Yes, but that is traditional special effects, a procedure that is long forgotten and gave heart and image to the films. Traditional SFX and a CGI film are two very separate entities.

What made the GB films great, were seeing the cast work well off one another, also the comedic effect of combining the quirky characters with the special effects, it was balanced out, a CG film thats all computer animation and not just areas of the effects work, would take away from that. it would take away what made the first two so special. This isnt Shrek, its Ghostbusters.

Even though, the game is CGI, and it will be chock full of funny moments, and it looks great. BUT, id still prefer Live Action, theres so much more you can do with real life expressions and actions and gestures, then you can in animation, and like i said, what made the first two great, was the balancing of real life quirky characters with the special effects. and Why have a CG film, when you already have a 5 hour CGI game of Ghostbusting? Why would i want to watch 100 minutes of cartoon ghostbusters when i can just put on RGB, i already saw an animated “Ghostbusters 3” it was called “Back in the Saddle” parts 1 and 2, like i said before, I didnt wait almost 15 years to see a cartoon. i want to see a MOVIE.

Again, you don;t have to be so defensive and rip my head off man. Geez calm down…what if you combined the two?

What I mean is, it is possible to digitally alter someone's appearance to make them look younger including make-up. Or would this too much for you?

I don't think the whole concept of “a whole new batch” of Ghostbusters would work for me. Maybe one new recruit like the game, but not like Extreme Ghostbusters.

Louis Tully probably won't be in GB 3 as Rick doesn't want to do it anymore, but Weaver ,might do it again.

Also let us remember that Dan Aykroyd did say that doing it in CGI was cheaper and able to do a lot of things he can't in a live action.

I think it would be cool to see a Live Action Ghostbusters movie with CG backgrounds. Always been a fan of that. Add in the digitially de-aging the actors and it would be one hell of an expensive and time consuming movie…lol

Scott Sommer;137491
Again, you don;t have to be so defensive and rip my head off man. Geez calm down…what if you combined the two?

What I mean is, it is possible to digitally alter someone's appearance to make them look younger including make-up. Or would this too much for you?

I don't think the whole concept of “a whole new batch” of Ghostbusters would work for me. Maybe one new recruit like the game, but not like Extreme Ghostbusters.

Louis Tully probably won't be in GB 3 as Rick doesn't want to do it anymore, but Weaver ,might do it again.

Also let us remember that Dan Aykroyd did say that doing it in CGI was cheaper and able to do a lot of things he can't in a live action.

it wasnt against you, sorry. just the topic itself, since i knew it was an idea long ago, and i hated the very thought of it. but none of it was against you, just my opinion on the idea itself. We're bros.

Anyway, Aykroyd, did say that, but he said this before all the merchandising Sony has been putting out (the game, new shirts, toys, the blu-ray, etc.), all of that added up would probably work up to one hell of a budget, since some of it goes to the guys.

im open to makin the guys look younger digitally, just as long as its filtering live action film. but i'd more go the more natural route and just have them clean them selves up and get in shape.

i wouldnt mind a new team, as long as the actors are chosen right, and the characters are well developed.