Posts filed under Movies

The On-Going Saga of Ghostbusters III

The ballad of Ghostbusters III has been sung for so long, that this logo was created by Jay Young for my old website ghostbustershq.com back in 1996...

Every other month or so, Dan Aykroyd will be out pitching his delicious Crystal Head Vodka or a new film in which he's making an appearance. And inevitably, someone will always ask him about Ghostbusters. "Tell us a story about making those films," or "What's going on with the third movie? Is it going to happen?" It's understandable, you have Dan Aykroyd the self-proclaimed heart of the Ghostbusters and a man responsible for so many memories from many of our childhoods sitting next to you. How could you resist?

Interestingly, each and every single time that he gives an answer, it spreads like wildfire. From the innocuous answer, "Well we're working on a script, maybe it'll happen" to more pessimistic views that, "it just doesn't look like it's in the cards anymore," his answers make headlines across the internet no matter what he says.

But the underlying message always unspoken, is that the on-going development hell of this film has been a story all its own.

In 1997, around the time that Sony and Bohbot Entertainment were launching a new string of syndicated animated programming dubbed "The BKN," Ghostbusters III chatter reached a fever pitch. It seemed that a new film starring Chris Farley, Chris Rock and possibly Adam Sandler (or Ben Stiller, depending on which rumors were believed) was just around the corner. Unfortunately, Farley passed away in December of 1997 and the film was put into a bit of a holding pattern.

Talks continued into the later days of the 1990s that the film would still be happening, items were just being retooled and rethought to change the direction of the Farley-centric film. But eventually around 2001, Aykroyd resigned himself to proclaim the development of the project dead. In Cinescape (thanks to the always amazing and meticulous Paul Rudoff for this archive) Aykroyd said, "it was tremendously liberating for me to go to the set of Bedazzled and say to Harold, 'Harold, we're not going to do this. I'm letting it go. I'm not going to persevere anymore. When I come to you next time it will be a whole new project.' And I went to each one of them and I said that, 'I'm never going to call you about this movie again.' So now we talk about other things."

And so that became the story for several years, it was the project that would always be looked back upon as having failed to launch for one reason or another.

Or was it?

As pre-production on Ghostbusters: The Video Game began at Terminal Reality around 2006, Aykroyd's enthusiasm for the third film was reinvigorated. Chatter began once again that the film was a possibility. And that chatter turned into a deafening roar when Bill Murray finished his voice recording on the game and seemingly enjoyed the process once again, having told David Letterman that he found himself on the streets of New York humming the Ghostbusters theme song.

Bill Murray appears to accept an award at the Spike Scream Awards in 2010... proving he's still got it.

And so it began again, hints and teases - even new screenwriters in veterans of The Office, Gene Stupnitsky and Lee Eisenberg being hired to explore an all-new draft of the screenplay to usher in a new generation of Ghostbusters.

So confident at that point was Akyroyd that he hit the talk show circuit and started proclaiming that production would be starting that Fall... sound familiar? If so because that was 2009 and the same thing was said no more than a few months ago in the Spring of 2014.

In the past five years, so much has also happened - of course the unfortunate and still incredibly sad passing of Harold Ramis, a new writer coming in to refresh the script in Etan Cohen, directors apparently having been offered the job in Chris Miller and Phil Lord (which came after Ivan Reitman announced he had removed himself as the attached director of the project). 

Just this week, while out on his press tour for the James Brown bio-pic "Get On Up", Aykroyd has been asked several times from several journalists what the status of the third Ghostbusters installment is looking like and now he's claiming that production may ramp up in the Spring. This is in contrast to an interview with Ivan Reitman shortly after Harold Ramis' unfortunate passing that the film would be starting production Fall of this year. Here's Aykroyd appearing with Carson Daly just this week:

Such is the tale of film development. It's about as easy to predict as the weather (which makes it so funny that studios are making announcements for film release dates in 2018 and beyond already). Since those first whispers of another Ghostbusters film in 1995 all the way to sitting here in July of 2014, there have been highs and lows of promise and of resignation. 

For the past twenty years or so, I've followed that journey closely like a horse race seemingly with no end and with no victor. At moments, you're on your feet cheering and exhilarated and at other times you are burying your head in your hat unable to watch because the situation is so grim.

