Ghostbusters 3

Dr. Watson · Post by **Dr. Watson** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 9:56 am

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?

KitsuneDarkStalker · Post by **KitsuneDarkStalker** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:05 am

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

jenkins · Post by **jenkins** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:13 pm

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

Gaz · Post by **Gaz** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 3:21 pm

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.

Yami CJMErl · Post by **Yami CJMErl** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 5:48 pm

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.

Heroic One · Post by **Heroic One** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 6:11 pm

cjmcray · Post by **cjmcray** » Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:41 am

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

Post by **Esrever** » Tue Feb 06, 2007 3:48 am

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

j-man · Post by **j-man** » Tue Feb 06, 2007 9:24 am

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.

Tsuyoshi-kun · Post by **Tsuyoshi-kun** » Wed Feb 07, 2007 6:52 am

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.

Opa-Opa · Post by **Opa-Opa** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 11:20 am

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.

Grant · Post by **Grant** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 11:40 am

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..."

Black Rook · Post by **Black Rook** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 12:58 pm

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.

Yami CJMErl · Post by **Yami CJMErl** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:02 pm

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.

Opa-Opa · Post by **Opa-Opa** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:32 pm

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

Yami CJMErl · Post by **Yami CJMErl** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:55 pm

This explains a lot.

jenkins · Post by **jenkins** » Fri Feb 16, 2007 7:25 am

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."

Opa-Opa · Post by **Opa-Opa** » Sun Feb 18, 2007 1:59 am

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

jenkins · Post by **jenkins** » Wed Feb 21, 2007 10:24 am

That too.

gr4yJ4Y · Post by **gr4yJ4Y** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:55 pm

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