Favorite Films: Ghostbusters

“Have you or any of your family ever seen a spook, specter or ghost? Pick up your phone and call the professionals. Ghostbusters! We’re ready to believe you!”

Movies are a collaborative effort, some more than others. Dan Aykroyd and John Belushi worked together on three films — 1941, The Blues Brothers, and Neighbors — before Belushi’s untimely demise in 1982. Aykroyd had been working on the script for what would have been their fourth movie together. Ghost Smashers was set in the distant future, where paranormal exterminators were as common as firefighters and police officers, and the script had Aykroyd’s and Belushi’s characters chasing down spectres through space and time. Even after Belushi’s death, Aykroyd still liked the idea and decided to continue working on it, eventually showing the script to director Ivan Reitman. Reitman commented that Aykroyd’s script would have taken $300 million to shoot in 1983, but he liked the basic concept at the heart of the film. He suggested setting it in modern day New York, and making it a “going into business” story.

He brought in his friend Harold Ramis to help re-write the script, and Ramis and Aykroyd worked on it for several weeks at a retreat of Reitman’s. Reitman then took the script to Columbia Pictures, and proposed a budget of $30 million — he would eventually go over by $1 million. The studio head loved the idea, as long as it could be out by the following June — giving Reitman approximately 12 months to finish the script, cast actors, set up the scenes, shoot, add special effects and edit. It would be a bit of a rush job, but Reitman, Ramis, and Aykroyd were successful in bringing the film — rechristened Ghostbusters — in on time.

Weekly Weblinks: Reboots, Remakes, and Recall

Bandwidth issues may be slowing me down, but they’re not stopping me from making my rounds. It’s Friday morning, so it’s time for our weekly assortment of blog posts and news links, complete with a shiny new graphic I spent my downtime creating. In fact, this edition of the Weekly Weblinks is just a bit heavier on the news than it has been, and I’m not skimping on the blog posts either. There are a few reviews of new movies, a review of a much-reviled comic book movie, and a review of one of the greatest comedies ever made.

On the news front, there are quite a lot of things to cover, from rumors and news on comic book movie directors, to a surprising film adaptation, a film franchise which is getting rebooted, and — refreshingly — one which isn’t. So read on for the Weekly Weblinks!

Weekly Weblinks: Kubrick and Kurosawa

Getting a bit of a late start today, thanks to an intermittent internet connection over the last few days throwing me off my rhythm. But, while it’s now Friday afternoon rather than the usual Friday morning scheduled time, it’s still time for the Weekly Weblinks roundup of great blog posts and interesting news items. This week there’s discussion about some major directors, yet more superhero movie news, another iteration of the Ghostbusters 3 yo-yo, and word on perhaps the least necessary remake ever. Plus, dinosaurs. So read on for the Weekly Weblinks!

Some Thoughts on Ghostbusters 3: Plot

While I’m still of the opinion that Ghostbusters III should probably never come to light, the odds are that it’s going to happen sooner or later. With that in mind, the question then becomes what can be done to ensure that it isn’t a travesty and a blemish on the franchise. The Ghostbusters franchise has withstood a surprisingly high number of sub-par spin-offs. Ghostbusters II was okay, but nowhere near as good as a sequel to Ghostbusters should have been. The Real Ghostbusters cartoon was great until it was retooled into Slimer and the Real Ghostbusters and taught an entire generation of children what it was like to watch a series go off the rails. It also had to endure a competing cartoon, Filmation’s Ghostbusters, made possible by Filmation being the original rights-holders to the name. (Filmation had a live-action series in the 1970s by the name; Columbia Pictures licensed the name from them, and when the movie was successful, and Columbia moved forward with a cartoon, Filmation revisited their own series in animation form. Filmation head Lou Scheimer later acknowledged they should have just made a grab for producing the series for Columbia.) Later, in the late 90s, a new spin-off cartoon was created, Extreme Ghostbusters, which rapidly flopped.

