Comments on: Harold Ramis chats about Ghost Busters 3

By: Rodney

Rodney — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 13:37:03 +0000

I agree that passing the torch is the best way to go, but there is no way in hell it would work as “finding the proton packs in the attic” and have a bunch of Kids take over.

A group of 30 somethings recruited to take over so the guys can retire can work, but not KIDS!!

By: Ken

Ken — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 06:41:12 +0000

the passing of the torch is the only smart way to do this. all of these guys are WAY too old to be doing another ghostbuster movie. a ghostbusters academy would be good, but id like to some kids stumble upon the packs in the grandfathers attic(the grandpa being harold ramis or another ghostbuster) and then from there having to save the day.

By: Jim

Jim — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 20:52:24 +0000

The effect from the first film could easily be duplicated with CGI

By: rick

rick — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 14:23:38 +0000

@Grave – the Ghostbusters in Hell story was used for the Ghostbusters video game… It was a good idea, but either way, I am looking forward to what I thought was being called Ghostbusters Academy for the third movie… I usually don’t like passing of the torch stuff, but If Ramis sticks with what he is saying and they get a great script yet still simple in the effects department, there is a lot of potential… I enjoyed the second movie a lot, but it doesn’t compare to the first, so hopefully a third will make it up…

By: Grave

Grave — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 02:38:37 +0000

I want Ghostbusters in Hell! They screwed me out of that dream with the game and if they did a 3rd movie I think it would be awsome. However, I fine also with them not doing a 3rd film as well. Not every movie franchise should be a trilogy.

By: BMTRN

BMTRN — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 19:12:34 +0000

I agree with his point about Year One’s trailer being like a breath of fresh air, but it’s too bad the movie was terrible.

I wonder to what degree they WILL use CG in GB3. At the very least they can render better dark sky and cloud effects than the last two movies. The character effects were great and hold up to this day. Just a lot of the superimposed matte paintings etc. aren’t looking so good these days.

By: Matt Keith

Matt Keith — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:43:27 +0000

” like you said ”

I apologize I didn’t mean to say that.

By: Matt Keith

Matt Keith — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 17:42:26 +0000

I really am looking forward to a third Ghostbusters, but like you said the second was dissappointing and pretty much relied on the special effects. I would like for them to use the special effects of today’s standard as long as they have good story to go along w/ it.

By: Phil Gee

Phil Gee — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:53:11 +0000

I’m encouraged by what he said about special effects. I am by no means an anti-CGI guy but there’s no doubt that the ghosts as achieved practially in Ghostbusters are just more impressive, effective, and creepy than what you could do with computers.

I still don’t know how they pulled off the Scoleri brothers from Ghostbusters II.