It's a concept that I don't understand.

Anyone can explain it??

I would like to watch a new film, but really, if in this movie, the ghostbusters are new people, I don't want it, and it will break my spirit of Ghostbusters and the spirit of 80's…

I wanna believe that only there are 4 ghostbusters: Murray, Aykroyd, Ramis and Hudson (and Moranis, LOL), and only there will be 4, ONLY those 4 (or 5).

I posted this in the other thread, but I'll clarify here…

There's absolutely no reason that a new cast wouldn't work, provided it was carefully selected on the basis of cast interaction, not just salary/visibility. Use some up-and-comers….s'why I mentioned Reynolds and Black. In fact, a new cast could add a lot to the franchise, again, if it was carefully constructed. Breathe a little life into her, as it were.

I mean, think outside the damn box a little.

Imagine Danny's old script w/ some good cast interaction, some cool, old-skool humor, and no tackiness.

Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE to see a few of the old guys back…..but not as primary cast members. Honestly, they're too damn old.

Have you seen Harold Ramis lately?

Bring Danny, Ramis, and Hudson back as the head honchos, but I just don't think it could go any farther than that.

Yes, it's a matter of character interaction…..but to think that only the original cast has this “edge,” well, that's just short-sighted. There's a number of great combinations that could work wonders in a new GB film, even if the formula was tweaked a bit (while still retaining similar character archetypes and interaction style).

Believe me, average Joe/Jane won't actively say “that's the Egon character;” look at the movie from a standpoint outside the realm of the Ghosthead. A new cast most certainly would work….it's not just the premise of the movie, but also the interaction style, which isn't exclusive to those actors. The point of making new characters with similar personality types is to “tweak” the old characters a bit, give them a contemporary edge, and maintain that “old-skool,” average-guy-style comedy that made the first two films work so well. A large part of those movies worked because hey, they weren't futuristic scientific technofiles. they were regular guys in an extraordinary position.

Yes, the character archetypes would be roughly extended to a third film….but hey, that happens in ALL movies. It's unavoidable. But the new movie will retain new people, and that will certainly breathe new life into the crew.

what he said!

Anyone can explain it??

simple. aykroyd wanted GHOSTBUSTERS to be a big business with a lot of “janitor/exterminator-type” employees since day one. the “big business” angle existed, in some form, during the development of both flims, and 3 was no different. only with 3… it seemed as if it was actually going to go through.

the “newer, younger” group of ghostbusters was worked into the storyline… not just thrown in there for the hell of it. the “new team” wasn't going to replace the originals… they were just a small group of employees in a BIG company.

I would have to agree gjustis on this one. Even though most of us would like to see some of the original GB's, those guys are getting up in age and they really show it too except Ernie…. :p

GBusterChick6884
I would have to agree gjustis on this one. Even though most of us would like to see some of the original GB's, those guys are getting up in age and they really show it too except Ernie…. :p

I think your point there was logical. But I resently saw pictures of Bill & Dan and they still look good. Dan looks just as good as he did in the 80s. Now Harold however, Has gained weight and he's not that attractive much anymore. But Dan & Bill still have there looks! And yes you are correct about Ernie. I resently saw Ernie Hudson on Lifetime. He hasn't changed a bit!

ROSLEE (*janine) (*rant)

But “to change” actors ‘cose they are more old (normal) can’t be a problem to make another film of GB!
Everybody changes!
We can't want a Bill, Dan, Harold and an Ernie of 80's!

And I say again only there're only 4 GB.
Not “young” people to “modernize” the film (some people want new people to do this)

Grr :@ to “modernize”: We might talk to modernize a film when a film is from 1920's or 30's! (like King-kong) but not with films from 70's or 80's! (*egon)

What do u think??

It's not a modernization (other than the obvious improvements in digital film production)…..it's an expansion. THAT'S what Aykroyd wanted to do, that's what'd make the third film succeed. Ref: Osborn's post.

This “next wave,” or expansion, doesn't replace the old guys per se….it does what it says: it's expands the franchise.

Seems almost as though you've confused a sequel and a remake.

I think that the choice of the cast for a third Ghostbusters film would really depend on whether or not there ould be any future sequels after the third.

If Ghostbusters III was to be the third and last film of the trilogy then I would say that the original cast should come back one last time as the stars of the film. Who cares if they're that much older? I don't. It's a comedy, remember?

However, if it is the intention to make future sequels in years to come I would introduce some new characters for those future sequels.

I sort of know where Spanish is coming from. Terminator 3 kind of ruined the Terminator franchise for me. Some parts of it were far too comedic for my liking (like, for instance, the part where Arnie puts the joke glasses on). He didn't have the same feel about him any more, he just wasn't The Terminator.

I imagine GB3 being based on the Extreme Ghostbusters characters, and since I'm not keen on EGB, I probably wouldn't like it. I know exactly what Spanish is talking about when he says it would take away the GB spirit (Ha ha, ‘spirit’. Yeah, yeah, sorry).

I forgot who mentioned this above but they were damn correct - Ramis certainly has piled on the pounds and just isn't Egon anymore.

In my opinion they should limit any further development of the GB franchies to comics and cartoons.

Here's the thing; GB is a business. They're not super heroes, they're not a charity. They're, as we know ‘em, a small business. Now, what happens when a small business does well? They slowly become a BIG business. What’s that mean? More employees. So Ghostbusters would only logically become GB Inc. with more busters per square mile. The first four would most likely retire to CEO positions as they age.

Such is life.