And yet, despite none of these spin-offs being unqualified successes, and some being outright failures, nothing has tarnished the legacy of the original Ghostbusters film. People seemingly can’t think of Star Wars without thinking of The Phantom Menace nowadays. The Matrix will automatically bring up complaints about the sequels. Ask fans about Highlander, and you’ll immediately hear “there should have been only one.” But mention Ghostbusters, and all the sub-par follow-ups simply slide away. This, more than anything, is why people are concerned about Ghostbusters III. How lucky can one franchise get? How many bad follow-ups can be forgiven? If the third film is terrible, it’s possible it might finally put a tarnish on the franchise, and make it that little bit harder to enjoy the original film. It’s probably best if the film never happens. But since it’s likely to happen anyway, what needs to be done to ensure that it is, against current expectations, a good film? Last week I shared my thoughts on the characters; this week, I’m taking a look at the plot.

Some Thoughts on Ghostbusters 3: Characters

Not that we were really expecting rumors of Ghostbusters III to die out any time soon, but Total Film has a few tidbits about the project, which has been in development hell for at least the past six years, and both tidbits are actually somewhat good news for those of us who have been viewing the possible sequel with no small amount of skepticism. The first is that Bill Murray is still not completely ruling out the possibility of a return; he hates the scripts that have been submitted so far, but has said “We’ll try again”, suggesting that he’s still open to the general idea of a third movie if the right script comes along. This is welcome news for those of us who heard the rumors that they might press on without him, as the idea of a Ghostbusters film without Bill Murray would be a cinematic abomination. The other bit is that Dan Aykroyd, who has been the big driving force behind Ghostbusters 3, appears to agree with Murray, and has announced that they are bringing in a new (as yet unrevealed) writing team, to write a new script. Aykroyd states that he feels there is no point in doing the film “unless it’s perfect”.

It’s interesting that they’re bringing in different writers for this; not just the new writers, whoever they are, but the team they’re replacing, Lee Eisenberg and Gene Stupnitsky. Both of the existing Ghostbusters films were written by Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis themselves. But then, as Ghostbusters II was rather disappointing (still enjoyable, but a definite letdown), perhaps they want some fresh ideas; speaking personally, my biggest complaint is that so much of it seems like a rehash of the original.

To be honest, I’m skeptical about even wanting a third Ghostbusters film. But, operating on the assumption that it’s going to happen anyway, how would I want it approached?

The Great Outdoors

Back, once again, to the oeuvre of John Hughes comedies. Although Hughes didn’t direct this 1988 film — Howard Deutch did — he wrote the script, and it’s easy to recognize his hand in its creation. Throw in John Candy and Dan Aykroyd as the lead characters, and it’s a shoe-in that I’d be checking this movie out.

The Great Outdoors is one of those films that I have, technically, seen before. At least partly. I can remember it playing in the VCR at a family friend’s house when I was a child. But, as was so often the case when I was a child, I only watched bits and pieces of it as I ran around the place. I remember everybody laughing, and I remember thinking it was funny when I stopped to watch it. But I only really remembered the scene with the bear (it’s the sort of thing that leaves an impression on a ten year old). So, as a film lost to the fog of easily-distracted youth, I had to check it out again as an adult.

Favorite Films: The Blues Brothers

“It’s 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it’s dark… and we’re wearing sunglasses.” “Hit it.”

I have to wonder what the executives at Universal Pictures thought while The Blues Brothers was in production. Besides the fact that it went over budget and ran over on time, which are always concerns, it had to have seemed to be a little risky just on the face of it. John Belushi and Dan Aykroyd, the stars, were both popular comedic actors, but their previous outing together, Steven Spielberg’s 1941, had a lackluster reception at the box office (likewise, so did their third and final collaboration, Neighbors; both are actually good films, but have largely been forgotten). Belushi had Animal House to his name, but nothing else of note; Aykroyd didn’t even have that. The characters of the Blues Brothers were known from their appearances on Saturday Night Live, but as a musical act more than just a comedy sketch, and there hadn’t been any prior attempt to bring an SNL concept to the big screen (though obviously there would be several later; other than Wayne’s World, I don’t think any of them were worth watching.)

