killthenet Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 No major plot point have been revealed, but when they were discussing Ghostbusters 3 in the past they were talking about it being set in Hell, and Peter Venkman was dead, so therefore was a ghost. It might be all change now though, but this is what they were planning in the past and I don't see why they would change it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roostophe Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 *doesn't know what to think* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arab_freak Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 I knew this a year ago, and it was said that Bill Murray won't star in it. http://uk.filmforce.ign.com/articles/708/708806p1.html Sounds more like a desperate attempt at gathering cash, don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fierce_LiNk Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 I'm in two minds about this. The fact that it's in CGI kinda means that it's distancing itself from the other two films. If they give it the title "Ghostbusters In Hell" rather than "Ghostbusters 3", then it becomes like another addition in the series without actually becoming a sequel. With sequels, there's always pressure on them being better than the originals. With this, it's kinda like a fresh new look on a franchise. My other thinking is that the film will be much too visual, and will sell on the way it looks and the brand name rather than actually being a good film. I worry about this with most CGI films now. Action was never a huge part of the ghostbusters films, they're not horror films- they're comedy. The scripting needs to be top notch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted February 5, 2007 Share Posted February 5, 2007 If it looks like Gear of Wars I will be happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triforcemario Posted February 6, 2007 Share Posted February 6, 2007 I'm in two minds about this. The fact that it's in CGI kinda means that it's distancing itself from the other two films. If they give it the title "Ghostbusters In Hell" rather than "Ghostbusters 3", then it becomes like another addition in the series without actually becoming a sequel. With sequels, there's always pressure on them being better than the originals. With this, it's kinda like a fresh new look on a franchise. My other thinking is that the film will be much too visual, and will sell on the way it looks and the brand name rather than actually being a good film. I worry about this with most CGI films now. Action was never a huge part of the ghostbusters films, they're not horror films- they're comedy. The scripting needs to be top notch. I'm sure it will be good. Ivan Reiter, the director of Ghostbusters 1 and 2 is returning to direct it, I believe, and of course, it would also be writen by Dan Aykroyd and , most likely, Harold Ramis as well. Remember, Ghost Busters isn¡t just any old franchise, it was one of the most sucessful franchises of the 80's, and I seriously doubt that the actual creators of the movie could destroy it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts