i don’t come on here too often anymore because i’m super broke.. that’s not important.. this is.
http://www.cisnfm.com/station/blog_mike_mcguire.cfm?bid=7500&med=30179
GB3 lives in CGI.
Don’t know when.
Who cares we have a chance. :lol:
I hate the idea of a CGI film.
I also hate the way he described it. It would probably be a childrens movie.
ehh, they were kinda going down that road with the 2nd movie. since the cartoon was made. there isn’t much else left open. i’m not one of those people who bash other opinions. cgi isn’t the best choice for a movie that had it’s two previous films in live action, then again it’s the only way to go.
iunno 
the script can go both ways, being a hell dimension and all..hopefully he’ll keep in between. reminds of the commentary on the first movie and how they mentioned that no one smoked in the sequel and Ramis replied with “we we’re all on ecstasy haha”.
I don’t know what to think. On one hand, the new TMNT movie is all in CGI and looks to be promising in that I would go to see it. I doubt though that it would be a children’s movie in the fact that hell and demons aren’t really kid friendly. If done right with the right people, it could be great. We’ll have to wait and see though. This isn’t the first time Dan has told us that Ghostbusters 3 was going to happen…
Cole,
I for one am willing to give a cgi ghostbusters a chance. sure , since the previous 2 were live action , this may be an odd direction to take , but think of the possibilities! besides with the way he described the premise , 95% would be cgi anyway lol
This isn’t the first time I’ve heard of this…though it is the first time I heard it from the mouth of one of the original cast. I’ve thought about it and I think that if this is really the way they are going to go (insert proper sized grain of salt here), then the only way it will be successful is if they do not call it “Ghostbusters 3”.
Since it is doubtful that the cast will return in its entirety, it would be best just to use it as a franchise expansion. Having the name followed by a colon and then a plot-descriptive title would benifit the film more than tacking it up as a sequal.
Also, for me to enjoy the film, I wouldn’t want them to get crazy with the gadgets…like the recent CGI footage of the “game”. Those neutorna wands were too big for any normal person to carry, and the riot Ghostbusting gear was just too much. I would say that the equipment used in “Extreme Ghostbusters” is as far as I would be comfortable with (and I’m still not sure if I like the Slime-Blower in GB2). Classic is best. Changing too much can ruin a good thing (look at the Batman films–when the went back to basic it did really well). I’d also really like to see the Ecto get retrofitted with something cool; sort of like what they originally invisioned with the burning parking ticket.
And how Frederik Fronkensteen says: IT CAN WORK!!!
Finally we’ve got it! Don’t mean if they do it in cgi, live action or “old Mickey Mouse cartoons” style! In few years i’ll sitting in a theatre and the GB’s theme will coming out from the silver screen direct to my ears! :mrgreen:
I got a few conflicting points.
Would be GREAT to see ANY Ghostbusters film on the big screen. Nobody can argue with that really.
The thought of it being CGI is good and bad. The original Hellbent screenplay calls for Egon to head up a crew of new kids, if they do it all CGI they might be able to make the original team go into hell.
I think it still could kill Ghostbusters, doing a third so far from the original two, and if the movie turns out to suck, it could make alot of people just learning about Ghostbusters say “Hey, that blows, the originals must, and anybody who emmulates them must!” It could happen. Yes I’m pessimistic.
Anyways, as you guys said, Akroyd’s said it before, I’m not holding my breath.
but Ray, Egon and Winston will not be in CGI, true?
The entire film would be cgi , like toy story and that final fantasy film
As long as they do not do a “reimagining” of the equipment, I HATE it when they do that for a show or movie, and they redesign EVERYTHING, I would want original Proton Packs, original Ghost Traps, the whole nine yards, but a modernization that most companies like to do (see the “Ecto-1” in the ZootFly footage, not only was it “modernized” but it was even worse, it was product placement with the Chrysler 300) sucks IMO
seeing as it is Dan Aykroyd’s baby there is a likely chance we would get faithful stuff, but it might be entirely up to the studio in what direction that would go
if they kept faithful to the original movies I would rather see a CGI Ghostbusters 3 than nothing at all
-Drakk )))
That’s one thing I was wondering about, since he had problems buying the franchise from Sony. How would he keep the same title?
I think the original cast would return. I mean if Murray is willing. Haven’t all the others.. well really the only one left would be Hudson. He hasn’t really given and negative feedback on being a Ghostbuster, who would? 
