First the Turtles and now the the Ghostbusters. Why are they doing this? Is hollywood planning on making the "CGI meets iconic 80's franchise" the next big step in in filmmaking evolution? Or have they simply decided to expose all children of the 70's and 80's to child molestation, but, after realizing we're all grown up now, they're doing the next best thing by molesting our INNER children? Or maybe its a a healthy mix of both these reasons?
The first Ghostbusters film is a classic and I still enjoy watching it now. The second one was little more than a mediocre rehash of the first film that's nowhere near as enjoyable. A third film seems incredibly pointless to me and I think they would be better off just leaving the series alone. A CGI film just seems even more pointless but from what I heard it's the only way they can feasibly do a 3rd Ghostbusters with the original cast. I doubt this movie will even happen as a Ghostbusters 3 has been rumoured for years.
The only thing preventing this from happening years ago has been Bill Murray's (completely understandable) reluctance. I've got to imagine that at some point he figured "Well, I'm not above voicing Garfield: A Tale of Two Kitties, I might as well voice this too..."
Bah! Humbot! wrote:The only thing preventing this from happening years ago has been Bill Murray's (completely understandable) reluctance. I've got to imagine that at some point he figured "Well, I'm not above voicing Garfield: A Tale of Two Kitties, I might as well voice this too..."
I heard somewhere that the primary reason behind his reluctance was that he didn't want to do a LIVE-ACTION GhostBusters 3--apparently, the fact that this movie will be done in CGI is the only thing keeping him from not doing it at all.