Kingpin
I think we'll need more info before we can say for certain it's a direct continuation…

Given how much news has been breaking of recent I could've missed something, but as I was discussing with my mate and fellow GBNer Iain, there hasn't been anything to say this will be titled ‘Ghostbusters 3’ that I'm aware of, or that it literally picks up after Ghostbusters II.

I'm guess it's like. “ 18 Years Later”

More like 20. It probably wouldn't even be out until 2009 or 2010. All big movie sequels usually take 3 years to make for some odd reason.

3 years between all Shrek movies
3 years between Batman Begins and the new Dark Knight film
3 years between all Spider-Man films
3 years between Pirates 1 & 2(not 3 because it's filmed back-to-back)

Only exception I can think of is HP. And like someone else said, CG movies take even longer than normal. I just wanted it motion captured like how I said one page back.

The main reason for me why CGI just won't work for a Ghostbusters movie is that Ghostbusters was all about an unbeleivable situation in a very realistic setting. Gritty everyday downtown manhattan. This is what made the movie beleivable which is probably THE single most important thing Ghostbusters has to have. beleivability. I think that this can only be acheived with a live action movie.

Matthew
The main reason for me why CGI just won't work for a Ghostbusters movie is that Ghostbusters was all about an unbeleivable situation in a very realistic setting. Gritty everyday downtown manhattan. This is what made the movie beleivable which is probably THE single most important thing Ghostbusters has to have. beleivability. I think that this can only be acheived with a live action movie.

One of the best posts in this thread. I don't know on the CGI, but I will wait and see.

fixer79
Like many others here on the board, I would prefer that GBIII would not be too realistic… I'm talking Polar Express-realistic…
I ‘ve been thinking of a stylized way that might work for the movie and remembered a drawing a guy made on Deviantart… His name’s TraditionalDanimatio…

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/24412856/?qo=2&q=ghostbusters&qh=boost%3Apopular+age_sigma%3A24h+age_scale%3A5

Great, isn't it?

Sure, it's still 2D (good old 2D ), but I think a style like this would be translatable into 3D… A bit like in ‘Madagascar’… It wasn't the best CG movie ever, but it sure showed a degree of stylization never seen before in a 3D animated feature…

Whattaya think?

Lol…I like that one. It made me think “The Ghostbusters Meet The Venture Brothers”

I simply don't agree with the idea that “only a live action movie is an acceptable follow up to another live action movie”. In 1986, I had no problem accepting RGB as a legitimate extension of the first movie. And to use a far more recent, non-GB example, I had no problem accepting Cartoon Network's Clone Wars as a legitimate extension of the Star Wars movies.

Doc Fritz

fixer79
Like many others here on the board, I would prefer that GBIII would not be too realistic… I'm talking Polar Express-realistic…
I ‘ve been thinking of a stylized way that might work for the movie and remembered a drawing a guy made on Deviantart… His name’s TraditionalDanimatio…

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/24412856/?qo=2&q=ghostbusters&qh=boost%3Apopular+age_sigma%3A24h+age_scale%3A5

Great, isn't it?

Sure, it's still 2D (good old 2D ), but I think a style like this would be translatable into 3D… A bit like in ‘Madagascar’… It wasn't the best CG movie ever, but it sure showed a degree of stylization never seen before in a 3D animated feature…

Whattaya think?

Lol…I like that one. It made me think “The Ghostbusters Meet The Venture Brothers”

I simply don't agree with the idea that “only a live action movie is an acceptable follow up to another live action movie”. In 1986, I had no problem accepting RGB as a legitimate extension of the first movie. And to use a far more recent, non-GB example, I had no problem accepting Cartoon Network's Clone Wars as a legitimate extension of the Star Wars movies.

I think a decent CGI sequel of just about anything can be good if done the right way, but it's not just about that. Sequels should fit in with their predessesors both in look and in feel. Otherwise I don't think they're really true sequels.

Slightly off topic but in response to Kingpin:

in Chud's defense, I don't think it's “pretending” to be a serious news site anymore than Ain't It Cool, IGN, Joe Blo, or so on. By serious, I take it to mean straight forward journalism akin to Variety and Hollywood Reporter. Each one of those sites publishes with a very, very noticeable personality, and I would call each one of them a film blog. AintItCool, to me, is just unreadable these days for its almost utter inability to say anything negative about ANYTHING geek/fanboy related. To me, that is unreadable. IGN has a more subdued fanboy attitude, a little more on the extreme side. But not a single one of them reports something like: “Aykroyd Says GB3 in the works.” It's more like “HOLY CHRIST! GB3 COMING IN CGI!” Bad journalism? It never claimed to be journalism.

CHUD has a much different take in that everything has to prove itself. The fact that it has the name Ghostbusters, Spider-man, The Flash, 300, Frank Miller, etc etc etc attached to it means nothing if the product is bad. And while sometimes it can be snarky, it's the type of thing where you pick critics, bloggers, and reviewers by their attitudes. I read a lot of Blogs by people I totally disagree with, and then I read a lot by people who's opinions mirror mine. In terms of GB news, I totally agree with 1) his take on the Zootfly game, which ultimately has turned out to be more or less correct, and 2) his analysis of the GB3 news. The guy LOVES Ghostbusters as well, so that's in the cards too.

That guy's style is pretty cool, it reminds me of the glossy stylish cartoon films of the 90s. Here's another he did.

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/41907289/?qo=9&q=Ghostbusters&qh=boost%3Apopular+age_sigma%3A24h+age_scale%3A5

I really like it.

That is good, same guy a link to before.

http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/2007/02/02/dan-aykroyd-we-have-the-ohare-ufo-video/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alienvideo.net%2Fchicago-ohare-airport-ufo.php&frame=true