Movie News

17 Comments | Add


Rate & Share:


Related Links:




By Karl Schneider     May 17, 2006
Source: InFocus magazine

Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis, Bill Murray in GHOSTBUSTERS (1984).
© Columbia Pictures
Well, if you like math then that title was fun for you. I hate math, and hate myself for writing such garbage. I could go on writing dribble, but I figure it is best to just give you the news before you cry for my head.

To be fair, this was all a sorry attempt to get you to mosey on to another story. If you are still with me, please know that reading any further will prove that God ... does in fact ... not exist. You have been warned.

InFocus Magazine has posted an interview of sorts with actor-filmmaker Harold Ramis. In the interview, Ramis had some sad news to report about the possibility of a third Ghostbusters. The report claims the movie would be titled Ghostbusters in Hell.

The script for the possible sequel is written by Dan Aykroyd and features a hell that looks like New York City. The Ghostbusters transport themselves to this Hell via a portal located in a warehouse. Are you sorry you read this yet? Wait ... it gets much worse.

"What Danny had originally conceived was sending us to a special-effects hell, a netherworld full of phenomenal visual environments and boiling pits," Ramis revealed. "But what works so well about the first two (films) is the mundane-ness of it all. So my notion was that hell exists in the same place as our consensus reality, but it's like a film shutter. It's the darkness between the 24 frames."

Yes Harold. Yes it is.

Ramis continued, "So we create a device to do it, and it's in a warehouse in Brooklyn. When we step out of the chamber, it looks just like New York, but it's hell. Everything's grid-locked; no cars are moving and all the drivers are swearing at each other in different foreign languages. No two people speak the same language. It's all the worst things about modern urban life, just magnified."

Sigh. I have done all I can. I have held off as long as possible. If you are still reading ... then you simply asked for it.

Reports are saying Ramis wants vets Aykroyd, Moranis and Murray to reprise their roles. Murray refuses to, probably because he got a whiff of the script's smell. In his place Ramis is reportedly trying to cast Ben Stiller to star as the new Ghostbuster.

I am going to the corner to cry. I just want to thank Tim, who sent me this scoop, for ruining my life. Just kidding, I appreciate it ... really.


Showing items 1 - 10 of 17
1 2 >  >>  
mckracken 5/17/2006 2:49:15 AM
Bill and Ted Bogus Adventures... its been done before. oh and recast Slimer for Murray, nobody will notice let alone care.
coldhardtruth 5/17/2006 4:03:28 AM
videocide 5/17/2006 5:51:43 AM
I always thought they were going to go with a new team of ghostbusters, located in a different city, with cameos by the orignal cast. oh well
corvin 5/17/2006 6:51:29 AM
I would like to welcome the editors of Cinescape to Nov. 2005 offering the freshest news on the net. ;)
snallygaster 5/17/2006 8:40:53 AM
I agree about not liking the recent blog tone to Cinescape's news articles. Just give us the news, if you want to give us opinion then setup an editorial column (which I recall Cinescape used to have).
snallygaster 5/17/2006 8:45:46 AM
As for the news itself, I think it's a little too early to judge. The concept itself doesn't sound that bad, but any incarnation without Murray would be a pale imitation. As for Murray taking crap roles for paychecks, I think you need to examine how much work was involved - his Charlie's Angels role was a small one, and Garfield is all voice work. A Ghostbusters movie would take much more effort on his behalf. In short, I think he'll take the sell-out paychecks if the price is right and the workload is minimal.
lracors 5/17/2006 9:23:35 AM
Loved the 1st film... hated the 2nd... I'll reserve judgement until more news comes out.
rocker0486 5/17/2006 12:51:52 PM
i would so see this movie. i love Ghostbusters
shockerwhitey6 5/17/2006 1:43:02 PM
First of all, if they cast Ben Stiller in this movies, they might as well put it straight in the trash. He's a terrible actor in that his only good movies are made good by the supporting actors(a la De Niro, Vaughn, gosh, I hate to say it,he was even overshadowed by Drew Barrymore). Second of all, Bill Murray was the best part of the first two films. He's a highly-underrated actor who can be funny while acting totally serious. He's got that natural comic ability without going over-the-top. Akroyd is probably wetting himself with this chance for a third film. His career has been dead for years and Ramis, well it's hard to say anything bad about Egon except his script sounds a bit to politically motivated from the little I've heard.
shockerwhitey6 5/17/2006 1:44:37 PM
One more thing is they better at least bring back Ernie Hudson, he was pretty good in those movies.
1 2 >  >>  


You must be logged in to leave a comment. Please click here to login.