Harold Ramis Calls KOCS "A Disaster..."

James

Well-known member
I like Ramis too much to point out the irony of making such a statement while promoting Year One.

However, it is interesting to hear him talk about GB3 in the same way that Lucas and Spielberg addressed KOTCS (ie. "We don't need to do it"; "Bring bring fresh thoughts to it" "Look at it in a new context"; "It will be more classic than modern"; etc.)
 
Last edited:

Col. Detritch

New member
I have no Idea why he would make such a statement about Indy! Directed by Steven Speilburg and Produced/ Created by George Lucas! two of the biggest names in Hollywood. Plus I've read about GB3 and I ain't any better. Actually being an Indy (Indy 4) fan myself, Indy is way better. Nuf-said!:hat:
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
He's right. Something is lost when CG is used, especially when it's too much. This has been talked to death already on this forum, but I think some 'spirit' is lost in the movie making process when it comes to CG. If they wanted to they could make another movie on par with Raiders, but it seems they don't want to.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Col. Detritch said:
I have no Idea why he would make such a statement about Indy! Directed by Steven Speilburg and Produced/ Created by George Lucas! two of the biggest names in Hollywood.
Unable to find the argument.



<small>And this wasn't an assault against the film, I like KotCS.</small>
 

Darth Vile

New member
Of course Harold Ramis is welcome to an opinion, but IMHO, he is himself associated with some very sub par movies e.g. Ghostbusters 2, Bedazzled, Year One etc. etc... Besides, I think his underlying comment is sound i.e. that sequels are, to a large extent, somewhat inferior. KOTCS is no exception. As much as I enjoy it, it is inferior to Raiders. I don't think acknowledging that point automatically relegates KOTCS to the "poor" movie category, just that it's not in the same league as the first movie.

What Ramis means by "disaster", I'm not too sure. If we take him at his word, then he needs some objectivity. KOTCS was broadly popular with critics and cinema goers alike. By no means was it a "disaster" (unless he is meaning some underlying significance).
 
tambourineman said:
Ramis was responsible for Caddyshack 2 and Analyse That. I dont think he should call anyone elses sequel a disaster!

Talk about destroying/selling out an iconic (comedy) movie. I agree with his stance on CS, I still get enjoyment from the film,but I appreciate his comments.

However, maybe he should focus on that big S#it sandwich that was Caddyshack 2 before slamming someone else.

Thanks Tambourineman, for bringing perspective...:hat:
 

Darth Vile

New member
Mickiana said:
He's right. Something is lost when CG is used, especially when it's too much. This has been talked to death already on this forum, but I think some 'spirit' is lost in the movie making process when it comes to CG. If they wanted to they could make another movie on par with Raiders, but it seems they don't want to.

If they could "make another movie on par with Raiders", there would be a thousand similar movies out there of equal quality/inspiration. The fact that you can't simply replicate good movies is what sort of makes them good in the first place. ;)
 

James

Well-known member
Darth Vile said:
he is himself associated with some very sub par movies e.g. Ghostbusters 2

Back in 1989, Ackroyd and Ramis actually spent a lot of time talking about how careful they were in approaching GB2. They repeatedly stressed that they didn't want to make an inferior sequel, and basically trotted out the same "law of diminishing returns" argument.

I'm looking forward to GB3, but I'll be very surprised if it doesn't generate a backlash. Much like Indy, fanboys will always have that nagging "What if it had happened in the 90's?" question looming in their minds. The fact that they're going with a "younger Ghostbusters/passing the torch" storyline will likely be an issue as well.
 

Forbidden Eye

Well-known member
Harold Ramis has lost it... he has just lost it.

Was he really saying he enjoyed Spider-man 3 more than Indy 4? If so, he needs his head examined(on top of making Year One of course, which sounds pretty dreadful).

Still trying to digest this is coming from the man who made Groundhog Day.

Still mildly hoping for a Ghostbusters 3. Sadly I'm loosing faith.
 

