I find it funny when it comes to Indy 4, Rocky Balboa, GB3, etc… Whenever you listen to people talk about how old they are, they act like the guys are in their 90s and making the films, walking around with canes. Tend to exaggerate how old the actors really are. I mean mid-fifties, early-sixties is up there, but thats still 8-14 years before most of them are even 70.

bizdog
And once again, I disagree Mellie - I think there'd be something hilarious and yet friggin awesome about seeing the guys past their prime having to struggle on the backpacks, because despite the effects of time, they're the only guys who can save the world.

Exactly! They're not young or good looking. They're not superheroes. They're regular guys. They're older, they're unfit, they're unconventional! That's part of what makes Ghostbusters funny and it's one of the reasons why the characters are loved.

Doc Fritz

bizdog
And once again, I disagree Mellie - I think there'd be something hilarious and yet friggin awesome about seeing the guys past their prime having to struggle on the backpacks, because despite the effects of time, they're the only guys who can save the world.

Lol…the only problem is, half the movies with that plot end up with them all dying at the end.

Though that would short-circuit most speculation about a GB4.

WTH? What movies had the returning old heroes die?

Mellie
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xqrf0g7mJ4M
bill on letterman for those who missed it

thanks a bunch

Doc Fritz

But hey, he has a suit :p

(*egon) –He has MY suit…

ha ha good one :p

Matthew
Exactly! They're not young or good looking. They're not superheroes. They're regular guys. They're older, they're unfit, they're unconventional! That's part of what makes Ghostbusters funny and it's one of the reasons why the characters are loved.

yeah… Back in the Saddle anyone?

we're not really sure if this is really happening or not. so im excited and then again im not, i mean, how many times before did we hear Dan bring up GB3 one way or another?

this could be just an idea that Dan has, and not a definate project in the works, and could be crushed to the ground like all the other GB3 ideas.

but then again, he has announced it in a few interviews so it could be on the horizon. and Bill is interested.

dont get me wrong, on the inside, im doin flips and drinkin champagne. but something in the force, tells me this is gonna be a let down. just like all the other hype ups for our hopefull sequal.

We don't know what it's going to look like yet. Heck, honestly we don't really know if this is even going to happen. Save the complaints, as Mellie also said, for when we have some actual material to critique.

*Understandable, but it was just a rant - My opinions - Nothing more…I know I have no clout in the decisions made about ANYTHING in the future of our beloved franchise, however I do have the right to speak and express my feelings as a member of this board…Having said that, yes you are right - There's nothing to “critique” at the moment, so it's all conjecture at this point in the game…

Photo realism takes a lot more time and money. And not being photo realistic does not mean “kiddified”. We agree that making it look like Jimmy Neutron wouldn't work, but there is a middle ground. The best example I can think of is a 2-D one: the Batman cartoon from the 90's. Certainly not photo-realistic, but it didn't look like the Smurfs either.

*Here's where I disagree - Anything less than that would BE “cartoony” and a sharp decline from the previous live-action…The WB's “Batman: TAS” was “stylized” and even blatantly “cartoony” at times…No, not like the aforementioned “Smurfs” but none the less “cartoony”…

The RGB cartoon ran for seven years. It was the most successful cartoon spin-off of a movie of all time. It was a part of the GB phenomenon in the Eighties second only to the first movie itself, and brought a great many fans to the franchise. Frankly, to this day I think some of the early episodes were better thought out and written than the movie sequel, with it's retread plot and incomprehensibly stupid characterization changes.

