![]() Worse yet, the bad reception seemed to kill Ghostbusters for the best part of 30 years, during which the franchise’s legacy was haunted by talk of yet another sequel and a falling out between Murray and Ramis. Released in June 1989, Ghostbusters II was a commercial hit, but a critical bomb, blasted by critics for being an ectoplasm-drenched re-run of the original. Whatever friction there’d been was now slime under the bridge. Why not? The first film, as Murray noted, was the most fun he’d ever had. He’s a taker.” Puttnam denied the comment, claiming he was misquoted, though others who were there disagreed.īut reunited in Jimmy’s, the old gang talked – and, more crucially, laughed – themselves into making Ghostbusters II. Murray, said Puttnam, is “an actor who makes millions off movies but gives nothing back to his art. Puttnam also made snide comments about Bill Murray at a British-American Chamber of Commerce banquet. “It was, ‘I like Ghostbusters, but what I’d really like to do…’” “I felt insulted because he always talked about Ghostbusters in such condescending tones,” recalled Reitman. Murray – wrestling with the failure of his 1984 drama, The Razor’s Edge, and the daunting pressure of celebrity – had retreated from leading roles for a few years. He wasn’t keen to pull on the overalls and fire up the Proton Pack again: “I really didn’t want to do this movie for the longest time.” None of it was helped by David Puttnam, the head of Columbia Studios, who wasn’t interested in a Ghostbusters sequel. “But we were afraid to touch it, it was so big.” “We had talked about it from the time the first one was finished,” added Aykroyd, who had weathered a few duds by that point. But friction had remained since the first film – “There was a little air to clear before we got going,” Ramis told Rolling Stone in 1989 – and some lingering reluctance between them. It was less something strange in the neighbourhood, more something potentially big on the table: Ghostbusters II.Įven before sequels were both a contractual and cultural obligation, a follow-up to the $300 million success of Ghostbusters (1984) was surely a no-brainer. ![]() In 1988, a back room at Jimmy’s, a celebrity restaurant in Beverly Hills, was decked out with no-ghost logos and merchandise, and the guys got back together: Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis, director Ivan Reitman (who died this weekend aged 75), and reps from the mighty Creative Artists Agency. He's an ass, and that's why we love him (but would never date him).It took a kiss-and-make-up lunch to reunite the Ghostbusters. Of course, Peter would have done something stupid with Dana - he called her his "ball and chain" - that would make her leave. I say this as a former New Yorker, and I say it with love, but it's not the friendliest place in the world. Plus, it gives us a realistic look at what would definitely happen to the saviors of a city like New York. The banter is just as quick and witty as the original. It has the charm that comes from established characters we already know, encountering new people that are weird even for their world. The thing is, "Ghostbusters II" is just dead - no apologies from me for that - funny. But its predecessor had a giant marshmallow that attacked New York City, a green ghost that looked like snot that somehow became a mascot, and the drippy face of a green drink (ick) from Hi-C called Ecto Cooler. Okay, fine - it's a weird premise, I'll admit that. Egon is studying emotions in a lab, and Peter is the host of a psychic talk show. Ray has an occult bookstore and does children's parties in costume with Winston. They're being sued for property damage - something we don't talk about a lot in hero flicks - by the city and have been forced out of business. Sadly, things haven't gone well for our heroes. ![]() Five years have gone by since Ghostbusters - Raymond Stantz (Dan Aykroyd), Peter Venkman (Bill Murray), Egon Spengler (Harold Ramis), and Winston Zeddemore (Ernie Hudson) - saved the world from Gozer. If you were put off by the negative hype and didn't see this film, here's the deal. All of that said, there is a place in my heart for "Ghostbusters II," and it's higher up than the original. It makes total sense that viewers are attached to what they saw the first time - the discovery of ghosts, a large and angry marshmallow, and the very funny interactions of several misfits and weirdos who try to hunt them. It's not that I don't get the criticisms or that people have different opinions. The Pitch: It didn't do well at the box office.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |