Discuss all things Ghostbusters here, unless they would be better suited in one of the few forums below.
By SlimerDaGhost
#76875
I honestly think that Ghost Busters needs a Reboot. I think they should make it a serious horror/paranormal flick. If they did that there would be more people on-board. More funding for the project. They could make it a franchise and use a new cast besides the old 80's cast.

I think the idea of using original characters form the 80's is a bad idea. It's been proven over and over that a reboot when a franchise is killed is necessary.

They should call it Ghostbusters Reboot because I'm the one that thought of it heh :).

They make it a story about paranormal ghost trying to "reboot" their lives.

How hard is this seriously?
By SlimerDaGhost
#76911
A reboot refers to a complete redesign of the franchise. Like batman begins which is a bit darker than the previous generation of batman. Superman is getting a reboot. It's going to be a darker Superman. http://www.superherohype.com/news/super ... hp?id=7772 Hulk got a reboot (again).

Reusing characters from the 80's movie is not a reboot. It's clinging onto a past that is long gone. I'm just saying they need to redo or rethink Ghostbusters to make it more attractive to the current generation.
AJ Quick wrote:Reboot in Progress:

-Ghostbusters Video Game
-Ghostbusters Comic
-Ghostbusters Manga
-Prop Replicas
-Official T-Shirts
-Blu-Ray DVD Release
-Real Ghostbusters Collectors Edition
... etc.
By JackIvyGB
#76919
Batman needed a reboot because the last ones= fail.
Superman is getting a reboot because the story of Superman Returns failed, not the character itself and all the things he's known for.
In the same way, the first Hulk movie = fail.
If Ghostbusters had been a failed concept in the 80s and only got one lousy movie, then I'd say go for it. Maybe they can actually make it cool.
But if that were the case, you wouldn't be here on a message forum inhabited by thousands of members who go to sometimes incredible lengths to make replicas of the movie's equipment and vehicles, which we then parade around in public wearing/driving, and get astoundingly positive responses from nearly everyone. They all recognize us, they all know what we're supposed to be, and they all want to take pictures with us. They ask us if we are Gods and if we've seen Elvis lately, they all want to know if we have an inside scoop on GB3 and hope it has the originals in it, and they all leave having their day been made a little brighter, because incase they forgot, we reminded them who they're gonna call.

Superman, Batman, and Hulk were broken, forgotten, and swept under the carpet.
Everyone loves Ghostbusters, everyone remembers Ghostbusters. If they didn't, none of the things AJ pointed out would exsist. Maybe you're a little new to GB. If that's the case, there's a couple things you should now:
1) Ghostbusters. It's the only answer to the question "who ya gonna call" for almost 25 years, so much so that people have to rephrase their inquiries into who another person is attempting to communicate with just so they can avoid the other person shouting "GHOSTBUSTERS."
2) If it ain't broke, you don't need to fix it.
GHOSTBUSTERS. IS. NOT. BROKE.

Have a nice day :-)
By JDub
#76935
The only reason they should do a reboot is if a GB3 just won't work right. I mean the original cast are in their 50s/60s? I just think it's going to be tough to do, I mean we are suppose to believe these 60 years olds are out there kicking ghosts asses? I know they are training new GBs but it's either going to work or it's going to be crap. And if it's going to be crap then they should just do a reboot. But I'd rather have them do GB3 if it can work.

But one thing is this can kind of be a 3rd movie/reboot at the same time. I agree that a lot of younger people might not really know what GB is and doing a straight up 3rd movie a lot of people might not care. But with the way they are going it's kind of like training the new GBs/introducing GBs and what they are all about to the new generation. Just don't call it GB3 to confuse anyone make it seem like it's kind of a reboot (which it kind of is) but it's also a 3rd movie.
By Boomerjinks
#76945
SlimerDaGhost wrote: Reusing characters from the 80's movie is not a reboot.
Then comparing a ghostbusters reboot to Batman and Superman is using flawed logic.
By Kamachi
#76950
Zack wrote:The Ghostbusters need to get EXTREEEEEME. :boogieman: To the max.
.... *shudder*
By Ectofiend666
#77079
SlimerDaGhost wrote:
I honestly think that Ghost Busters needs a Reboot. I think they should make it a serious horror/paranormal flick. If they did that there would be more people on-board. More funding for the project. They could make it a franchise and use a new cast besides the old 80's cast.