And predictably, once every month or two when a news article hits saying "Ghostbusters III to Start Production This (Insert Time Frame)," a friend will enthusiastically come up to me and say, "TROY! OMG! HAVE YOU SEEN THIS!?!?" I'll usually respond with a very tempered, "That's awesome! Wouldn't that be cool?" Even though I know that there's far more to it than the pleasant exchange that I just had with my friend.

And then I realize that I've essentially just said what Dan Aykroyd always politely says in all of these interviews since 1996, just with different verbiage...

Carson Daly: "Hey Dan, have you heard they're making a new Ghostbusters movie?"

Dan Aykroyd: "Wow! Wouldn't that be cool?"

San Diego Comic-Con 2014... From Afar This Year

Today marks the first "preview" day of the annual San Diego Comic-Con, which runs through this weekend. And it also marks the first time in a long while that I won't be down in the midst of it all. Over the past few years, the convention has exploded to ridiculous proportions. Wall-to-wall people jockey for position on roads and sidewalks, stand in lines that make Disneyland look like a fast food drive-thru, and literally scratch and claw each other for in-demand exclusives that are near impossible to get because of the sheer amount of people.

On top of all that, SDCC has become the go-to venue for film, television, and other mainstream media to flaunt their latest wares. It's not entirely clear what a movie like Let's Be Cops has to do with comic books or any of the genres that are indigenous to conventions, but someone somewhere decided, "Hey - 13-year old and college-aged boys like comics and stuff. We've gotta get them aware of this movie!"

Which is what a lot of SDCC boils down to now: that screaming and shouting in a crowd of thousands to be noticed, to be heard, to get someone's attention just long enough to sell them a ticket and hope that they'll tell twenty or thirty of their friends. But that doesn't explain why Variety is touting Fifty Shades of Grey as a potential surprise for Comic-Con. The audience down there isn't exactly your target demographic, but hey -- hordes of people! Quick, scream and try to get everyone's attention!

The San Diego Comic-Con is about as much about comics, sci-fi and pop culture as Sundance is about independent films being screened for a niche audience. It's all become this giant-sized circus that amounts to a lot of chaos rather than the personal individualized feel that it used to have. Nothing makes introverted, socially awkward nerds more comfortable than being surrounded by masses of people that are all demanding your attention and putting you on the spot every five seconds. It's the equivalent of walking through the school halls in junior high on an inflated scale now. Surely the bubble will burst soon?

At any rate, I'm actually looking forward to observing this SDCC from a distance. In terms of the Con experience, it seems like all of the big reveals and breaks are immediately (if not before-hand) on the internet. I'm able to interact with my favorite artists and writers on Twitter and purchase prints from them online now, which gives me the same experience as meeting them at their booth in Artist's Alley and gives me the time to admire their work in detail without being jostled by those damn giant WB bags every fifteen seconds. I'm also not really one for parties unless it involves getting to go into a replica of Flynn's Arcade and getting to play classic arcade games (again... see earlier comments about social anxieties). Though I enjoyed the couple that I've been to over the years, it's not high up on the priority list.

Despite the cynicism and grimness of the above (sorry about that), I'll be covering the things that excite me coming out of San Diego this year here on SPT. All you have to do is check back here frequently or hit up the tag SDCC on SPT down at the bottom of this page to travel through the rabbit hole of SDCC goodness as it progresses.

TMNT Toys - What a Difference Nearly 25 Years Makes

Coming out of the sewers... or apparently done enough coke to make them look like you found them in the outskirts of an alley. Either way. That's why they have noses now, right?

A funny thing happened at a late-night run to Target last night. Yes, admittedly the run was made because milk (and Reese's Peanut Butter Oreos to accompany it) was needed. But as with every visit to Target, I like to cruise through the toy isle just to see what the latest trends are, what's flying off of shelves, what the Guardians of the Galaxy tie-in toys look like, and what parents can't control their screaming kids.

But last night, I stumbled across an entire endcap dedicated to the new Michael Bay-fueled Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles film and must have spent a good five to ten minutes quizzically inspecting such a bizarre sight.

