Bill Murray: Ghostbusters 3 -VS- Ghostbusters Reboot 2016

[spaceballz]

@Razorgeist

You know Im not trying to be contrarian here but as much as I like Bill Murray I just really dont care if he’s ever involved with Ghostbusters again. He was never the selling point for the movies or the franchise for me. I wasn’t really affected by his cameo in the movie and Im just tired of hearing about it. If i had to pick my favorite cameo it would be Ernie Hudson’s

You know, everybody’s characters seemed out of place and over the top in this film. Except for Ernie’s performance, even when he was interacting with Patty it seemed like he brought out a legitimate performance out of her character there too. He still gots it!

[Razor-11]

@SpaceBallz

@Razorgeist

You know Im not trying to be contrarian here but as much as I like Bill Murray I just really dont care if he’s ever involved with Ghostbusters again. He was never the selling point for the movies or the franchise for me. I wasn’t really affected by his cameo in the movie and Im just tired of hearing about it. If i had to pick my favorite cameo it would be Ernie Hudson’s

You know, everybody’s characters seemed out of place and over the top in this film. Except for Ernie’s performance, even when he was interacting with Patty it seemed like he brought out a legitimate performance out of her character there too. He still gots it!

Agreed he was great! I wonder if that has more to do with the fact that he’s not a comedian.

[pferreira1983]

@CraigTHEOWL1

I really like Bill’s cameo in the new movie. It doesn’t feel phoned in to me. Now Bill’s performance in TVG, that is what I call phoned in.

He phoned both of them in. He does a lot of calling. :lol:

[sav-c]

@SpaceBallz

I heard it took ILM 3 months to put all the expressions on Bill’s face in the reboot.

I don’t think SP Imageworks outsourced anything to ILM…

[ZedRage]

@droidguy1119

@ZedRage

Not sure if this has been mentioned, but apparently Sony was considering severe legal action against Bill and the other original cast members if they didn’t appear in this film.

Big misinterpretation of the leaks. Very obnoxious. I wrote a whole thing about it: http://the-following-preview.blogspot.com/2016/06/bill-murray-and-ghostbusters-2016.html

Okay, fair enough.

Though anything Tom Rothman supposedly said should be taken with a shaker of salt, slice of lime, and a quart of tequila, the rest of the analysis seems pretty solid.

[HunterCC]

I like wondering if sometimes things behind the scenes are not what they appear. Out of curiosity, if there is a simple answer that explains why things happened the way they did, I’d like to know. If Bill Murray was the holdout that kept GB3 from getting made, then why was the reboot made right after Harold Ramis died, with Murray in the reboot?

[alphagaia]

My reasoning: because they really wanted to make one, but could not get the script right, and with the man dying who could pull back the craziness of Dan’s scripts Dan and Ivan finally allowed others to take a crack at it? Which evolved into someone wanting to do a stand on its own story. Which evolved into a ‘reboot’.

I believe Bills problem was he did not want to be Venkman again, he had no problems being in a GB movie otherwise.

[fritz]

To repeat something I said elsewhere, because it seems relevant:

My own personal hunch is that Murray felt a lot less pressure when it came to a reboot. Any continuation (ie a “real” GB3) he would have either felt pressured to contribute because of his importance to the first two movies, or everybody would complain about him not being in it. (And I don’t think he’s wrong about that–look how many people bitched and moaned that Rick Moranis and his far more minor character weren’t in the video game) With a reboot, it’s not about him–he could have not shown up and it wouldn’t have mattered much either way. Ironically, without that pressure…he did show up.

[RichardLess]

@Sav C

@JurorNo.2

Yeah who knows. Maybe it seemed that way during filming. People just start looking for reasons when a movie doesn’t perform as well as expected.

By ILM having to outsource effects it may have created the illusion there were more than the first film, or maybe they were more complex to shoot.

No I’m pretty sure GB2 had more FX shots than the first film. They kept adding things don’t forget. I’ve read the exact number of shots somewhere but I know it was more than GB1.

[JurorNo2]

@RichardLess

@Sav C

By ILM having to outsource effects it may have created the illusion there were more than the first film, or maybe they were more complex to shoot.

No I’m pretty sure GB2 had more FX shots than the first film. They kept adding things don’t forget. I’ve read the exact number of shots somewhere but I know it was more than GB1.

Oh that may very well be, we’re just wondering if it felt like the FX took over the movie.

[sav-c]

@RichardLess

@Sav C

By ILM having to outsource effects it may have created the illusion there were more than the first film, or maybe they were more complex to shoot.

No I’m pretty sure GB2 had more FX shots than the first film. They kept adding things don’t forget. I’ve read the exact number of shots somewhere but I know it was more than GB1.

It’s possible. According to Ghostbusters The Ultimate Visual History (Page 157) ILM had to complete nearly 180 effects shots (like you said they kept adding to that total.) The final number I’ve heard for the amount of effects shots in GBII is 200, exactly the same as the first one. There’s also a quote by Reitman (Page 181:)

I think part of the problem was that Bill got down on the second one and did it publicly, he kept saying, ‘There’s too many special effects,’ when in fact there were fewer.

They probably have around the same amount of effects shots, since it’s possible Ivan was factoring in the in-camera effects.

[ZedRage]

@Sav C

Most of the criticisms I don’t get–even Bill’s criticism that the effects took over. The sequel actually had less effects than the first one.

Well, I know I felt it was pretty ineffective.

Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

Wakka wakka!

[pferreira1983]

@Fritz

My own personal hunch is that Murray felt a lot less pressure when it came to a reboot. Any continuation (ie a “real” GB3) he would have either felt pressured to contribute because of his importance to the first two movies, or everybody would complain about him not being in it. (And I don’t think he’s wrong about that–look how many people bitched and moaned that Rick Moranis and his far more minor character weren’t in the video game) With a reboot, it’s not about him–he could have not shown up and it wouldn’t have mattered much either way. Ironically, without that pressure…he did show up.

I think this was probably it ot be honest.

@RichardLess

No I’m pretty sure GB2 had more FX shots than the first film. They kept adding things don’t forget. I’ve read the exact number of shots somewhere but I know it was more than GB1.

There definitely felt like there were less effects in the sequel.