Ghostbusters 3

Welcome to “Cast Off!” a whole new section on the Nathan Hartman blog that will play the ever fun guessing game of casting actors in film remakes, reboots, sequels, and adaptations, even if the film in question isn’t even being made.

For our first jaunt into a sea of actor head shots, lets look at a film that would be heaven to see made, but currently finds itself in the throes of development hell- “Ghostbusters 3.” While actor Dan Aykroyd says, “Yes, we will be doing the movie,” and professes that the third film has an excellent script, many in the industry feel its dead in the water simply because of Bill Murray’s reluctance in wanting to strap on that proton pack one more time to play the film’s main character Peter Venkman.

But Aykroyd says the film will be made with or without Murray and the franchise’s legacy will live on. “The concept is much bigger than an individual role,” he says, “and the promise of ‘Ghostbusters 3′ is that we get to hand the equipment and the franchise down to new blood.” So what does our Dr. Raymond Stantz mean by new blood? Probably a whole new ghostbusting crew to give the apparitions of New York a run for their money.

So who are you gonna call? How about these actors?

Bill Murray / Paul Rudd as “The Sarcastic One”

Though obviously no new actors will play old characters, thanks to Aykroyd explaining that a torch will be past between the new and old Ghostbusters, there are definitely certain characteristics that should be present in a whole new paranormal punishing team to give it that true “Ghostbusters” feel – for one, a voice of sarcasm in the vein of Murray’s Peter Venkman.

This could be done in spades by actor Paul Rudd, who has proven his comedic chops as a master of the “aside” in everything from “Knocked Up” to “Role Models.” With his ability to be either sweet or sour when a line calls for it, he could defiantly helm his own ragtag team of “busters.”

Dan Aykroyd / Jason Segel as “The Optimistic One”

With Dan Aykroyd’s character of Ray Stantz, there was always a sense of unrelenting belief in the paranormal and an almost childlike fascination with it, which helped us all to buy into the film’s world as well as enjoy it from an aspect of innocence. For Ray was almost like a “supernatualist,” who bags ghosts not to kill them but learn from them.

With the new “Ghostbusters” needing this positive albeit naive force, no better actor could be found then “How I Met Your Mother’s” Jason Segel, who just recently perfected his “awe shucks” shtick in “The Muppets” and “I Love You Sarah Marshell” and has already shown chemistry with Paul Rudd in “I Love You Man.”

Harold Ramis / Bill Hader as “The Smart One”

Every team needs a voice of reason and tech genius, Harold Ramis’s Egon Spengler was both. Slightly sardonic in his wit, but usually more aloof to society for the sake of dedicating himself to science, Spengler was always the character to help “explain” the plot forward in his own straight forward and hilarious way.

To fit this role of the “smart one,” “Saturday Night Live’s” Bill Hader fits the bill. While known by some for his more zany roles on SNL and in film,  Hader’s own particular tongue-in-cheek approach to things shined in the dramady “Adventureland” and the sci-fi road trip “Paul.” If anyone in the new team should be the gadget guy, it’s Hader.

Ernie Hudson / Kristen Wiig as “The Other One”

Though considered sort of the “Ringo” of the Ghostbuster’s team, Ernie Hudson’s Winston Zeddmore quickly became a fan favorite as well as the embodiment of the “working man’s” Ghostbuster, who’s in the business for the weekly paycheck. While Winston made a great impression, his spot could be used to shake of this boys club of busters.

Picture SNL favorite and “Bridesmaids” actress Kristen Wiig as a single working mother who’s on the team in hopes to save for her kids college fund. With the great amount of expression Wiig can convey in a single look, she could make a great tough female character, who acts as a catalyst for the funny amongst her male teammates.

Rick Moranis / Zach Galifianakis as “The Weird One”

Rick Moranis’s Louis Tully was one weird dude and a creepy neighbor to boot, who couldn’t seem to help but get wrapped up in the Ghostbuster’s shenanigans. While Moranis is one of a kind, he also has retired from show business and so that gap for the klutzy numbskull next door is left ready to be filled.

Enter Zach Galifianakis, the goofiest beard on the block. While the original “Ghostbusters” series never dealt in “heavyset humor” (unless you count the StayPuff Marshmallow Man) this new era could use itself this chubby cherub of a man, who could play some sort of amateur ghost hunter in more trouble then he can handle.

Jay Baruchel as “Oscar Barrett”

While baby Oscar, the son of Peter Venkman’s flame Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver), played a key role in “Ghostbusters II,” enough time has past that the one time youngster could be a Ghostbuster in his own right and, according to recent movie news, also possibly Venkman’s son.

While the role’s personality wasn’t really defined in its baby form, comedic performer Jay Baruchel may be able to bring just the right balance to the team if his character acts as his mother’s child and possibly a bigger voice of reason than even Hader’s Spengler-like character, much like he did as the young actor turned solider in “Tropic Thunder.”

Annie Potts as “Janine Melnitz”

“Ghostbusters! Whadda want?” I mean really, who could play the Ghostbuster’s secretary as well as Annie Potts? Nobody I say. Nobody! With the old Ghostbusters tipping their hats and heading out the door, somebody should remain from the old gang simply as an anchor for the new film franchise.

With Potts’s Janine Melnitz staying behind the desk at the old fire house, movie goers would still have that connection to their nostalgia for the old series, but not in a way that would overshadow what the new team brings. In this way, we get a new mix of hilarity as, not only would Janine remain as quippy as ever, but she would then be the oldest wisecraker on the team.

