Very good point that I keep forgetting; movies seem to be re-booted at a fast rate.
I mean, Spider-man, already? Am I already hearing a re-boot for Disney’s ‘Haunted Mansion’.
~shudders~
You are right, there.
GHOSTBUSTERS 3 i mean if the do it right they with the new recruits they could probley do part 4 with them which would be like starting over again anyway
Not a true reboot, no way. Maybe a sort-of reboot… don’t erase the history established by the original movies, but start over with perhaps another franchise in another city. If the writing was decent, I’d enjoy new characters in a new city as long as they didn’t touch the New York Ghostbusters.
Maybe Ghostbusters has become the kind of movie that cannot be given a sequel because the movies are too good to be given another now that the actors are at that age. Maybe we should let the movies live a peaceful afterlife and drive for other things like cartoons and games. At this point another movie might invalidate the first two.
Make as many Terminator movies as you want, the time line in that series makes about as much sense as dividing by zero. Let Jason and Freddy come back as many times as we can resurrect them, they’re cash cows. Have Indiana Jone encounter more aliens. But let lets not ruin Ghostbusters for the sake of just having another, some good things must come to an end whether you like GB II or not. 
I wouldn’t mind seeing a gb3 with the new guys having to train young blood to take over for them as long as the movie presents a nice finish to the original four guys in that they have a franchise and are training new gbs. If the training new guys thing happens at the beginning and the rest of the movie centers mostly around the new guys I am fine with that… But. No. I mean NO! reboot. Part of the reason Ghostbusters worked so well was the talent involved. I cannot think of any popular actors that could breathe life into the characters like Akroyd and company. The only group that I can even think of is Judd Apatow’s crew and I really couldn’t see them pulling off any of the original characters. No reboot.
Technically, GHOSTBUSTERS 3 would be a reboot anyways due to new cast. The first two GB films would be prequels.
Hah, well said.
I’m for everything! Use the old cast? Sure. CGI? Sure. How about 3D? Sure. Reboot the Franchise? Sure, while were at it, Sony has the rights to a few other franchises so why don’t we do 2 at once? Here we go!
Ghostbusters 3D The Stooges
It’s not a reboot if the original cast members are in the movie and the storyline continues. Also, prequels are movies that are made after the original to explain how everything came to be in the original. See episodes 1-3 of Star Wars…
The perfect time to release a new GB cartoon would be now, and I can only think that if wasn’t for the massive popularity of the 2003 4kids series, we wouldn’t have gotten TMNT in 07 (this being the fact that anything Ninja Turtles related had ceased around 98). The logo is instantly recognizeable, there’s a glut of talent out there to make this series come alive, and the game has invigorated new interest in the franchise. And if they need to use 4kids as an example, there is a way of paying tribute to what came before while also maintaining a new timeline, similar to what IDW is doing.
I say no reboot- EVER! Ghostbusters is one of those classic movies that shouldn’t be touched unless to improve visual/audio quality… You could never get that chemistry with any other group of actors.
I’m down for a GBIII only if it’s done right! I think thats one of the main reasons that Murray has been so hesitant on it after GBII. It has to be as close to perfect as possibe, have some of that original GB magic. Though I think a very weel done CGI would be good too! But have more of a real life animation style, not so cartoony like.
But in the end, if they can’t decide on a script, or they feel their too old or something, I wouldn’t mind another game, maybe based on the whole GB in Hell idea…
No to re-boot.
I can see the GB3 story though. The OGB’s have given up, their newly recruited rookies having taken over. They then take over the movie with various standard hollywood action, cgi and love interest moments until the end where, amazingly, the protagonist is too much for the noobs to handle. So then, in a heroic door smashing entrance, the OGB’s, kitted out in their old gear, burst in and help save the day. One gets the girl, the others have a chuckle and the world is saved again. /sigh /yawn /seenitallbeforeeyeroll
Seriously though, I’m all for a third movie, but it really needs to be done right and not a predictable heap of rubbish. I stand behind Bill’s stubborness..albeit slightly reluctantly.
For me has to be GB3 or nothing. The only way I can see the franchise can carry on is for the originals to pass the torch on! I will watch whatever is done but it will be a bit begrudgingly!
I think a reboot would bring some interesting possibilities with it.