DocWhiskey

Well-known member
I'm a very big Ghosthead and I love Ramis despite his subpar efforts as of late, but it seems almost trendy to bash Indy 4. It doesn't even bug me. In fact, if interviews don't mention how Indy 4 "sucked' in some way, I'm actually surprised.

Ramis's approach to GB3 seems to be the same as Spielberg's approach to KOTCS. Which, to me, means fans would find it enjoyable if they stop being such whiny little critics.

With all this talk of GB3, I'm getting excited and hope they make one. And thanks to GB2 my expectations are low.
 

Darth Vile

New member
James said:
Back in 1989, Ackroyd and Ramis actually spent a lot of time talking about how careful they were in approaching GB2. They repeatedly stressed that they didn't want to make an inferior sequel, and basically trotted out the same "law of diminishing returns" argument.

I'm looking forward to GB3, but I'll be very surprised if it doesn't generate a backlash. Much like Indy, fanboys will always have that nagging "What if it had happened in the 90's?" question looming in their minds. The fact that they're going with a "younger Ghostbusters/passing the torch" storyline will likely be an issue as well.

I hear you. To be honest, I think Ackroyd, Ramis et al will have an easier time surpassing Ghostbusters 2... it would be difficult for it to get any worse. ;)
Dare I say it, but Ghostbusters wasn't that great. It's largely carried by the fun premise, great soundtrack and Bill Murray's always watchable performance. As you mention, I'd be amazed if GB3 doesn't center on the passing of the torch to Venkman Jnr (the rumored Jack Black role).
 

James

Well-known member
Darth Vile said:
It's largely carried by the fun premise, great soundtrack and Bill Murray's always watchable performance.

One problem they ran into with the sequel was that the novelty had already worn off. Much like the Indy series, Ghosbusters was just a very fun, lightweight movie. The plot is wafer-thin, there's not a great deal of character development, and it relies heavily on a big, effects-driven finale.

In other words, it's not something that lends itself to a modern reinvetion ala Batman. The fate of Ghostbusters 3 will likely depend on which version of Bill Murray shows up. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that he's going to be accused of cashing a paycheck- regardless of how seriously he actually takes the role.
 

QBComics

Active member
Darth Vile said:
I'd be amazed if GB3 doesn't center on the passing of the torch to Venkman Jnr (the rumored Jack Black role).

*chokes on food*

Where the hell did this rumor come from?!
 

wolfgang

New member
I think what he is actually saying is that sequels suck in general. (Which I disagree). But he is practically saying they can't make GB3 better than the first. ANd then he gives out examples of movies that are not his own, (like Indy). Which he shouldn't do because he isn't a critic, and because he should know how hard it is to make a movie.

As for GB3, I'm really excited. I think the passing of the torch thing could work if done right with GB. Just think.....New GBs: Bent Stiller, Seth Rogen, Jack Black, Dave Chapell, and Steve Carell........no???? Oh well...I'll be up for it.
 

robert knippels

New member
I am a big ghostbusters and indiana jones fan. I do hope that we will see another ghostbusters movie. But I don't think they can top the original. I think that Harold Ramis is right that these days filmmakers use too much CGI and that there isn't much of a story in it. I also think that he was right that indy 4 was a disaster. I love the indy movies but the last one did miss something and was in some ways to much over the top. Specially since they got 19 years to work out a new story. And if I look at the comics stores they made in the past there where a few stories that would be great for a movie. I've heard rumours about an Indy 5. If they will ever make it I hope that they will go back to the style of the first three movies and a good story.

Best regards,

Robert
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
Darth, it's a tortuous point for me to digest i.e. that replication of a good movie might not be possible. I've bleated my woes too many times about this issue already and so it is with a heavy heart I'm almost ready to concede to your point. When I imagine that another 'on par with Raiders' movie should be possible, it may just be idealism or longing telling me that "they can do it!" I suppose I cannot imagine the many many factors that 'steer' a movie in the direction it ends up going, especially blockbusters from Hollywood that have such a heritage. Is Raiders the best because it was the first, or does it have intrinsic qualities that, for some reason, don't seem to find their fulfillment in sequels?
 
Top