You could frame this quote in a few different ways. Perhaps it was a tease for something in the pipeline, or maybe it was just a generic response. Whatever it was, at this time, there is no sign of Ghostbuster stories happening on the big screen.
I’ve made my thoughts clear previously that I think the franchise now needs to go in a radical direction to recapture the hearts and minds of new audiences. Personally, I think a safer route (from a budget perspective) would be to lean towards more horror. However, I appreciate people feel this is too radical and moves away from the spirit and tone of the franchise. Perhaps, a solution could be if they were spin-offs in different locations and subtitled ‘A Ghostbusters Tale’ or whatever.
Anyway…
Do you think a live-action feature Ghostbusters movie is in the pipeline? If not, what do you think has changed in the last year?
I think messing with the Ghostbusters formula to make it more commercially/broadly appealing would be to the franchise’s detriment, as I’ve alluded to when this line of discussion came up before.
Ghostbusters is a paranormal comedy franchise, if you sacrifice the comedy aspect to include a level of horror the franchise hasn’t previously had outside, say, Ghostbusters: Infestation, then I think you risk turning the franchise into a Conjuring/Paranormal Activity/Spectral copy.
I believe one is in the pipeline, but it’s not on the fast track… If it were, I think we would’ve seen something concrete about it by now. If we use the gap between Afterlife and Frozen Empire as a rough guide, a third film starring the Spenglers would probably have been due out in 2027, but it’s probably looking closer to 2028 or 2029 at the earliest now (if one is being worked on), based on the current radio silence.
I assume Sony is judging the market and might even be waiting to see how other Ghostbusters products, like the Netflix series, pan out.
Ghostbusters: Afterlife was essentially a family drama about reconciling the past and the future, wrapped in a Ghostbusters skin. It was very much a Jason Reitman movie, rather than an Ivan Reitman one. So, I’m not sure I’m persuaded that you can’t mess with the ‘Ghostbusters formula’, because I would argue but for the GB equipment and ghosts, they’re very different genres.
There’s no trade-off between comedy and horror. Leaning into more horror, doesn’t mean less comedy. In fact, some of the best horror films I’ve seen have moments of wonderful humour.
The overarching point I’m making is that if we all want to keep seeing live-action Ghostbusters films, we need to be honest with ourselves about the current state of the industry and the box office potential of the franchise. Ultimately, the budgets have to come down in order to make larger profit margins.
With respect to Jason and Gil. If you were their boss and looked at the budgets and profits of their last two films, Frozen Empire and Saturday Night Live, you probably wouldn’t be in any rush to say, “Here’s another $150 million, go make another Ghostbusters film.”
But if you said, “We’ve got $50–75 million and we want to do something fresh and new to restore enthusiasm in audiences for Ghostbusters,” then they might listen.
Anyway, to allay any fears from ■■■■■■■■ fans they could be spin-offs in different locations.
[quote=MovieFacts post_id=5006785 time=1760271533 user_id=52386]So, I’m not sure I’m persuaded that you can’t mess with the ‘Ghostbusters formula’, because I would argue but for the GB equipment and ghosts, they’re very different genres.
[/quote]
Admittedly, I should’ve been a bit more specific in my remarks, so I’ll do that here: I think messing with the Ghostbusters formula by increasing the horror content to make it more commercially/broadly appealing would be to the franchise’s detriment.
Perhaps some of my concerns could be allayed/mitigated if examples of the sort of horror that was being proposed be included in future Ghostbusters instalments could be presented here, but as it stands, there’s just been the suggestion of “there should be more horror”.
From my point of view, Friday the 13th/Nightmare on Elm Steet/Evil Dead/Dawn of the Dead/Phantasm/Black Friday-level horror should be avoided, I’d also include Hellraiser, but Extreme Ghostbusters did use a clever homage to that, while keeping it mostly cartoon-friendly.
