to okay this monstrosity!? If so, I will no longer defend him.

It was the right amount of money...

 

[karamazov80]

he had it in his contract that he HAD to approve the script of GB3.... they wanted to make it without him but he just HAD to approve.
then he started to troll the crap out of the guys and the studio... F him. He didnt have to be in it but he could have let them make whatever they wanted.... there were versions of the script where he was a ghost (and all he had to do was voice over like in Garfield) and there were versions without him.
he rejected all of them while being a ******. now we have this....

Did he have to okay this monstrosity!? If so, I will no longer defend him.

I think you can break it down pretty simply--Aykroyd was the one primarily pushing for this for all those years, and Ramis seemed along for the ride, while Murray didn't want to do something purely for the money. Murray knew that the motivations weren't artistic. Aykroyd just wanted to cash in on nostalgia one last time, and had lost any connection or interest in doing quality work. I'm sure Murray glanced at some of the film and TV work that Aykroyd had done over the last 20 years or so, and decided against it. Blue Brothers 2000? That TV show where he was a "cool" priest? Being the voice of Yogi Bear? Sure, Murray has done his fair share of cash-ins, most notably Garfield. But that seemed purely a way to make quick money while he pursued much more interesting work like the Wes Anderson stuff, Lost in Translation, and Hyde Park on Hudson. Aykroyd did nothing else. Murray doesn't need the money, doesn't feel a need to pander to fans, and probably doesn't want to waste his time with stuff that he isn't genuinely interested in. So, why would he do it at all, unless it was done the right way in his mind?

As for why he finally capitulated, there were rumors that he was essentially blackmailed into signing on to the remake. And if not that, he may have just wanted to do it to shut people up. I don't blame him for doing either.

]
but why dont you tell us again ,what you thought of batman v superman

No problem. That poop movie makes the new Ghostbusters look like Hitchcock, Kubrick, Leone, Bergman, the Coens, Spielberg, Cronenberg, John Ford, and Billy Wilder all got together and made what they mutually agreed was the greatest masterpiece in the history of the world.

 

[LIBBY1957DOG]

I think you can break it down pretty simply--Aykroyd was the one primarily pushing for this for all those years, and Ramis seemed along for the ride, while Murray didn't want to do something purely for the money. Murray knew that the motivations weren't artistic. Aykroyd just wanted to cash in on nostalgia one last time, and had lost any connection or interest in doing quality work. I'm sure Murray glanced at some of the film and TV work that Aykroyd had done over the last 20 years or so, and decided against it. Blue Brothers 2000? That TV show where he was a "cool" priest? Being the voice of Yogi Bear? Sure, Murray has done his fair share of cash-ins, most notably Garfield. But that seemed purely a way to make quick money while he pursued much more interesting work like the Wes Anderson stuff, Lost in Translation, and Hyde Park on Hudson. Aykroyd did nothing else. Murray doesn't need the money, doesn't feel a need to pander to fans, and probably doesn't want to waste his time with stuff that he isn't genuinely interested in. So, why would he do it at all, unless it was done the right way in his mind?

As for why he finally capitulated, there were rumors that he was essentially blackmailed into signing on to the remake. And if not that, he may have just wanted to do it to shut people up. I don't blame him for doing either.


No problem. That poop movie makes the new Ghostbusters look like Hitchcock, Kubrick, Leone, Bergman, the Coens, Spielberg, Cronenberg, John Ford, and Billy Wilder all got together and made what they mutually agreed was the greatest masterpiece in the history of the world.

ohh okay so you didn't like it then

,wasn't sure ,thanks for clearing that up for me

 

[EVILFACE]

I think you can break it down pretty simply--Aykroyd was the one primarily pushing for this for all those years, and Ramis seemed along for the ride, while Murray didn't want to do something purely for the money. Murray knew that the motivations weren't artistic. Aykroyd just wanted to cash in on nostalgia one last time, and had lost any connection or interest in doing quality work. I'm sure Murray glanced at some of the film and TV work that Aykroyd had done over the last 20 years or so, and decided against it. Blue Brothers 2000? That TV show where he was a "cool" priest? Being the voice of Yogi Bear? Sure, Murray has done his fair share of cash-ins, most notably Garfield. But that seemed purely a way to make quick money while he pursued much more interesting work like the Wes Anderson stuff, Lost in Translation, and Hyde Park on Hudson. Aykroyd did nothing else. Murray doesn't need the money, doesn't feel a need to pander to fans, and probably doesn't want to waste his time with stuff that he isn't genuinely interested in. So, why would he do it at all, unless it was done the right way in his mind?

As for why he finally capitulated, there were rumors that he was essentially blackmailed into signing on to the remake. And if not that, he may have just wanted to do it to shut people up. I don't blame him for doing either..

But then Murray still showed up in this.

 

[karamazov80]

Well as I said, there was speculation that he was forced into doing it by a potential lawsuit. I don't remember the details. But also, from my understanding he only has a brief cameo in this film, and did a brief amount of publicity for it, which wouldn't cost him much time or effort. If he was playing a major role, that would mean a lot more work.

