by
20 years, 3 months ago
by
20 years, 3 months ago
by
20 years, 2 months ago
by
20 years ago
Matthew
I would like to see the original Ghostbusters back for one last adventure. It does not matter that they are old and reaching retirement. Its not about looking good. The point is comedy, and if anything their advancing years will only add to the humour. Its not an action movie.
Matthew
Alot of the time the use of puppetary looks better than CGI. I have always thought that the original Slimer character was much more belivable and the marshmellowman looked completely realistic.
Matthew
I also feel that the story for the third installment should be fresh and surprising and must not be linked to the first two films.
Matthew
The original sign, jumpsuits, equipment, car and headquarters should remain the same. There is no need to change any of this. The theme music should also remain the same.
Matthew
The ghosts must be scary and look belivable and the locations should be dark and eerie.
Ivo Shandor
My saying it should probably be new actors is only to increase Ghostbusters' appeal to a new generation. The reason the first movie was so popular originally was because Murray and Aykroyd were hot young comedians at the time. Why not bring in some hot young comedians to increase the box office and make the kids show up at the theatres? Most young people today aren't fans of Murray and Aykroyd.
gbmastermanPeter KongIvo Shandor
2) The four original GBs? No, probably not. Past their time. Get some new, young actors.
If you can't get the original 4 guys in the movie, it should not be made.
I agree.
by
20 years ago
by
19 years, 12 months ago
REELMAGIK
Don't be fooled by the title of this post…I LOVE Ghostbusters and always have…BUT, can you imagine how awful GB3 would be if they made it today? Just look at all the crap that it being produced in hollywood:Star Wars Episode 1-3, The Matrix/Matrix Reloaded, T3(and I LOVE the terminator saga)…if you have taken any notice of the films being made in the past 5-8 years, they all have become heavily CGI-reliant, very fast paced, and how many many films have you seen lately that doesn't star some talentless pretty face from the music industry or wannabe badboy(Vin Diesel, who has played pretty much the same character in EVERY film he makes…“the ex-prisoner who cut a deal with the feds…” you get the point) . Movies from the 80's had INTERESTING ACTORS, who could play the parts well and had CHARACTER, not to mention, talent. How many of them looked good? Hardly any, cause it didnt matter back then…there were good stories, innovative and creative ways to tell the story, and all the effects were created by guys and girls who had to be creative, not by some guy at his computer creating a program to make all the effects for him. Now don't get me wrong, I love computers too, I'm a MAC guy, but I also know when the line should be drawn. So many effects today use CGI to accomplish what could have been easily done right there on the set. How many of you can actually say that Star Wars:Episode 1 and 2 were good films, and that the effects were really amazing? Not many, I bet…the whole film looked like a bad video game..nothing seemed real. Lucas should be banned from the film industry for destroying one of the greatest movie saga's of all time, and I thank god he is not involved in the making of Indiana Jones 4.
Anyway, to get back to my origianl point…I would rather not see GB3 made and have the two original classic films to carry on the name then see a horrible third film ruin it's reputation with pretty-faced bad actors and crappy CGI ghosts and effects.
by
19 years, 12 months ago
by
19 years, 5 months ago
by
19 years, 5 months ago
by
19 years, 5 months ago