I’m not even entirely sure it should be comparable to Shaun of the Dead/Slaughterhouse Rulez/Death of a Unicorn/Gremlins/Death Becomes Her/Tucker & Dale vs Evil/Scouts’ Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse/Anna and the Apocalypse/Queens of the Dead/Renfield/Frighteners etc, but… Those are probably closer to the acceptable level of horror a Ghostbusters film could have, especially after the deaths of Ivo Shandor, the Manhattan Adventurer’s Society, and that poor guy at the vape store.
[quote=MovieFacts post_id=5006785 time=1760271533 user_id=52386]There’s no trade-off between comedy and horror. Leaning into more horror, doesn’t mean less comedy.
[/quote]
We’re in disagreement on that, there is a point with some films where the blood and gore overwhelms the comedic aspects. Cabin in the Woods may be a good example of this, there are comedic moments in it, but at times it almost gets too serious for its own good. Braindead may be another.
[quote=MovieFacts post_id=5006785 time=1760271533 user_id=52386]Ultimately, the budgets have to come down in order to make larger profit margins.
[/quote]
I just don’t feel that’s enough justification to up the horror factor.
[quote=MovieFacts post_id=5006785 time=1760271533 user_id=52386]Anyway, to allay any fears from ■■■■■■■■ fans they could be spin-offs in different locations.
[/quote]
It doesn’t allay my concerns though, because it’s still the same universe.
They should wait anyway until Ray Parker Jr. lowers the cost of the licensing fee for the theme song. Having it play once in Frozen Empire at the very end and not at the beginning (where it was obviously supposed to be used) was a “wtf, why” moment amongst other wtf moments in that film.
Admittedly, I should’ve been a bit more specific in my remarks, so I’ll do that here: I think messing with the Ghostbusters formula by increasing the horror content to make it more commercially/broadly appealing would be to the franchise’s detriment.
Perhaps some of my concerns could be allayed/mitigated if examples of the sort of horror that was being proposed be included in future Ghostbusters instalments could be presented here, but as it stands, there’s just been the suggestion of “there should be more horror”.
From my point of view, Friday the 13th/Nightmare on Elm Steet/Evil Dead/Dawn of the Dead/Phantasm/Black Friday-level horror should be avoided, I’d also include Hellraiser, but Extreme Ghostbusters did use a clever homage to that, while keeping it mostly cartoon-friendly.
I’m not even entirely sure it should be comparable to Shaun of the Dead/Slaughterhouse Rulez/Death of a Unicorn/Gremlins/Death Becomes Her/Tucker & Dale vs Evil/Scouts’ Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse/Anna and the Apocalypse/Queens of the Dead/Renfield/Frighteners etc, but… Those are probably closer to the acceptable level of horror a Ghostbusters film could have, especially after the deaths of Ivo Shandor, the Manhattan Adventurer’s Society, and that poor guy at the vape store.
[quote=MovieFacts post_id=5006785 time=1760271533 user_id=52386]There’s no trade-off between comedy and horror. Leaning into more horror, doesn’t mean less comedy.
[/quote]
We’re in disagreement on that, there is a point with some films where the blood and gore overwhelms the comedic aspects. Cabin in the Woods may be a good example of this, there are comedic moments in it, but at times it almost gets too serious for its own good. Braindead may be another.
[quote=MovieFacts post_id=5006785 time=1760271533 user_id=52386]Ultimately, the budgets have to come down in order to make larger profit margins.
[/quote]
I just don’t feel that’s enough justification to up the horror factor.
[quote=MovieFacts post_id=5006785 time=1760271533 user_id=52386]Anyway, to allay any fears from ■■■■■■■■ fans they could be spin-offs in different locations.
[/quote]
It doesn’t allay my concerns though, because it’s still the same universe.
[/quote]
All fair enough.
Having had a foot in both camps over the last decade, as a Ghostbusters fan, but also someone working within the movie industry and rubbing shoulders with critics at screenings, I just think another Ghostbusters film in the traditional sense would be met with a collective sigh.
I believe something radical needs to happen to get the movie-going public back on side. But I guess, we’ll see.