Well, if Hollywood, in its love for sequels and reboots, has anything to say, we’ll eventually see a “Ghostbusters 3″ and most likely a four, five, six. Hopefully, when the new team grabs their proton packs we’ll find their characters as appealing and lovable as the ones that came before them.

So what do you think? Who should be cast in the next “Ghostbusters” if not the ones chosen? Let us know in the comment section below!

—

To stay up to date on all of Nathan’s posts about the art and industry of cinema, check out his Facebook and Twitter pages.

A Force By Itself

Oh relentless world,
you pain and ache me
and give no love,
no hope, no breath, no life
no meaning.

You are the cruelest of taskmasters
and the evilest of slave drivers.
You bring the inspired down and lift up your lethargic.

You deliver chaos in the midst of peace
and let no man live a day
without the reminder of their mortally.

But quiver where you stand oh dark force,
oh demon of time.
For I live with love
and it melts you
like butter on toast.

Disappear bleak present
for the past reminds us of better days
and the future holds our hope for
love to come.

You can not squish it.
You can not cajole it.
You can not plead with it.
You can not make a bargain.

It is a force by itself,
so deafening as it passes,
the all for miles hear its cry.
“Live well,” it screams,
“for this world will end and the brightest of stars
will glow in its wake.”

Should Film Scores Be Considered Classical Music?

In the spring of 2009, I had the fortune of hearing John Williams, famed film composer for such classic scores as “Star Wars,” “Jaws,” and “Indiana Jones,” conduct the Los Angles Philharmonic in a night of some of his best work at the Hollywood Bowl. An event no film lover would ever forget, I found myself enjoying chord after chord of some of the most memorable orchestral music that has ever been written. Though this may seem far fetched, quickly hum as many movie themes as you can and then do the same for orchestra pieces typically categorized as “classical music.” Unsurprisingly, for most of us, the scales certainly tip in film’s favor.

Even with this being the case, many in the music community don’t consider film scores to be in the same category as the standard fare found in the genre of “classical music.” Go into any record store in the country and you’ll find these two types segregated from one other even though, in so many ways, they are two sides of the same coin. But why is this? With its large cultural footprint and similar music methods, why are film scores not categorized typically as classical music?

There are many reason given, the first being its purpose. While classical music, in the Beethoven and Mozart vein, are constructed specifically to be listened to as the main event for an audience, film scores play second fiddle (pun intended) to the the visuals being performed on the silver screen. Because of this, many find film composers to be constricted by the timing of the films they compose for while classical works are unhindered by such issues and may flourish to their fullest. Others also say that classical music stands up to deep analysis while film scores simply act as a component for the analysis of the film. Simply put, a work by Bach is looked at with no outside forces manipulating how it can be taken in while the theme for “Star Wars” can’t be played without people immediately thinking of that scrolling golden text in space.

But these issues, in my opinion, are minor at best and not enough to ignore what makes both classical music and film scores so similar- both, in most cases, are orchestrations that try to evoke emotion from their listeners. In centuries past, the concert hall was the main form of popular entertainment and it is for this reason that it has grown synonymous with the music it most featured- classical, but, as film and television have grown to become the prominent venues of the masses, it should be acknowledged that their arrangements are what is popular in orchestral music and, by being so, should be made apart of the “classical music” genre. It’s not like the sound of the music has changed, just the medium it’s enjoyed through.

But the counterpoint is still made that film scores are fenced in by the parameters of a film’s timing and, because of this, it can’t be put in line with traditional pieces. History proves this point wrong for me as well. Since the dawn of the ballet in the fifteenth and sixteenth century, musical accompaniment has been needed and, when the dance artform grew more complex so did its music, as it began to evoke the emotions of the dancers on stage and the story they were trying to tell. In this way, ballet music is held by the confines of a story, much like a film score, but, while Pyotr Tchaikovsky’s late-eighteenth century orchestrations of such ballets as “Swan Lake” and the “Nutcracker” are considered part of the long lasting tradition of classical music, the works of the Elfman’s, Newton-Howard’s, and Silvestri’s of the motion picture industry are regulated to the oddly named section of “soundtracks” in iTunes. This is unfair at best.

Throughout the centuries of classical music, many periods have arisen that have helped define the style in which orchestras played for their people and while past types, such as Baroque, Classical, Romantic have all been well established, we are still trying to fully understand what has made the orchestral periods of both the 20th and 21st centuries so unique. I believe it isn’t a far stretch to say that the film score is certainly one of the reasons and, because of this, it deserves to be included in the long history of classical music. Though not all scores have been performed by orchestras or in the “classical sense,” the works of Trent Reznor coming to mind, these deserve to be put in the genres they best fit into just as much as the string and brass driven melodies found in the works of Mancini should find their place in the classical section.

While classical music, though important, has grown unpopular on the airwaves, it is the recognition of film scores as part of its genre that would breath new life into it and help create the realization that there are not less orchestral works being made, but that there has never been a better time to get into “classical music.” The genre has shifted its gaze from the concert hall to the cinema screen and, while traditionalist may find this unsettling, this change should be embraced as an opportunity to show the world how centuries of musical composing and playing have evolved into this newest of forms- the film score.

—

To stay up to date on all of Nathan’s posts about the art and industry of cinema, check out his Facebook and Twitter pages.