The GHZ Forum

Yeah, its true this time. But its going to be an all computer generated movie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostbusters_3

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?

They should make a CGI movie of the C64 game. That'd be almost RENTABLE quality!

The latter reason makes more sense, given how excruciatingly bad the trailer for TMNT was.

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.

Gaz wrote:I doubt this movie will even happen as a Ghostbusters 3 has been rumoured for years.

Dude...Dan Akroyd announced it was in production, like, LAST WEEK.

Ugh.

Forget Ghostbusters 3. I want my CGI Ferris Bueller sequel.

Nothin' inherently wrong with an animated Ghostbusters. The first season of the cartoon show was pretty great, after all!

jenkins wrote:The latter reason makes more sense, given how excruciatingly bad the trailer for TMNT was.

God hates you. It was an excellent trailer.

Yeah. It was the first CG movie in God knows how long that actually made me want to pay money in theatres to see it.

Yami CJMErl wrote:

Gaz wrote:I doubt this movie will even happen as a Ghostbusters 3 has been rumoured for years.

Dude...Dan Akroyd announced it was in production, like, LAST WEEK.

Bah. Dan Akroyd and Harold Ramis do that every once in a while. I'm more interested about the 360 game.

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..."

j-man wrote:

jenkins wrote:The latter reason makes more sense, given how excruciatingly bad the trailer for TMNT was.

God hates you. It was an excellent trailer.

The teaser was. I was excited about the movie.

Then came the trailer. Ugh.

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.

Actually, Bill Murray is highly known for being kind of a prick.

This explains a lot.

Opa-Opa wrote:Actually, Bill Murray is highly known for being kind of a prick.

See "Lost in Translation: Rich Americans Putting Japan Back in its Place."

See "Lost in Translation: 4 minutes staring at Scarlet Johanson's butt"

That too.

Was Wikipedia really the most accurate, direct source for this?