For instance, I always wanted to know what kind of movie it would be when Winston
is played by a Eddie Murphy kind of actor, like in the first script where winston was brought in
early and got slimed at the hotel. There would be some funny scenes with him and Venkman.
They could make a trilogy remaking the first movie and the sequels being influenced by the
videogame and episodes from RGB, like citizen ghost.
Conditions are that they keep the No ghost logo, Ecto 1 cadillac and Ray Parker Jr’s themesong.
I like the series where it is, but I would welcome a 3rd GB with the passing of the tourch idea to a new generation of GB’s.
A reboot I think would be a mistake, its not like Batman or Star Trek which had a run of really bad movies and needed to be rebooted. GB is very well established and I think the series should either stop were it is or continue in the same timeline.
Consider also that if they did a reboot it might affect some of the fictional franchies out there, I personally like some of the fan movies online like SLC and its clear they exist in the same timeline as the original GB films. But I guess fan fiction has no bearing on the actual films.
I don’t understand why they need to bring in “young” Ghostbusters?? From what I hear they are looking at casting actors in their early 20s to pass the torch too. Harold Ramis was born in 1944 which makes him 40 years old when Ghostbusters came out in 1984 and 45 years old when Ghostbusters II was released in 1989. Ernie Hudson was born in 1945. Murray was born in 1950 and Ackroyd in 1952. The original GBs were not young hip pretty dudes - they were normal looking grown men in their 30s and 40s and the films had gigantic success. Young actors are not required to make a movie good. I think GB is so successful is the actors behind the characters ( it usually is isn’t it though? ie Ledger as The Joker - to me The Dark Knight would not have been any where NEAR as good had it not been for Heath as the Joker ).
I don’t want new actors playing these characters or see all new ghostbusters. Frankly I don’t give a rat’s ear about a new team of Ghostbusters - who really does care? I want to see the original actors doing what they do. I think back to Star Trek II The Wrath of Khan. This film Trek fans everywhere hail as the greatest of all Trek movies and what made it so good was that the characters (especially Kirk) were facing the trials of aging. They did not hide the fact that they were getting old as they tried to do in The Motion Picture. They embraced their age and this attitude allowed them to make many more sequels.
The Ghostbusters are Murray as Venkman, Ramis as Spengler, Ackroyd as Stanz and Hudson as Zeddemore. Old as they may be that doesn’t change the fact that these guys ARE the Ghostbusters.
Well, it’s not just a matter of their ages as much as whether or not they themselves feel they can do it. They’re not just older, they’re not in the same physical shape they were in. There were rumors (don’t know if they were confirmed or not) that Murray had at one time said that the only way he’d to a third is if they kill off Venkman. Although this may have also just been a hint that he didn’t really want to do it.
That said, I’d love to see the originals back, but also wouldn’t mind bringing in new blood. The only thing I really want to see is a great send-off for the series, and I mean that in the best sort of way. Make it a great trilogy…eh, quadrilogy. Forgot the game 
this is a classic series that needs to be left the f*ck alone.
I kinda agree with the person that said that the two original movies were so good, that maybe adding a third might over do it and ruin the whole franchise for people. It happens often, that a third or fourth sequel just ruins the first because they overdo it. I think the only way a GB3 would make the franchise justice, is if Dan and Harold took the lead of writing the new script, which as we are hearing, is not the case. After all, these are their characters, this is Dan’s idea. I mean, maybe with Dan and Harold directing the way of the new script writers it can still stand tall, but the overall feel won’t be the same.
The idea of a reboot I am much more skeptical about. Rarely have we seen a reboot of a movie being done with the same caliber as the original. Not to say it can’t be done, like for example, I LOVED the first two Batman movies (the ones by Tim Burton) they were amazing, so all others that weren’t by Tim Burton fell short in my eyes, because honestly, they weren’t that good. But then Dark Knight came out. I mean yes, in a way the others weren’t remakes, and in a sense neither was Dark Knight, but Dark Knight pretty much kicked ass. As much as I loved Jack Nicholson as the Joker, Heath took it to a whole other level, and I loved his version of the joker too, without hating on Jack’s joker and vice versa. If I knew with certainty that the same would come from a GB remake, I’d be all for it, but like I said, cases like this are rare unfortunately.
I say that any exec that goes for reboot should get kicked in the nuts on a hourly basis. Part of the perks of the job.