Ghostbusters 3--In CG?

[Fritz]

protoncharging.com/gb/2007/02/02/aykroyd-also-talks-gb3-cgi/

I refuse to get excited until something more, y'know, concrete comes out. Though I had to find this little tidbit posted by Shannon on GBHQ to be intriguing:

The characters will be based off the cartoon rather than the movie because "Billy" won't be in a live action film, however he will record his voice.

[Jason Knetge]

This may go thru depending how well TMNT 'S das

but one can hope ;D ;D

I'm a bit mift that it will be in CGI and I wont be working on it

[Miss Janine]

Hey, why not? He's done 2 Garfields (and I'm reading about a THIRD one to come). It could be really good if done right.

[Fritz]

I posted some of these comments on GBN and GBHQ, because some of the narrow-mindedness on GBHQ and especially GBCentral is astounding and depressing. Four years ago I heard some of the same whining on the "It's Coming!" thread.

"I'll only like it if it's photo realistic and it shouldn't have anything from the cartoons because otherwise it shouldn't be called Ghostbusters 3 and it shouldn't be aimed at kids blah blah blah..."

Okay...reality checks:

I'll only like it if it's photo realistic

We don't know what it's going to look like yet. Heck, honestly we don't really know if this is even going to happen. Save the complaints for when we have some actual material to critique.

Photo realism takes a lot more time and money. And not being photo realistic does not mean "kiddified". We agree that making it look like Jimmy Neutron wouldn't work, but there is a middle ground. The best example I can think of is a 2-D one: the Batman cartoon from the 90's. Certainly not photo-realistic, but it didn't look like the Smurfs either.

shouldn't have anything from the cartoons

The RGB cartoon ran for seven years. It was the most successful cartoon spin-off of a movie of all time. It was a part of the GB phenomenon in the Eighties second only to the first movie itself, and brought a great many fans to the franchise. Frankly, to this day I think some of the early episodes were better thought out and written than the movie sequel, with it's retread plot and incomprehensibly stupid characterization changes.

I'd rather Janine not be a drugged out ho and Winston not be a token afterthought, thank you very much.

And to reiterate the first point: we only have the one reference from Aykroyd; the final result may be different. I would be overjoyed if Aykroyd himself says "We're using the cartoon likenesses because it avoids the problems with Bill AND we know lots of kids grew up with that show". Though I honestly expect that the end result will be actor caricatures like the 88MPH comic.

because otherwise it shouldn't be called Ghostbusters 3

We don't even know if this movie will really be called Ghostbusters 3. They're clearly going into it with Aykroyd and his GB3 scenario in mind, but the end result may be completely different. I suppose if they release it simply as Ghostbusters In Hell some of them will start bitching about "But that means it's not the real GB3!!!"

I mean, after all, the new Turtle movie, while it continues the continuity of the three live action films, is NOT called TMNT 4

it shouldn't be aimed at kids

Aging fans often forget: the kids were a big part of the phenomenon. It's the exact same thing which happened to Star Wars. Kids who loved the antics of R2-D2, C-3PO, and the Ewoks in the original trilogy grew up to be adults who bitch and moan about the antics of R2-D2, C-3PO, and Jar Jar Binks in the prequels, even thought they're pretty much the same.

Should it be dumbed down or made harmless? Of course not. Lots of kids saw the first movie, and it wasn't dumbed down or harmless. That being said, it shouldn't be an R-rated gorefest either. The best way to build the fandom is to hook in the next generation: something that isn't "kiddified", but not something the kids shouldn't be able to see either.

More than anything, though...after the iBooks and 88MPH debacles, be glad that we might be getting something.

[Miss Janine]

Boy, I'm glad I don't go there any more. I like my normal blood pressure. I doubt Dan Aykrotd or Harold Ramis will let it get too out of hand. Oops, forgot about what HR did in GB2... Oh, well, you know what I mean.

