Ghostbusters 3?

[Darth Wedgius]

Do you believe in UFOs, astral projections, mental telepathy, ESP, clairvoyance, spirit photography, telekinetic movement, full trance mediums, the Loch Ness monster and the theory of Atlantis? If so, you might be in luck. And not just, as SFDebris mentioned, at the History Channel.

Apparently a Ghostbusters 3 is in the works, and it's set in the same continuity as the original movie and Ghostbusters 2.

It ignores Ghostbusters (2016 / Answer the Call), which I didn't see, and that's all I'll be saying about that.

I'm cautiously... cautious. I liked both the original movies, but I didn't like the second as much as the first. Or the cartoon. Though that's probably more a testament to my regard for the first movie. And the cartoon. It was a good cartoon. I vaguely understand that the second had some decisions made at the insistence of the studio, but can't swear to it. I have no idea if Bill Murray will be in it; I'm OK if he isn't.

I'm betting it'll at least be watchable.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I think I'm the only person in the world that tends to be more fond of sequels than the originals.

[Winter]

I also like GB2 though I get why so many feel it's to much like the first film as plot wise it really is just a retread of GB1 even if the character arcs aren't and the idea that Every Major Character (outside of the GB's themselves and Dana) believe that the events of the first film was a hoax is pushing things a bit to far. Mocking the GB's as hasbeens and are now out of their jobs because there are no longer any ghosts to catch I think would have been much better received instead of making everyone we meet be the GB's equivalent of Flat Earther's.

It would basically be like in the MCU were after the Battle of NY every major character we meet in Phase 2 said that Superheroes and Aliens are not real and that what happened in NY was all fake. Yes, Some would believe that just like many people believe other stupid things but most people would except it as true because it happened.

And again, I LIKE GB2, I like it as much as the first film if not a little more but I get why many see it as inferior to GB1. I prefer it when Sequels actually try something new instead of just playing it safe and just doing the first film all over again with the worst offender being Home Alone 2 which really is just the first film just set in NY.

Over to GB3 I do hope that it is good as comedy is one of the hardest genres to get and this film also has the unenviable task of not only trying to be a sequel to one of the most loved films of all time but also has to prove that the GB:ATC was just a glitch and that this film will be just as funny and just as memorable as the first two films.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Ah yeah, Home Alone 2 that's another one that qualifies my liking for direct sequels. Though I did later come to find the original exceptionally well crafted. Pretty much the same sequencing as Ghostbusters, but I never developed that much of a fondness for the first one there.

[PerrySimm]

Count me among the folks that actually liked Ghostbusters 2 - it took the rules and had fun with them. So a sequel isn't automatically doomed. But it hit the same notes at pretty much the same time, with the same crew. Not having those things, they'll have to get really creative to pull off a win.

Say they write a quality script that gets Rick Moranis willing to sign on, that might be one indicator the new film won't be a turkey.

[G-Man]

Winter - I think the term is "Flat Earth Atheist."

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/ ... rthAtheist

I think part of the problem with GB2 is that it sorts of makes the first movie sad when you see that the Ghostbusters went bust, especially for people who saw the Real Ghostbusters cartoon and had the idea of them going on cases regularly.

Also, the climax of the movie was just - meh.

[Enterprising]

Trailer is here:


youtu.be/L1pkGna1CCk

While it is good they're now doing what they should have done in the first place, here is a question.

Now that this new film completely ignores the 2016 one, which silently admits it wasn't a good enough film, then why should the likes of myself and others branded "haters" by the studio & cast (among other various things) who simply called it a bad movie because it was a bad movie, hand over money for this new film? Just comes off as such a hypocritical thing for Sony to do by branding detractors in such a way, to just then go out and make a film for them.

I guess money wins out over any "principled stance" in the end?

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Aw, I would have preferred to see a sequel to the reboot.
*showered with rotten eggs and half-bricks*

[clearspira]

My idea for the Ghostbusters reboot done well was to start with the original three Ghostbusters standing over Egon's grave after getting their asses kicked by a new enemy and realising that not only are they too old and too injured to continue, but they need help. Enter the new Ghostbusters and have them fight side by side in one last glorious battle to avenge Egon. Now not only do we have a great send off for the original cast but presumably we also like the new Ghostbusters as well and thus we have a whole new franchise. The biggest mistake Ghostbusters reboot made besides the politics was to reduce the original cast to bit parts as other characters.

Ghostbusters 3 could work, but I think only something similar to my model works. Sorry to say this, but these are now old men. They cannot do what they used to do anymore.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Leslie Jones likens GB3 to Trump Administration