Musicals were largely a thing of the past. So was blues music. The film called for the casting of several blues and R&B musicians in significant roles, and not only were they not experienced actors, but most of their careers were in slumps at the time; they weren’t going to draw any audiences in on their own. Dan Aykroyd was the writer who came up with all of the ideas, and he hadn’t made a name for himself as a writer yet; in fact, it was his first project, and he handed director John Landis a literal tome — the size of and in the covers of a phone book — which Landis then had to trim down in order to make a working screenplay out of it. Landis himself was also known solely for Animal House and a couple of schlocky cult comedy films — Kentucky Fried Movie and one literally titled Schlock. And then in order to shoot everything that still remained after Landis trimmed the script, they would have to get unprecedented permission from the city of Chicago to film. On the surface, it had to have looked like a risky proposition; there was every chance that it’s large-for-the-day budget of $27 million would be going to a box office bomb.

Favorite Films: Sneakers

“So, people hire you to break into their places… to make sure no one can break into their places?” “It’s a living.” “Not a very good one.”

I suspect that any occupation develops its own subculture over time, and I’m certain that any subculture develops its own cultural touchstones. I’m a computer programmer by trade, so over the years I’ve had ample opportunity to discover what films are considered “must see” movies among computer geeks. Office Space is a popular choice; we can relate, and we’ve all worked with those people. The Matrix is also commonly discussed, though in reality it has about as much to do with programming as Star Wars has to do with farming. I’m not a big fan of Hackers, personally, but it comes up too often to dismiss. And a few benighted souls might throw the name Swordfish around. They usually don’t last long. But if you want to earn my respect as a computer film geek, you need to know the meaning of the phrase “Setec Astronomy”. 1992′s Sneakers is the best film ever made about hacking, blending comedy, mystery, and suspense with a nearly-completely realistic portrayal of computer security.

But suppose you’re not a computer programmer, or hacker, or security guru; after all, statistically speaking, you’re probably not. Does Sneakers have anything to offer for you? How about a narrative that never bores, that spices things up with the occasional laugh-out-loud one-liner, and is directed by the man behind the Oscar-nominated Field of Dreams, Phil Alden Robinson? How about an amazingly star-studded cast, with Robert Redford, Sidney Poitier, Dan Aykroyd, River Phoenix, David Straithairn, Mary McDonnell, Ben Kingsley, and James Earl Jones? Of the major players in the film, the only one not to have already been at least nominated for an Oscar by 1992 was Straithairn — and he’d finally get a nomination in 2006 for his role in Good Night and Good Luck. It may not be possible to find a movie with a more densely-packed star cluster.

News: Who you gonna re-release?

Every great once-in-a-while — about three times a year, in my experience — “liking” a project’s official Facebook fan page results in being treated to some worthwhile news. In this case, a post from the official Ghostbusters movie page had an embedded video of the film’s original trailer, with one small alteration on the end: Ghostbusters is coming back to theatres for the first time since 1985, this October. Looking around on the web, it seems like it’ll be hitting Halloween weekend.

Personally, I find this much more pleasant news than the ever-present rumors of Ghostbusters 3, which has never seemed to be going down a good track. I find myself more excited than I probably rationally should be. I own Ghostbusters (and Ghostbusters 2) on DVD; I can watch it any time I want. But I’ve never seen it in the theatre. Seeing it on the big screen would be a real treat. It is interesting, in this day and age of Blu-Ray, DVDs, and DVRs, that film companies seem to be getting interested in re-releasing things in theatres once again. The Lion King and Top Gun have both been announced as getting re-releases, although both of those are getting after-the-fact 3D treatments for the reissues. I’ve seen no mention of Ghostbusters getting a 3D conversion, and frankly? I’m OK with that. It stands on its own and needs no 3D gimmick. Of course, that could be said of The Lion King and Top Gun as well. But it does all make me wonder exactly what’s motivating this from Hollywood. As far as I can remember, it’s been about 20 years since any studio has made a habit of re-releasing films into theatres. Has there been some shift in peoples’ buying habits that makes them think it’s worth trying this again?