[Mick Nielson]

Oh man... and just think how many people will be furious when Janine is married to Louis in the 3rd one.

[Fritz]

tampabuster1 said:

Oh man... and just think how many people will be furious when Janine is married to Louis in the 3rd one.

Yeah. It'd be a shame if they listened to the fans and didn't do that... I'll just leave it at that for now because that's another fight I got tired of years ago...

[Miss Janine]

Why don't we just think of it as an AU version of the guys?

[SuperStantzio]

I agree with that!

[EGBFan]

I am extremely dubious that this will ever happen. If it does happen, I have a nasty feeling that existing fans will find reasons to hate it no matter what they do. I honestly believe it's too late.

If I was making a new CG version of Ghostbusters, I would aim it at kids (without dumbing down, of course - I used to watch some very intelligent television when it was available during my childhood). It would be accessible to everyone, of course, including the adults who grew up with GB - unless they're the kind of people who have this weird prejudice against products aimed at kids and will only by the 'adult' version of the Harry Potter books (oh, how did Harry Potter get in here? :. If this thing happens, and it isn't aimed at kids, my totally uninformed and meaningless opinion is that it won't attract a big enough audience to be worth anyone's while making it. (Evidently I think in the same way of whoever was in charge of marketing the recent King Kong remake.) I mean, as it's CG... in my experience, animated features not specifically aimed at children tend to generate confusion and fail (example? er... Titan AE).

Negative? Me? Obviously, obviously if it happens I will give it a fair chance and judge it for what it is (rather than what it isn't, I mean). But that's getting a bit ahead of myself - I still don't believe it will happen. (Oh dear, maybe I am a little bit negative.)

[Fritz]

No, I think you raise more than one good point. I swear some of the people on GBN sound like they think it should be some R-rated gorefest; if they stick with the tone of the first movie and the JMS RGB (which was about as close to that tone as Saturday Morning TV standards would let them) they should do all right.

I hate repeating myself but I'll do it anyway: if they make something kids won't or can't watch, they'll probably fail.

Now, to address some of what Mick and Rose said in a tad more detail:

If this project gets completed (and I still consider that a huge if) that will definitely be acknowledged on the main timeline somehow, but how will depend on it's timing. If they say it's twenty years later (or whatever) so much the easier. If they don't go that far we'd have to see how much it would muck up the 1991-1997 timeline; I can't really speculate any further until we know more.

As far as the fan fic timeline goes, my position is a little clearer: anything that violates it will be ignored. It would officially render us an "alternate universe", but a lot of people consider us that anyway since we use all that TV stuff. To use a notable example, it'd pretty much be the way Shiela Paulson, who had been building her own universe and dynamic, reacted to EGB. It didn't fit into what she'd been doing, so she pretty much ignored it.

But just like with the 88MPH and iBooks stuff, anything we can use and integrate, will be used and integrated. "Legion" ended up fitting pretty well. "The Return" had more problems.

Again, any deeper discussion of that issue at this point is pretty much pointless speculation.

[Jason Knetge]

look's aren't every thing

if the sorry is good then you can for give the visuals

just look at the Incredibles and even thou I don't like the animation Monster House

they were cartoony and they were good

but if it's like Poler Express I will be made

as a direct sequel it may not work but as a stand alone in the hole GB universe it's grate

[Dr. Vincent Belmont]

Fritz pretty much covered all my thoughts.

[Fritz]

False alarm?

protoncharging.com/gb/2007/03/05/gb3-video-game/

[Dr. Simeon Spengler]

Oh, I'd have no problem, if they make GB3 a Game! A Game isn't such a huge thing as a movie! It wouldn't f*** up the OT, cause it's just a spin-off game. But it could add some nice little story ideas!

For those who didn't get my point: The story of a video game, hasn't as much public power, as a movie!

I in fact don't need a third movie! I'd rather like to see a new cartoon series, based upon both XGB and RGB.

-Shimi