Friendly neighborhood Foot Soldier is ready to turn something (ANYTHING) into swiss-cheese! (Courtesy ToysRUs.com)

The movie itself has still yet to sell me. I've been a little vocal about it in the past here on SPT. But I found it interesting how the Turtles themselves are depicted in their action figure form. And more over, how totally weirded out (technical term) I was that the Foot Soldiers all came with assault rifles and handguns. No, I'm not bringing this up for conservative political fodder, but I bring this up because it's curious that the same company Playmates Toys refused to release toys related to the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles film that was released in 1990.

Why?

Because Playmates thought that the strong violence and dark tones in the film were too strong for their core audience of kids that were buying the toys. So yes, while the 1990 film featured such violent imagery as a Foot Soldier digging a staff into an electrical wire and starting a fire and showed teenage kids engaging in robbery (and smoking "regular or menthol" cigarettes which made zero sense to me at the then ripe age of nine years old) - apparently the new Michael Bay film is AOK according to Playmates Toys.

Take a trip with me back to 1990 and an article in the Los Angeles Times:

...Lieberman points out what she sees as a crucial difference. "Ten or 20 years ago, parents were around more to give kids values, to comment about the violence (children encountered)," she said. "These days, many kids are playing with these toys in a vacuum. And kids are often angry to begin with because they are left alone."

"A toy does not cause a child to be violent," countered Teigiser of Playmates Toys. "Children are going to act out their aggression whether with their toys or their fingers."

So 20 years ago in 1990, articles and psychologists were already concerned that parents weren't instilling values on their kids and the pizza-loving, "Turtles Fight with Honor" were proving to be problematic. And they referenced their perspective of 20 years prior to that, the 1970s. But it's curious that the Playmates Toys response in this article insists that the toy has nothing to do with the violence, despite the widespread conception that the company didn't release tie-ins to the original film.

But if, in 1990, the concern was that kids were showing up to preschool dressed like the Ninja Turtles, trying to replicate what they were seeing in how they played... what will happen after a new reboot with Turtles like this fun-loving, wise-cracking, right outta a Spike Lee Joint Mikey? And does this mean that, in 1990 parents were totally neglectful but in 2014 they're all over parenting and instilling values and definitely not the type to think parenting is handing their kids an iPad to shut them up? Progress! We did it! USA! USA! USA!

Michelangelo and his Dr. Rockso counterpart.

I guess the argument could be made that the Nickelodeon animated series-focused line is still running offering an alternative to the younger kids, but it's curious that since 1990 the company that found a live-action Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles too violent is embracing this "dark, gritty, and sexy" reboot.

Again, this isn't meant to be an old man shaking his cane at the world or political discussion catalyst. But I just find the Bay Turtles fascinating and can't help just keep asking, "Why?" The whole thing will be interesting to observe, curious to see how this all shakes out. But it's worth pointing the SPT faithful toward an excellent article from and old friend, PANGEA's John Schulte, for more insight.

Classic SPT: We Are Spirits Living in a Rendered World

Jack Sully sure looks real, but that thing in the tube behind him feels a little... blue? Couldn't resist.

Another Classic Still Playing with Toys blog from all the way back on January 8, 2010. In a further effort to preserve some of the more memorable articles from the past, here now is a little blog on thoughts of CGI and its impact on the film biz from the wayback machine which still feels relevant toward my feelings of the new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles film... Enjoy.

It's okay; I can hear your groans all the way through the interwebs... someone else spewing about how CGI has ruined movies, like we haven't heard that before. But, especially after watching a few twenty to thirty year old movies over the Christmas Break, it continues to be clear to me that movies have completely lost a sense of peril after the advent of CG effects. Oh, and movies have people falling uncontrollably through the air a whole lot more than they used to...

I'm still in a pretty grim mood from seeing Robert Zemeckis' A Christmas Carol... and I saw the movie almost two months ago. You know the old adage that less is more? I really think it needs to be printed to the top of every computer monitor in Hollywood.

But let me rewind a second, I'm jumping completely ahead of myself here...

1985.

Marty McFly is stuck at a hand-painted starting line, while Doc Brown hangs perilously from the hands of the Clocktower. My palms are sweating; I'm engaged and genuinely concerned for both of these characters simultaneously. Doc confidently gets an idea and wraps the cable around the clock's minute hand, while Marty slams his head against the steering wheel in frustration... and the car mysteriously starts. Doc heroically ziplines down the cable and into the bushes - the audience cheers. The hamster running the wheel inside my brain informs me that this is awesome and I smile...