Well we’ve had this exact discussion not that long ago. I believe another live action movie is in the works. Like concept work. They probably have an idea what they want to do. It’s just not in active production. It’ll happen sooner or later. Whether it’s after the cartoon releases and/or when Sony is ready.
Not sure how far you’re thinking the horror should go but I think one of the reasons GB has remained popular over generations is because it’s family friendly horror. Things should be haunting but not gross. Stuff that creates a sense of creepiness and fear without needing to be graphic or gory.
I have ideas I would do. Nothing super different. Mostly just other teams/places and updates to the equipment. Not saying that would get a bigger audience. Just a way to expand things. I think the cartoon and animated movie…whenever they finally come out…will help gain more fans. I’m shocked we’ve seen nothing from Netflix by now. Publicly I mean.
When you say a radical change needs to happen what are you thinking besides more horror?
And going further into the nitty-gritty of what aspects of modern horror could/should/shouldn’t be worked into Ghostbusters, no jump scares… It’s a pet peeve of mine when a modern horror film unleashes a bunch of them, because they feel severely lacking in creativity… Some you can see approaching a mile away.
it just so happens the next movies they are working on are animated so they take longer, and we don’t get the kind of news bytes like when live action movies are filming on location, and once they come out, we’ll get the next live action by the end of the decade imo. We know they’ve been trying to get an animated movie and animated series off the ground for many years and they were passion projects of the late Ivan Reitman, the former they’ve been working on for 10 years already. We know they’re working on stuff. The thing that’s not too clear is if the theatrical animated movie and Netflix animated movie are two different projects or the same.
Letting some time pass after Frozen Empire will benefit the next movie as a common complaint of Afterlife and Frozen Empire is there’s kids in starring roles. The kids will likely be in their 20s in the next one. So they can’t be mad about that anymore. Plus, it’s basically going from pre-teen Phoebe to teen Phoebe so adult Phoebe is logical.
I’m a broken record on this but I don’t think they need to keep going with an end-of-the-world threat every time. I get the reasoning but I want something different like something that seems like a typical case that should take an hour but turns into a bid deal i.e. trapped in a haunted house. They’ve done a lot of great takes of a haunted house case in RGB , EGB, IDW comics, etc. that they could look at as templates and it would definitely work in a movie. WB made The Conjuring a franchise on that premise. It would in theory help keep the budget lower than past movies, too. All about balancing horror and comedy.
Ya I’ve always liked the haunted house theme. I think I’ve mentioned House (1986) is one my favorite movies. I wouldn’t say it’s very scary but the mansion and monsters are cool. Part 2 is good too.
I enjoyed all the Conjuring movies but haven’t seen the newest one. Only seen them once though so I don’t remember them in detail.
Disney’s Haunted Mansion (2023) wasn’t so good imo but the plot was interesting. Someone like the Hat Box ghost would make a cool GB villain. I liked the overall look too.
I’d be up for a haunted house Ghostbusters movie, with maybe taking inspiration from the best bits of Netflix’s The Haunting of Hill House (and the 1990s The Haunting), 1997’s The Shining, 2002’s Rose Red and 2018’s Winchester… While not descending into a jumpscare bloodfest.
Honourable mentions also go out to Ghost Ship, House on Haunted Hill and Thirteen Ghosts… Though, the inspiration drawn from them would have to be a lot more family friendly, given how gory and graphic those films were.
I’m saying lean towards horror and maybe do spin-offs because, in my humble opinion, I don’t think Sony will be in a rush to throw another $100m to make another live-action Ghostbusters movie in its current guise. The budget needs to come down.
The GB fans’ tickets are locked; it’s about lighting a fire under the ■■■■■ of general moviegoers.
Exactly.
The Conjuring movies smash the box office, and if my memory serves correctly, the budget has never been more than $40m.
Weapons cost less than $40m to make and made more than Frozen Empire at the worldwide box office. There’s a reason the studio selected Zach Cregger to make a Resident Evil movie. Great storyteller = works with low budgets.
