Click to Skip Ad
Closing in...

Max Landis Shares 1920s Set Opening Pitch For 'Ghostbusters 3' But Denies Recent Reports He's Writing It

News
by Kevin Jagernauth
June 18, 2014 12:43 PM
11 Comments
  • |

For a movie that still has no director, no release date and seems to be forever spinning its wheels, despite tentative plans to shoot next year, there's surely been a lot written about "Ghostbusters 3." Either people are genuinely interested or they like a good story about development hell, but once again, more rumors were thrown into the pile this week. Nikki Finke reported, then quickly deleted, a story Max Landis ("Chronicle") was going to be involved in a writing capacity on the movie, something Landis quickly took to Twitter to deny in a series of tweets (collected by Slashfilm). But it's not like he doesn't have any ideas.

After some prompting from followers, Landis tweeted his "skeleton" idea for "Ghostbusters 3," sharing what his pre-credit idea for the sequel would be, with a concept that takes the storyline both into the past and future. But before we begin, you might want to know who Ivo Shandor is. He was briefly mentioned in the original "Ghostbusters," but was the main baddie in "Ghostbusters: The Video Game" (portrayed by Paul Reubens), and you'll want to hit Wikia for more. But Landis weaves him into the storyline in a pretty compelling way. Read on....

Thoughts? Remember, denials by studio folks are common and maybe Landis was on somebody's list over at Sony. Anyway, perhaps they should give the guy a ring? Let us know your thoughts and if Landis has the right idea on how to head into a third movie that will likely pass the torch to a new generation of Slimer fighters.

News
  • |

More: Max Landis, Ghostbusters 3

Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    

11 Comments

  • ciaoenrico | June 20, 2014 2:50 PMReply

    "And again 20 years later?" So this sequel would have happened 10 years ago?

    Never mind, actually - it's not like anyone wants to see a "Ghostbusters 3" anyway. Aside from Dan Ackroyd.

  • The Lachrymist | June 18, 2014 5:48 PMReply

    My only idea for a 3rd Ghostbusters, which I still think should not be made, would be Ray is the star of his own terrible SyFy paranormal show like Ghost Hunters or Paranormal Witness (similar to how he owned an occult bookstore/performed at birthday parties in the 2nd film) except the ghosts are real instead of fake like those awful shows on SyFy. The whole scene is shot documentary style with nightvision cameras (which will lampoon all the Paranormal Activity/Quarantine style films), Aykroyd walking us through some haunted place (similar to the librarian scene in the 1st film) but it's comedic because of how bad the show is and how bad Ray is at hosting. That's the best I got.

    And of course Murry should be a ghost, although it'll be weird since Ramis has actually passed away.

  • Belly Up | June 18, 2014 1:34 PMReply

    I think that would be a lovely start to a potential third film, especially if Bill Murray's reluctance to appear in a full-role would result in a cameo (as a dearly-departed Peter Venkman) and it would be nice to see the Ghostbusters coming to understand a little about the previous lives and leftover humanity (if any) of some of the ghoulies they have captured.

    He'd still be Slimer, he still would be a fat green monster who would only squeal - but they could at least have *some* connection to him as a character beyond him being a funny gag to pull out once in a while.

    I like that the three other comments on here when I typed this were all negative - as if Max Landis' bare-bone idea for the OPENING FIVE MINUTES of a MOVIE THAT DOES NOT EXIST is enough to base what an entire Ghostbusters 3 script from him would be like - pathetic.

    And 'Meh' - Ghostbusters was a comedy, but when Dana is getting manhandled and her chair is thrown violently into the blazing light of Gozer's dominion, that wasn't exactly comedic now, was it?

  • Daniel | June 19, 2014 1:31 PM

    Belly Up - the old librarian getting scared out of her wits establishes a 'spooky' tone for contrast; it sets up the rest of the movie to riff off of audience preconceptions of a ghost movie, and the humor often comes from how matter-of-fact our protagonist's responses are to it. Opening with someone being murdered -- that isn't 'spooky,' that's either arch (ala Agatha Christie) or just plain grim, depending on how you do it. And you're not establishing a ghost movie, you're establishing a supernatural cult killer movie. That's my first problem with it.

    My other big problem is that this is exactly the kind of idea that sounds clever the first time you hear it, and then after about five seconds of thought you're like, "No, wait a second, that kind of ruins a lot of other stuff." As a viewer I don't want the movie to tell me WHO Slimer is or where he came from, because imagining that for myself allows me to engage in the movie a bit and be part of the creative process, as a viewer. It's the kind of 'now we will explain these things you didn't really want the answers to' thinking that detracted so much from the Star Wars prequels.

  • Meh | June 18, 2014 7:26 PM

    You're arguing with a stranger on the internet over a Max Landis half-assed and dull idea he tweeted about to a movie no one wants to see that he's also not writing.

    And yeah, that opening to Ghostbusters was hilarious. All visual, too.

  • Belly Up | June 18, 2014 5:01 PM

    " You set the tone with your opening scene and that's a poor way to start a sequel to Ghostbusters."

    You set *A* tone, one particular of many, in the opening scene. God, the films you watch must be so monotonous and dull. One singular tone that the film keeps banging on 'til it's conclusion? That's what you want?

    I recall the opening of the first Ghostbusters being an old librarian getting scared outta her wits. Really sets that comedic tone that is reinforced by Bill Murray and the rest of the cast... Oh wait, no it doesn't. It introduces the horror/supernatural aspect of the film before we meet the main characters and the main aspects of the plot.

    Or do you just forgo remembering the actualities and facts of things (in this case, the original two Ghostbusters movies) to back up your unsolicited and ill-thought advice to a successful screenwriter?

  • Meh | June 18, 2014 4:24 PM

    You set the tone with your opening scene and that's a poor way to start a sequel to Ghostbusters.

  • Maxwell | June 18, 2014 1:23 PMReply

    What a horrible idea.

  • Meh | June 18, 2014 1:02 PMReply

    Ghostbusters was a comedy. He's clearly confused what genre the franchise is set in.

  • rabiman | June 18, 2014 1:00 PMReply

    So now Hollywood's obsession with character prequel origin stories is going to extend to f'g Slimer! He's a green f'g blob! He has no origin story. No one wants to know his origin story or that its connected to Gozer. How about this: either don't do GB III or create a wholly separate story in the same world, same rules, without any of the orignal characters. Christ, GBII plot had more originality than Landis' pitch.

  • Dummy Dum Dums | June 18, 2014 1:36 PM

    The plot of Ghostbusters II was also for the entire running time of a feature-length movie - you're getting hysterical over the first five minutes of a potential script that doesn't even exist.

    I.E: It's not a 'pitch', it's an opening.

Email Updates