Twenty-odd years later, I'm sitting in the theater and Scrooge is falling through the air (again) hitting icicles, bails of hay, and all these other completely inhuman acts that would otherwise kill a spry teenager let alone a frail old miser. This old dude could (and should) be paste on the cobblestone streets. And, frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.

He's completely CG. He has no weight or tangibility to him. Let me set aside the fact that the story is such a mess that I don't care about him or his redemption in the first place, but I'm not engaged and I definitely am not concerned for him. Why should I be? When he hits something he's going to bounce back up like he's Gumby (dammit). My palms aren't sweating because it's abundantly clear that what I'm viewing isn't real, and it's animation that's attempting to look real, which further confuses that hamster on the wheel. 

As I was sitting watching Jurassic Park for the millionth time, I found myself wondering why I cared so much for the characters in this CG world. Why Jurassic Park, a movie made in the digital age, still made me feel like the films that were made photo chemically. 

I love the new JJ Abrams Star Trek movie, but Kirk on the ice planet getting chased by generic Cloverfield monster number twelve that we've seen CG animated doesn't get the same chemical and emotional reaction from me as the heroes in the gas powered Jeep being chased by the T-Rex ("Must go faster, must go faster..."). 

Why?

Richard Kimbel stands at the edge of a seemingly bottom-less reservoir and looks down - and I feel vertigo right there with him. But Jake Sully falling off the edge of a floating mountain tied to a winged beast doesn't elicit the same response.

Why?

Marty McFly, on his skateboard, latches onto a pickup truck and wheels through the streets of the city and waves to all the passers by and I immediately think, "I want to do that." But Scrooge attaches to the back of a horse-drawn buggy on a fully rendered (and obvious homage to McFly's mode of transportation) and skids through the streets and my reaction is a whole-hearted "meh, whatever."

Why?

I wish I knew. 

Sure, I'd bet that the most prevalent and probably winning argument out there would be that I experienced the former examples for the first time at a younger age when things were new and exciting and I wasn't conditioned to all of these exhilarating moments and events. Maybe time and age has made me so cynical that I don't connect anymore and it's just something that I have to deal with. 

But then why do I feel warm-hearted when I'm watching a movie and something emotional happens? Why do I fight back tears when the main character deals with the death of his father? I obviously have the ability to continue to connect to the characters that I'm viewing on the screen when they're human, when they're real. 

I get choked up at the end of Wall-E and at the beginning of Up... they're fully animated, so it can't be that I'm completely averse to computer generated imagery. But wait, Wall-E - a task-driven robot from the grim future is human, likable, I'm concerned for him and care about him. 

But wait, in the new Star Trek movie I connect with each and every character because they've exhibited signs of being human and I'm enjoying the ride - but the minute the hot pink snow monster starts chasing Kirk, I'm completely taken out of it. Is it because the threat doesn't seem tangible anymore? Because the monster is just a plot device of convenience rather than something that's been introduced ominously and built up to be something to fear?

Ah ha... perhaps that's it. To coin a phrase from the film I was watching that stimulated this internal conversation with myself, the filmmakers were so preoccupied with the fact that they could, they didn't stop to think if they should... 

That's great that we now have the ability in a 3D environment to have Jim Carrey fall through the Earth's inner atmosphere with his arms flailing and the clouds billowing around him. But is that really what A Christmas Carol is all about? It's incredibly perilous that Jake Sully is forced off a cliff with no means of stopping his decent, but I've been watching the CG characters climb two-mile high vines to get to that point without a care in the world, or without any effort being shown. It's obviously not that dangerous because nobody's really concerned. The threat isn't real.

CG is awesome, it's freed up a great deal of visionaries to fulfill their greatest fantasies... but if they lose sight that every human is not super human, that every creature does not need motivation, that the visual and not the story can express danger, fear, and emotion... then what's the point?  You can paint me a picture of a basketball and I'll look at it and go "hey, that looks pretty life-like, that's definitely a basketball," or you can be in the worst, foulest mood of your life and paint me a picture of a deflated basketball that's been worn and overused... and I'll definitely be able to tell the difference.

Because it'll make me feel something.