Aren’t the Conjuring films set on a fairly small scale, though? Both in terms of the ghostly visuals, but also the physical locations required… The impression I get from the trailers that each film only spans a small handful of physical locations, usually houses, or the occasional apartment building where the hauntings/investigations occur.
Weapons spanned the good chunk of a town, but that’s still a smaller area of impact than a major metropolitan area like New York. I presume a majority of the visual effects in Weapons were budget-conscious/savvy efforts? (I’ve not seen the film yet).
They’re good examples of what you can achieve with a small budget, but I don’t know if they’re good examples for trying to get a Ghostbusters movie to adapt to, it’s like comparing the $58 Lego Ecto-1 from 2014 to the massive $239 Afterlife Ecto-1 from 2021… They both achieve what they set out to do: give us a replica of Ecto-1, but the more expensive set offers those buying it things that the smaller set can’t do due to its more restricted budget and size.
But Resident Evil is unlikely to be a low-budget affair.
Even if they manage to save money on some careful and creative set choices, they still need to put a reasonable amount of cash into zombie/monster prosthetics and inevitable CG work for some of the bigger creatures, like the Tyrant.
Ghostbusters does require a certain level of cash to properly deliver what it’s going for… The scenario of the next film doesn’t have to be a world-ending threat like other films, but it still needs to live up to the “supernatural spooktacular” moniker.
And given Sony’s continued struggles with maintaining a successful catalogue of cinematic franchises, I feel it’d be in their best interests to not tighten the purse strings on one of the few franchises they own outright… Because Spider-Man won’t be theirs forever.
The cartoon and animated movie are basically spinoffs. They’re meant to bring newer audiences and build on the franchise…or do you mean live action spinoffs?
I’m still curious what kind of a horror you’d want. I mentioned House ‘86. It’s rated R but only because of cussing and some war scenes. It’s not gory or violent. Disney’s HM is not either of course. I like a combination of those 2 styles. I think the horror in GB is pretty much like that already.
I think the animated stuff that’s coming up is a good plan. They’ll gain more viewers and whatever toys/merchandise they get will be something mostly new.
The new Resident Evil movie by Zach Cregger is reported at $65m. $10m shy of the budget for Afterlife. All Resident Evil budgets sit around that figure.
Afterlife was proof that you can make a very good Ghostbusters movie with all bells and whistles on a modest budget.
Yes, I meant live-action spin-offs. Then you have the freedom of different stories, writers, and directors with every movie.
What kind of horror? In terms of tone I would say Stranger Things and the two recent IT movies are perfect. I know comparisons were made between Afterlife and Stranger Things because of a young female lead protagonist and Finn Wolfhard but that’s where it stopped. Tonally, Stranger Things deals with heavier themes, gore, and violence. In terms of horror, it’s dialled up a few notches.
Vecna is not getting signed off by execs at Sony for a Ghostbusters movie in it’s current guise.
The Duffer Brothers would have been perfect for a Ghostbusters spin-off, but never happening now. Way too expensive and signed up to Paramount.
I know it got bells and whistles in post production due to covid. But Afterlife would’ve benefited from a longer montage sequence, expanding the townsfolk of Summerville encountering a few more ghosts as per the pre-production art. I believe iirc Bug-eye was a late addition and it really was worthwhile.
I’ve actually never seen Stranger Things but I saw the first IT movie. I don’t think gore fits with GB. If you’ve never seen House ‘86 the trailers on YouTube show pretty much exactly what to expect.
As for spinoffs I like the idea of another team opening up somewhere besides NY. I think there needs to be another Spengler movie with them as a complete fully adult team first.
I personally really liked Men in Black International. I didn’t know or suspect anything was wrong with production until I read about it afterwards. Anyway it was easy to believe the MIB had another headquarters because they’re a secret organization and have been around for decades.
The GB have only ever been in NY so I think it’d be better if a new team was introduced in a 3rd Spengler movie before they get their own or maybe even a TV show. Just opening up off-camera and suddenly being the focus is odd. It’d come off like a reboot.