Thanks for clearing up my muddled ageing memory bank! Being a 100% devotee of Carpenter (along with Leone, Kubrick and Lynch he’s the reason i work in the medium instead of having a proper job) i’ve watched so much surplus material on his movies that lines blur between ‘in the movie’ & 'the cutting room floor’. About time i rewatched the original (for the 20th time); used to be that i’d watch at least 1 Carpenter a week, but how times change with work & family
I digress… Though Carpenter declined to direct the original sequel he still wrote and produced it, so if that movie says they’re brother and sister, then in my book it’s strictly canon. However, it also seems completely fair that Blumhouse not see it that way since their’s usurps that sequel. And even if they did, it doesn’t matter, they have to make the movie they want; and for the record it was a bloody great movie they made.
Rumor out today that David Gordon Greene is returning to direct TWO sequels to last year’s Halloween, and that they’ll both be released in October 2020.
I’m doubtful that they’ll actually release both films in October 2020. I could, however, very easily see them doing two back-to-back, since that idea was in consideration the first time around. Given the length of time that it took to get a sequel announced, I would like to think that that time was spent making sure that there was a reason for doing so outside of the financial aspect of it. If that was the only thing motivating it, surely they would have just turned around and announced the sequel after the film was a major financial success for them.
I’m slightly wary of this. I like the idea of Jason Reitman doing this. But it seems as if it is a kids version of “Ghostbusters”, with quick cameos by the old surviving cast. A “Stranger Things”-like reboot then. Which could be fun. But for me “Ghostbusters” always was about this weird combo of men, mainly Bill Murray, reacting as comedians to supernatural silliness.
In that regard, Paul Feig´s female Ghostbusters were much closer to that idea.
Was my biggest gripe with how Sony treated that film. Rather than lean on the SNL rep of the cast, the thing they had in common with the original, and the thing that applied to all of the ensemble, they leant HARD on “Bridesmaids with proton parks”, which, arguably, was something they should’ve tried to distance themselves from.
I don’t really have much of an idea of what to expect from this story-wise, but we’re finally, after 30+ years, getting Ghostbusters 3, and with the original cast on board to supposedly hand-off the duties to a younger generation, which was always going to be the premise of a third film.
Reports are that the script is fantastic (yes, I know, grain of salt and all that), even to the point that Bill Murray is said to be on board. It also seems to be coming from a much more organic place than Answer the Call did, the dubious process by which Sony went about making that film is laid out in the email leaks (note: I’m not at all slamming Paul Feig of the cast. Feig was approached and laid out his idea, which is his absolute right, and only wanted to do the film if he could do it his way, again, his absolute right as a filmmaker, and a successful filmmaker at that).
This very well could end up being a complete creative flop, but I very much doubt that Jason Reitman, who has directed some excellent and award-winning films like Thank You For Smoking and Up in the Air, and who had said for a long time that he wouldn’t follow in his father’s footsteps and make a Ghostbusters film, would come to this film with an original idea that turned out to be something more akin to the recent Goosebumps films. He’s also very aware of the Stranger Things issue surrounding the film, having reportedly been against the idea of casting Finn Wolfhard until he was said to be blown away by his audition. I very much suspect that this will be a “serious” take on the property and the fact that the origin of this film comes from people who genuinely love the first two films as opposed to beginning its life at Sony as a simple cash grab (again, not a swipe at Feig or the cast, but rather at Sony), leaves me with hope that it will be good.
But, then again, they didn’t need to sell me on any of this to begin with. They could have just shown me a blank poster with the words Ghostbusters 3 on it and a release date, and that’s all I’d need.
I also give Reitman a lot of credit. But it is obvious that he is in dire need of a box office hit since all of his movies since UP IN THE AIR have tanked. And since GHOSTBUSTERS, as a valuable commodity for the studio, is also in a problematic situation it is probably not far fetched to say that Reitman will not have the creative input he had in his independent films.
In fact, he will be micromanaged to the umpth degree.
I certainly hope that the film will turn out fine. But the kids just won’t have the same comedic impact as the adults.
I had rather have the old Ghostbusters hand over their business to young adults, or another group of 30-something comedians. Then again, maybe that would have been too much been there done that?
But like Terminator or Alien I feel that the basic idea actually does not offer a lot of variation. Maybe two Ghostbusters-installments already had done everything they could.
While he might not have the complete autonomy that he had on his independent films, I don’t see Reitman being micromanaged as much here. It seems from the email situation with Sony that, after the box office debacle that Answer the Call was, that control of the franchise once again resides with Ivan Reitman after he was essentially pushed out of his own property by Amy Pascal.
GB3 will also almost certainly be made for a fraction of what Answer the Call was made for, considering that was literally everyone from the Ghosbusters camp’s gripe about that film in addition to the fact that Reitman typically makes movies on small budgets. Granted, it’ll be a bigger budget than what Reitman usually works off of, but I would have to think that it will be considerably short of the reported $144 million it cost to make Answer the Call.
There’s no reason that they can’t continue the franchise on, even if they’re doing essentially similar things to the first two films. It’s worked considerably well for the Bond franchise, after all.
I do think, though, that there’s a chance to do something interesting here. Supposedly there will be the
Summary
use of old, unused footage from the original film. Beyond a way for them to include Harold Ramis, I think there’s some interesting ways that Reitman could go about using this.
But, again, it could be a flop. But, this film already has more (positive) buzz around it than Answer the Call did, which was almost universally negative from the start. That, plus lowered financial obligations and box office expectations will, I think, lead towards this being something financially beneficial for the studio.
Two new trailers today. The IT: CHAPTER 2 trailer features some intense and creepy Pennywise action, just as a forewarning for those that may not want to watch it.
Only been waiting 32 years for this. 