Ponder.

[chadu]

Ghostbusters with a live John Belushi.

Better or worse?

Think.

Comments

[lysystratae]

As opposed to a dead John Belushi?

[nikotesla]

... cuz that would be awesome.

[wombattery]

What with, y'know, the ghosts and all.

[nixieq]

ZomBelushi!

[ratmmjess]

Worse. We need the monsters to chew the scenery, not the actors.

[chadu]

John could actually act, given the chance.

[ratmmjess]

Point, but I don't think Ghostbusters would have been a film that brought that side out of him.

[kobold]

A different movie - probably very funny, just different.

[chadu]

Agreed.

[nvdaydreamer]

Mmm. Worse. Maybe not very much, but the balance in the performances would definitely be altered, and I like the balance as it is. It seems to me you'd have to graft Ray's personality to a Belushi-played Venkman, and let Ackroyd play straight man. Which he does well, but I like Murray's attitude better for that, with Ackroyd doing the somewhere-near-the-deep-end enthusiasm.

[chadu]

Nice analysis.

I'd see Belushi fighting between his Blutarski-mode acting and the performance he gave in Continental Divide.

I think a Belushi Venkman would be cool, but would be SO different from Murray Venkman that this whole consideration goes orthagonal.

Still fun to ponder.

[nvdaydreamer]

[donpardo]And now, another installment of SAMURAI GHOSTBUSTER... [/donpardo]

[od_mind]

Worse. Any change to perfection is necessarily worse.

Less flippantly, Belushi had the wrong kind of humor for that script. IMHO.

[chadu]

I'm not sure. Initial drafts were all Ackroyd and Belushi. (according to WIRED/Woodward.)