Whatever the reason, I don't blame him for not choosing to go along with something earlier. The assumption behind the counterargument seems to be that he actually thought this new movie was a good idea, while earlier ideas were bad?

 

[crows]

I think you can break it down pretty simply--Aykroyd was the one primarily pushing for this for all those years, and Ramis seemed along for the ride, while Murray didn't want to do something purely for the money. Murray knew that the motivations weren't artistic. Aykroyd just wanted to cash in on nostalgia one last time, and had lost any connection or interest in doing quality work. I'm sure Murray glanced at some of the film and TV work that Aykroyd had done over the last 20 years or so, and decided against it. Blue Brothers 2000? That TV show where he was a "cool" priest? Being the voice of Yogi Bear? Sure, Murray has done his fair share of cash-ins, most notably Garfield. But that seemed purely a way to make quick money while he pursued much more interesting work like the Wes Anderson stuff, Lost in Translation, and Hyde Park on Hudson. Aykroyd did nothing else. Murray doesn't need the money, doesn't feel a need to pander to fans, and probably doesn't want to waste his time with stuff that he isn't genuinely interested in. So, why would he do it at all, unless it was done the right way in his mind?

As for why he finally capitulated, there were rumors that he was essentially blackmailed into signing on to the remake. And if not that, he may have just wanted to do it to shut people up. I don't blame him for doing either.


No problem. That poop movie makes the new Ghostbusters look like Hitchcock, Kubrick, Leone, Bergman, the Coens, Spielberg, Cronenberg, John Ford, and Billy Wilder all got together and made what they mutually agreed was the greatest masterpiece in the history of the world.

Why not let them do it and have a small cameo?
So it is a cash grab by aykroyd, so what? Who the f is bill ****** murray to deny them making a movie....
Like seriously what kind of jerk does this? There were versions of gb 3 without him...
He was literally just trolling ramis and dan.

He didnt have to be in it. Im sure dan would be more than happy to written him out.
He had power to not allow any version of gb 3 being made even without him in it.

This is like being too sick to play ball but then hiding the ball
And not letting the other kids play...

 

[Khev]

I'm in the "Ghostbusters 2 sucked so I don't remotely care that they didn't make Part 3 or that this new film was stupid from the get go" camp.

 

[crows]

This movie was a waste of money, manpower, waste of talent
Waste of work
The director wasted a lot of money that people told him not to waste. At least 50 million wasted because he is an idiot that didnt know what he was doing.

Even by those standards this is a terrible waste thanks to bill murray being a giant troll

 

[Sweet Rabbit]

I buried this somewhere deep on my Netflix list

 

[screamingmetal]

I think you can break it down pretty simply--Aykroyd was the one primarily pushing for this for all those years, and Ramis seemed along for the ride, while Murray didn't want to do something purely for the money. Murray knew that the motivations weren't artistic. Aykroyd just wanted to cash in on nostalgia one last time, and had lost any connection or interest in doing quality work. I'm sure Murray glanced at some of the film and TV work that Aykroyd had done over the last 20 years or so, and decided against it. Blue Brothers 2000? That TV show where he was a "cool" priest? Being the voice of Yogi Bear? Sure, Murray has done his fair share of cash-ins, most notably Garfield. But that seemed purely a way to make quick money while he pursued much more interesting work like the Wes Anderson stuff, Lost in Translation, and Hyde Park on Hudson. Aykroyd did nothing else. Murray doesn't need the money, doesn't feel a need to pander to fans, and probably doesn't want to waste his time with stuff that he isn't genuinely interested in. So, why would he do it at all, unless it was done the right way in his mind?

As for why he finally capitulated, there were rumors that he was essentially blackmailed into signing on to the remake. And if not that, he may have just wanted to do it to shut people up. I don't blame him for doing either.


No problem. That poop movie makes the new Ghostbusters look like Hitchcock, Kubrick, Leone, Bergman, the Coens, Spielberg, Cronenberg, John Ford, and Billy Wilder all got together and made what they mutually agreed was the greatest masterpiece in the history of the world.

Aykroyd was the problem on the first movie. His original story was ridiculous with the Ghostbusters travailing through space, time, and dimensions fighting ghosts. It was Reitman and Ramis that grounded the story which is what made that first movie so successful. Reitman and Ramis were still there to curtail Aykroyd's ridiculousness but that may have slipped in the years since and why Murray passed on the attempts at a second sequel. I do believe they had Murray over a barrel with a potential lawsuit over his resistance to any new Ghostbusters movies, there was leaked emails from the hacking scandal about Sony's lawyers threatening to sue him if he didn't participate in the Ghostbusters remake:
https://www.cinemablend.com/new/Sony-Might-Sue-Bill-Murray-Playing-Ball-Ghostbusters-68651.html
If there's anyone to truly blame for the terrible remake, it's the boss, executive producer Amy Pascal.