*Again I agree with the "RGB-had-better-writing-than-GBII“…And I again never said I wasn't a fan of the series or ”discredited it's validity to the franchise as a whole"- Quite the contrary…I wouldn't have blown $30 on Argentinian-borne RGB PVC's on eBay about a month ago if I didn't…However, despite the fact that it is a great series, and extention of the movies, as we know it right now it's "GBIII“ and not ”RGB - The Movie" nor a stand-alone movie based on the original canon…Until the day comes where it is said officially otherwise, anything short of the first movie will get a "thumbs-down“ in my book…A ”nod“ or ”tip of the hat" to RGB I'd love…Borrowing the style completely that's another story…And I know you love your RGB Fritz - So my apologies…

And to reiterate the above point: we only have the one reference from Aykroyd; the final result may be different. I would be overjoyed if Aykroyd himself says “We're using the cartoon likenesses because it avoids the problems with Bill AND we know lots of kids grew up with that show”. Though I honestly expect that the end result will be actor caricatures like the 88MPH comic.

*And I'd be happy with the latter - As it's close as hell to the original source material…Well aside from the weird “charactarization” of Louis - Now THAT was strange…

We don't even know if this movie will really be called Ghostbusters 3. They're clearly going into it with Aykroyd and his GB3 scenario in mind, but the end result may be completely different. I suppose if they release it simply as Ghostbusters In Hell some of you will start bitching about “But that means it's not the real GB3!!!”

*Quite the contrary - They could make it a regular cartoon series and I'd be happy - As long as it didn't bill itself as “a logical-extension-of-the-pre-existing-live-action-films”…I.e. “GBIII” aka “The official next-in-line to the Murray/Ramis/Aykroyd/Hudson collaborations”…That's what I'm worried about…

I mean, after all, the new Turtle movie, while it continues the continuity of the three live action films, is NOT called TMNT 4

*Nope - But all us old fans know what it is, and when it's suppossed to happen in relation to the previous films…The “4” in the title is irrelevent…"Die Hard" never had numbers or numerals in it's titles, but people knew what installment they were going to see when they came out…Even some of the younger fans on www.youtube.com posting the new trailer over and over are billing it as "TMNT 4"…

Aging fans often forget: the kids were a big part of the phenomenon. It's the exact same thing which happened to Star Wars. Kids who loved the antics of R2-D2, C-3PO, and the Ewoks in the original trilogy grew up to be adults who bitch and moan about the antics of R2-D2, C-3PO, and Jar Jar Binks in the prequels, even thought they're pretty much the same.

*Look - “Fanboys” will be “Fanboys”…That's why we have boards like this…But, kids became the focal point of the GB phenomenon more-so when the animated series dropped, so-much so that by the time GBII DID materialize, it became “watered down” as a result, and factored-in to why it was such a “lackluster” sequel…Slimer being nice?…No cigarettes, drinking, or swearing?…The “adult humor”?…All were absent because of this…And let's not forget “Slimer & The Real Ghostbusters” and all the angry letters to NOW! Comics back-in-the-day because “The Real Ghostbusters” was “too scary” for their children…ANd that's my point - I'm not argueing their importance in the big-scheme of things, but the original “Ghostbusters” was aimed more at adults, and yes - I am aware that Ivan didn't want to make it “too outright frightening” or “crude” as he wanted to be able for kids to enjoy it as well…But it wasn't “stripped” of it's “adult slant” either, as where GBII and the latter half of RGB was…And I don't want this to happen again…

Should it be dumbed down or made harmless? Of course not. Lots of kids saw the first movie, and it wasn't dumbed down or harmless. That being said, it shouldn't be an R-rated gorefest either. The best way to build the fandom is to hook in the next generation: something that isn't “kiddified”, but not something the kids shouldn't be able to see either.

*See? - You DO understand me on some level:p…

More than anything, though…after the iBooks and 88MPH debacles, be glad that we might be getting something.

*True - But that doesn't mean that one has to “settle” for “sub-standard fare” pr the “fleecing” of one's favorite and cherished films and characters…

I must say, I'm getting so unbevieably annoyed at reading peoples threads about it being CG.