It’s not as great as an actual film… but let’s look at it this way. For years it seems that no studio is willing to make this movie. So this may be the only way.
I have to admit… when I watched to most recent Final Fantasy flick, there were times I forgot I was watching a cgi movie. I think if the story is good then you get drawn in no matter what. It may not be what people were hoping for but it can still be enjoyable. Nothing personal for anyone here but I can’t stand it when people decide something will suck before they see it. That’s why I don’t read movie reviews! I like alot of stuff that gets bad reviews and I can’t stand some stuff that gets good reviews. Everyone is different and will like different things. I for one… would love to go see this flick!
I’m not totally against the CGI because there’s no way Bill is going to make it if it’s live action and there’s no way it’s going to happen if Bill isn’t involved so it seems like the only option. Plus a live action would require the actors to get in much better shape (I mean look at Harold Ramis) and they would look old which would probably necessitate bringing in new, young characters which I would be against. Just my opinion
I would have only made Bill Murray in cgi
they could make the characters in CGI, as Jor-El in Superman Returns…
The problem is that computer graphics are like all special effects - they works best under certain circumstances. Putting a digitally generated human next to other real human actors, the digital actor sticks out like a sore thumbs. It works best if the character is made up, like Jar Jar, because he’s an alien, we’ve never seen him before, and our brains don’t automatically measure him up to the humans. But we’ve seen Bill before and he’ll be standing next to human Ghostbusters. It won’t match.
The other draw back is making a whole production CG is more cost effective than financing a regular movie production, plus special effects, plus the synthetic Bill Murray, which will be THE most expensive effect - we have to remember that one of the key reasons GB3 didn’t move ahead is that the budget to realize Aykroyd and Ramis’ script would have to have been massive. Making it all CG minimizes a lot of costs.
I’m not saying it’ll be great - we won’t know that for awhile, if at all - but it’s the best course (maybe only course) of action they can take to try and get the movie made.
Actually in most cases this is true. However in a kung fu movie (the name escapes me) One of the elders played by an old actor died while the movie was still being filmed. In which case they did a CG character, talking to a real-life one, the end product was very hard to discern, so there are cases where it can be successfully done, I guess it depends on how the CG is ‘cleaned up’. Like in superman returns (I didn’t see it I’m just talking previews) the superman flying up in space looks fake as hell, as a matter of fact the original superman did a better effect, in my opinion. So, it just depends on your animations studio.
NOW ALL THE WEB IS BUZZING ABOUT GHOSTBUSTERS 3. THIS WILL CLOSE FOREVER THE MOUTHS OF EVERYONE THAT IN THESE YEARS LAUGH AT EVERY HOPEFULLY GB FANS!!!
P.S. I’M MESSING WITH ENGLISH…SORRY, I’M ITALIAN
Actually in most cases this is true. However in a kung fu movie (the name escapes me) One of the elders played by an old actor died while the movie was still being filmed. In which case they did a CG character, talking to a real-life one, the end product was very hard to discern, so there are cases where it can be successfully done, I guess it depends on how the CG is ‘cleaned up’. Like in superman returns (I didn’t see it I’m just talking previews) the superman flying up in space looks fake as hell, as a matter of fact the original superman did a better effect, in my opinion. So, it just depends on your animations studio.
[/quote]
Unrelated to any of the ghostbusters stuff, but totally related to CGI humans in live action movies, the insane Rob Cohen is currently working on a new Bruce Lee movie… in which Bruce Lee will be completely computer generated and blended with live action elements. He claims that the graphics possibilities of today are THAT good. More over, he has the blessing of Bruce Lee’s family to do this… So, you know, maybe he knows something we don’t…
As for this whole CGI stuff, I personally will watch purely because it’s Ghostbusters(kind of like Robocop 3… although, I thing GB3 won’t disappoint me nearly as much as that did)… but I’m not a big fan of CGI Cartoons… like TMNT, that’s a reboot so that makes sense(although it looks cool, the turtles look just a little too much like the Geico lizard… also, they’re being forced to go PG for the thing which sucks)… but if this is a continuation… well, it’ll lack a lot in my opinion. Unless they do have the means to do completely photo realistic humans and get the original cast to voice it/give samples of facial movements to the animators.
I suppose it all boils down to a wait and see how they pull it off.