 

[karamazov80]

Why not let them do it and have a small cameo?
So it is a cash grab by aykroyd, so what? Who the f is bill ****** murray to deny them making a movie....
Like seriously what kind of jerk does this? There were versions of gb 3 without him...
He was literally just trolling ramis and dan.

He didnt have to be in it. Im sure dan would be more than happy to written him out.
He had power to not allow any version of gb 3 being made even without him in it.

This is like being too sick to play ball but then hiding the ball
And not letting the other kids play...

You're talking as if Murray had veto power over a sequel. Why do you think this? I've never heard anything about this that I recall. Murray doesn't own the rights to Ghostbusters. As far as I know, it's simply a question of whether or not he would be involved and give the film his blessing for PR purposes. Even Aykroyd mentioned at one point that they might move forward without Murray altogether. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Aykroyd was the problem on the first movie. His original story was ridiculous with the Ghostbusters travailing through space, time, and dimensions fighting ghosts. It was Reitman and Ramis that grounded the story which is what made that first movie so successful. Reitman and Ramis were still there to curtail Aykroyd's ridiculousness but that may have slipped in the years since and why Murray passed on the attempts at a second sequel. I do believe they had Murray over a barrel with a potential lawsuit over his resistance to any new Ghostbusters movies, there was leaked emails from the hacking scandal about Sony's lawyers threatening to sue him if he didn't participate in the Ghostbusters remake:
https://www.cinemablend.com/new/Sony-Might-Sue-Bill-Murray-Playing-Ball-Ghostbusters-68651.html
If there's anyone to truly blame for the terrible remake, it's the boss, executive producer Amy Pascal.

To some extent you are right, but to say that Aykroyd was the problem goes way too far! The film wasn't successful because of Reitman and Ramis. It was successful because of Aykroyd, Reitman, Ramis, and equally important, Bill Murray. The original idea was Aykroyd of course, and from what I've read, he always wanted there to be a grounded, human element to it, juxtaposed with the fantastic. Though of course, the evil Ghostbusters and other dimensions and whatnot may well have led to a lesser end product. As to whether or not Aykroyd's perspective and influence impacted Murray later on, I don't have any idea. But the impression I always got was that he just didn't see the point, and wasn't presented with any ideas that really struck him as worthy of his time or energy. Unlike Aykroyd, Murray's career has clearly moved on from where he was in the '80s.

 

[screamingmetal]

To some extent you are right, but to say that Aykroyd was the problem goes way too far! The film wasn't successful because of Reitman and Ramis. It was successful because of Aykroyd, Reitman, Ramis, and equally important, Bill Murray. The original idea was Aykroyd of course, and from what I've read, he always wanted there to be a grounded, human element to it, juxtaposed with the fantastic. Though of course, the evil Ghostbusters and other dimensions and whatnot may well have led to a lesser end product. As to whether or not Aykroyd's perspective and influence impacted Murray later on, I don't have any idea. But the impression I always got was that he just didn't see the point, and wasn't presented with any ideas that really struck him as worthy of his time or energy. Unlike Aykroyd, Murray's career has clearly moved on from where he was in the '80s.

I agree it was a group effort that made the original work and Aykroyd was a part of the group. I should've said if there was any problem with the original it would've come from Aykroyd's first draft and the need of another voice to reel Aykroyd back to Earth. With the incredible things that can be done with effects in movies today, Aykroyd might've been pushing for something more ambitious that would've taken away that grounded feeling. A problem I had with the sequel was how it had to deal with how big the story became at the end which lost a lot of that grounded feel the first had. Though one of my favorite scenes from GB 2 was how they subverted expectations from the first movie with the introduction of Ray and Zeddemore dealing with the kids birthday party.

 

[crows]

Aykroyd was the problem on the first movie. His original story was ridiculous with the Ghostbusters travailing through space, time, and dimensions fighting ghosts. It was Reitman and Ramis that grounded the story which is what made that first movie so successful. Reitman and Ramis were still there to curtail Aykroyd's ridiculousness but that may have slipped in the years since and why Murray passed on the attempts at a second sequel. I do believe they had Murray over a barrel with a potential lawsuit over his resistance to any new Ghostbusters movies, there was leaked emails from the hacking scandal about Sony's lawyers threatening to sue him if he didn't participate in the Ghostbusters remake:
https://www.cinemablend.com/new/Sony-Might-Sue-Bill-Murray-Playing-Ball-Ghostbusters-68651.html
If there's anyone to truly blame for the terrible remake, it's the boss, executive producer Amy Pascal.

Theres a big problem with ur statement,

They did incorporate these ideas to the game....and the game is beloved by fans....
The game is even better in story than the sequel and all the crazy stuff u talk about was received very positively.
Even the different dimension stuff

So no, i dont believe his first draft would have been bad...

The game was a complete success.

 

[Captain Clown]

The game is fantastic. I go back and play it every year or so.