The bottom line is, Bill Murray has agreed to do it. Remember how he refused to do anything GB realted for such a long time because his love for the series and his character, he didn't want to be apart of something that would ruin the GB franchise. Yet, Dan Akyord is now onto something that he has agreed to do. So it must be a pretty damn fucking good thing if he is going to be apart of it. There isn't a shadow of doubt in my mind that GB3 will be anything but good.

*After this - I'm done with this thread until something more substantional regarding whatever Dan has in mind for the furtherment of the franchise for me to sink my teeth into comes along…But again “yes - It's good that we might be getting something new”, but “No - Doesn't mean it has to be crap”…

*And the way the GB franchise and all that is concerned with it has been treated in the years since, I'm not holding my breath (*egon) …

*Again - My “two cents” nothing more…Take it as you wish (*peter) …

*Cheers.

*Look - “Fanboys” will be “Fanboys”…That's why we have boards like this…But, kids became the focal point of the GB phenomenon more-so when the animated series dropped, so-much so that by the time GBII DID materialize, it became “watered down” as a result, and factored-in to why it was such a “lackluster” sequel…Slimer being nice?…No cigarettes, drinking, or swearing?…The “adult humor”?…All were absent because of this…And let's not forget “Slimer & The Real Ghostbusters” and all the angry letters to NOW! Comics back-in-the-day because “The Real Ghostbusters” was “too scary” for their children…ANd that's my point - I'm not argueing their importance in the big-scheme of things, but the original “Ghostbusters” was aimed more at adults, and yes - I am aware that Ivan didn't want to make it “too outright frightening” or “crude” as he wanted to be able for kids to enjoy it as well…But it wasn't “stripped” of it's “adult slant” either, as where GBII and the latter half of RGB was…And I don't want this to happen again…

Ya'know, I never thought about it that way.

But I'm not reall excited anymore. Been let down too many times before, I'll till we get a little heavier news.

I just had a thought. Do you think Ivan Reitman had prior knowledge from Dan Aykroyd that Aykroyds intention was to have Ghostbusters III as a CGI movie? Here's an interview from about five months ago on Empire.

Read this!

http://www.empireonline.com/interviews_and_events/interview.asp?IID=557

Looking forward, word is slowly building about Ghostbusters in Hell. Have you heard anything new about that?
Ghostbusters In Hell well the script that Dan Aykroyd has written, and we have been in discussion with Sony Columbia about it whether it’s going to be that script. But there seems to be renewed interest in doing another Ghostbusters in some new fresh way, put it that way. We’ll see where it goes.

Personally I think Dan and Ivan had a little talk about it some while ago.

You know, I thought this board was about posting our thoughts, but now I am labeled a “whiney bitch”. Mellie, piss off. Your “generalization” frankly is a slap in the face and an insult, could be a pesonal attack. I have seen many banned on forums for that. I grew up on Ghostbusters, I remember when Back to The Future came out. No, I am not a newer ghostbusters fan I was there when it happened, and I assume MANY are like me. I am excited on this announcement BUT (yes I say that alot) CGI is a BIG GAMBLE ok?! CGI has been done in SO many ways, that if this isn't done right, then GB3 will be lame sequel just to shut us fans up. Do you want that? No you don't. Also Bill Murray pisses me off so much. He forgets the fans and won't touch GB with a ten foot pole, but NOW he will? WHY? Cause he can just voice the character and not do much WORK? I think that is the main reason. Everybody can post, quote me and what not (I will not tolerate harassment so don't go there) but Bill Murray has held GB3 back far to long and now he gets off his ass to do this? Something isn't right here. I am wondering if Dan just backed down to CGI cause Bill has done Garfield. Bribing Bill to do this and while deminishing Dan's vision of GB3 (if that is the case here) is the reason many of us are not jumping up and down on this. So maybe this explains a few things and I hope many keep their opinions and name calling to themselves. I don't want a flame war but I will NOT tolerate being called names because my opinion didn't suit somebody.

quit the whining dude… besides, she already said that it was just a generalization… you're not a target or anything… just calm down