Lol, why is everyone being so paranoid? its under the original creators hands, Harold and Dan wrote the story out, the office writers are filling in the blanks, Ivan is interested in directing, they know GB2 was too SFX-heavy, and Harold isnt a fan of those big explosion heavy movies that have been coming out, so he knows where to take the film. If the franchise is mostly owned by the original creators chances are it cant be ‘hollywoodized’. Dont you think if Sony was just trying to shell out crap, why would they invest to make a quality video game? a VIDEO GAME.

If your george lucas, then maybe you'll throw in everything you can possibly think of, Indy was terrible because George Lucas completely lost his mind. Die Hard 4 was terrible because it was all new writers, all new producers, and an all new director.

Slimer388;156709
Lol, why is everyone being so paranoid? its under the original creators hands

Because this is Hollywood we are talking about. A franchise being under the helm of the original creators means jack shit. The original creators do not always know what is best for their franchise…look at Lucas and Episode One for Christ Sake.

CrimsonGhostbuster;156708
Uh, have you seen “District 9”? Whole movie was nothing but CGI-crafted aliens, spaceships, and explosions and it was absolutely beautiful and had enough human drama in it to let the viewer grow emotionally attached to the characters.

Any posts that go, “Meehhh! It's gonna be nothing but CGI shots!” can kiss my white Irish ass. Are you saying you would rather have cheesey stop-motion animation like the giant yellow ghost in GBII come back? Assuming Reitman goes with a GOOD production company like Mojave instead of whoever crapped out “My Super Ex-Girlfriend”, we're in good hands.

All I'm saying is: if it does happen, accept the fact that yes, ghosts will be CGI. Deal with it. However if they even make the blankety-blank movie, they're not going to skip on the CGI cause that's what's going to make or break it with the fans and the critics. Remember “10,000 BC”? Most of the critics were blasting it because the creatures looked like cartoon characters.

Let's not forget: most of the actors have a history of improv, so if a joke or a line in the script is weak, we all know that they can come up with at least three different ways to say it or come up with something completely new, i.e. Sigourney's car salesman line.

Well I think many people would argue with the statement that District 9 was a big budget, “hollywood” cookie cutter movie. If I recall correctly, District 9 was made for around $30 million (exactly what it cost to make GB 25 years ago). It also had practically no marketing budget and was produced by independent studios…

GB had good effects for 1984 but it also had a strong story idea and good dialogue. Ghostbusters 3 is a sequel and therefore not as fresh by definition. No one will ever be able to replicate the “magic” that occurred on the set during the production of GB1. If they could, we'd all be talking about Ghostbusters #25 not #3. People with shallow, insipid tastes in movies might like wall to wall CGI, but I, for one, do not.

I never said that movies with CGI suck; that would mean every movie made within the last 20 years sucks. I said movies that are all CGI suck and I stand by that. GB 1 had a good balance of comedy and effects. As a matter of fact, I'd probably say the ratio of effects to comedy in GB1 would probably be 1:20 (ie 1 effect for every 20 jokes). GB2 probably reversed that. There are probably more special effects in the montage of GB2 than there were in the first hour of GB1. I can't imagine GB3 being made today without there being more special effects in the opening 5 minutes of the movie than there were in both GB1 and GB2 put together.

JamesCGamora;156710
Because this is Hollywood we are talking about. A franchise being under the helm of the original creators means jack shit. The original creators do not always know what is best for their franchise…look at Lucas and Episode One for Christ Sake.

my post already mentioned George Lucas. the problem he had…. was insanity, too much money he thought he could do what ever he wanted to the movies, didnt care for the story or the franchise cause he'd get every penny back either way.

Dan and Harold, know where they are as writers and actors, and where to take the story of the characters and the franchise itself.

And above all, they're Comedians, not overly ambitious Sci-Fi dweebs like Lucas.

Lucas thinks special effects can make a movie, Dan and Harold dont.

I realize your post already mentioned Lucas, but he is the best example I could think of…that and I wanted to reiterate that the man is bug nuts now.

While I have to agree that Dan and Harold are far more mentally stable and down to earth than Lucas, even they could theoretically go too far…but then again that’s true of everyone

I don't think Dan Aykroyd is as committed to Ghostbusters as he may have been back in 1984. He's branched out into so many different sectors of business that he's spread himself a little too thin. I doubt he has the same level of enthusiasm and “fire in the belly” that he did back then… It happened on GB2. The script wasn't as imaginative as GB1 and the writing wasn't there either. If GB2 was that lackluster 5 years later, imagine what 20 years and and about 20 inches around the waistline will do. He's already too lazy to write his own script so he farmed it out to someone else. If GB3 is made, I'm sure they'll all just farm out their respective roles too and phone in mediocre performances. They are all past their prime and continue to coast on their names and reputations. Murray is doing nothing but voice over roles. Ramis, well let's just say, did anyone see Year One? Aykroyd is only interested in selling his wine and promoting his father's new book. Reitman has been in a rut since the mid 90s… Anyone remember his latest movie, My Super Ex Girlfriend? No, didn't think so…

StayinPuft;156754
I don't think Dan Aykroyd is as committed to Ghostbusters as he may have been back in 1984. He's branched out into so many different sectors of business that he's spread himself a little too thin. I doubt he has the same level of enthusiasm and “fire in the belly” that he did back then… It happened on GB2. The script wasn't as imaginative as GB1 and the writing wasn't there either. If GB2 was that lackluster 5 years later, imagine what 20 years and and about 20 inches around the waistline will do. He's already too lazy to write his own script so he farmed it out to someone else. If GB3 is made, I'm sure they'll all just farm out their respective roles too and phone in mediocre performances. They are all past their prime and continue to coast on their names and reputations. Murray is doing nothing but voice over roles. Ramis, well let's just say, did anyone see Year One? Aykroyd is only interested in selling his wine and promoting his father's new book. Reitman has been in a rut since the mid 90s… Anyone remember his latest movie, My Super Ex Girlfriend? No, didn't think so…

I'm with StayinPuft on this one…I'm curious to know if Sony is behind the new Yogi Bear movie. I think Sony is trying to make Aykroyd's name mean something again, like in the late 70's to mid 80's. With mild successes by ‘89 or so, receiving his Oscar Nod (but to me that was his cue to leave Hollywood). If so, the film is coming out summer of 2010, one year before Ghostbusters 3 (if Ernie Hudson was telling the truth, with his GBIII Maybe 2011 release date).

We’ll just have to see how good GB 3 is on opening day, of if you're like myself, you'll get to go to the focus group or get to see an advance screening of the film.

Sorry if my thoughts are incoherent, it's just a ramble, as I just came home from work.