Well actually, since there is already an animated Star Wars film, the continuity thing is already kind of messed up.

exactly my point.

I think that it is perfectly understandable that if the third Ghostbusters movie was made into an animated movie that STORYWISE there wouldn't necessarily be a problem with the continuity. However in terms of FEEL, an animated sequel just wouldn't feel at all the same in my opinion. It would just feel like a totally seperate movie to the first two, not in terms of story, but in terms of feel. Aside from that, in my opinion a Ghostbusters movie just wouldn't be as good as an animated movie. The first two blended normal everyday characters in a mundane real world setting with the exraordinary. I just don't think that element wouldn't work nearly as well in an animated movie.

How about Kevin James? I think he would be a pretty good and funny Ghostbuster.

He could work but it might he might be hard to work in. Also he has a more slap stick physical comdey to him as oppose to the ghostbusters having a sutle comdey. Where the jokes are funny without needing a pie or a slap to the face.

I could actually see him more as the goofy neighbor type or the accountant or… wait… don't we have one of those?

Personally, I think he is HI-larious but not a fit for this movie. Which is a perfect example as to why you can't just pluck a funny person up, put that person in a comedy and expect it to work. There are different kinds of funny.

Big Twinkie;133820
I could actually see him more as the goofy neighbor type or the accountant or… wait… don't we have one of those?

Personally, I think he is HI-larious but not a fit for this movie. Which is a perfect example as to why you can't just pluck a funny person up, put that person in a comedy and expect it to work. There are different kinds of funny.

Yeah but I would rather have him join the cast, then some of the stoner/vulgar type comedians that where suggested earlier.

Kojak;134001
Yeah but I would rather have him join the cast, then some of the stoner/vulgar type comedians that where suggested earlier.

While this is true, vulgarity (is that a word) kinda depends on the writing. I mean George Carlin wasn't vulgar when he was the conductor on Thomas the Tank Engine and kids ate him up. That's not to say that writing is the only reason someone is vulgar but if it isn't in the script and the director wants no part of it, then it won't be in the movie.

Big Twinkie;134005
While this is true, vulgarity (is that a word) kinda depends on the writing. I mean George Carlin wasn't vulgar when he was the conductor on Thomas the Tank Engine and kids ate him up. That's not to say that writing is the only reason someone is vulgar but if it isn't in the script and the director wants no part of it, then it won't be in the movie.

absolutely - people really need to get over this idea that actors can only play by type. It isn't true of any of the original GBs, who were in fairly ‘vulgar’ roles themselves before Ghostbusters was released, and neither is it true of any of the modern comedians suggested. Sure, we may not have seen them in those sorts of roles, but it certainly doesn't mean they can't play them.

robbritton;134009
absolutely - people really need to get over this idea that actors can only play by type. It isn't true of any of the original GBs, who were in fairly ‘vulgar’ roles themselves before Ghostbusters was released, and neither is it true of any of the modern comedians suggested. Sure, we may not have seen them in those sorts of roles, but it certainly doesn't mean they can't play them.

Totally agree. People are too caught up in what characters these guys have played.

Which if you think about it, should be proving to people that they're good actors. If you think that they're actually that vulgar and stupid stoners… they're playing the parts pretty well.