I think the idea of using original characters form the 80's is a bad idea. It's been proven over and over that a reboot when a franchise is killed is necessary.

They should call it Ghostbusters Reboot because I'm the one that thought of it heh :).

They make it a story about paranormal ghost trying to "reboot" their lives.

How hard is this seriously?
*This IS a joke right?! Just because something is "old" doesn't mean it needs a f'ing "reboot"...And what you're implying is called a "remake" or "reimagining"...What are you like 12 years old?...I'm guessing all of your favorite movies are "remakes", as "all that old junk is like whack yo", huh?...

*Where have you been in the last couple of years?! It's more "alive" now than ever!! And the franchise was never "killed"...A few lulls in any activity maybe, but never "dead"...As somebody else said here earlier - "if it 'aint broke - DON'T.FIX.IT!!"...

*And take credit for a horrible idea? Go right ahead bucko...

SlimerDaGhost wrote:
A reboot refers to a complete redesign of the franchise.

Reusing characters from the 80's movie is not a reboot. It's clinging onto a past that is long gone. I'm just saying they need to redo or rethink Ghostbusters to make it more attractive to the current generation.
*You seriously need help man...Name me ONE person that doesn't "find Ghostbusters attractive" AS IS, young OR old...

*Oh yeah one exists - YOU...Maybe you ought to go work for Micheal Bay - He LOVES RUINING franchises for the sake of "making them relevant to today's audiences"...

*Some things in this world are better left as they are...

*Cheers.
By VenkMan101
#77084
Image

Simplest answer to all of this. Though there are already two writers officially on the project of another GB, YOU write the script. Post it here and get everyone behind it here that believes in it's plot, fluition is bound to happen. Even a spark can burn a house down. It's one thing to argue for a reboot of a movie but what's really the point without a logline. And I agree that the original cast should be kept far away unless it's something quite minimal like Dan Aykroyd just so happens to be in the store buying some mallows at one scene.

On a separate note and to digress back to the Superman Reboot, I've personally always wondered what the film would have been like if they went forth with Burton's Superman.
By Ectofiend666
#77095
Simplest answer to all of this. Though there are already two writers officially on the project of another GB, YOU write the script. Post it here and get everyone behind it here that believes in it's plot, fluition is bound to happen. Even a spark can burn a house down. It's one thing to argue for a reboot of a movie but what's really the point without a logline. And I agree that the original cast should be kept far away unless it's something quite minimal like Dan Aykroyd just so happens to be in the store buying some mallows at one scene.

On a separate note and to digress back to the Superman Reboot, I've personally always wondered what the film would have been like if they went forth with Burton's Superman.
*"Logline"? And you honestly think that someone's "fan-fiction" guised as a "GBIII" script is going to floor everyone here? Trust me there'e been a gazillion of those already, and 90% of them SUCKED IMHO...

*And the "originals being kept away"? Gimmie a break...All this "new guys for the GB's as the originals are owld" crap is getting old and fast...And as for Dan and Harold's hand in the script writing "going south" just because of GBII? I'll only "cry foul" if the story to the new video game [which both of them wrote] ends up sucking - To which I HIGHLY DOUBT that'll happen from what we've all seen in the past year or so...

*And FYI - Batman meshed with his style and vision...Superman wouldn't have...And from what I saw of his drawings for a proposed "Superman" film way-back-when blew..."Superman Returns" was too dark for a "Supes" film as it stands...

*Cheers.
By VenkMan101
#77114
Ectofiend666 wrote:
Simplest answer to all of this. Though there are already two writers officially on the project of another GB, YOU write the script. Post it here and get everyone behind it here that believes in it's plot, fluition is bound to happen. Even a spark can burn a house down. It's one thing to argue for a reboot of a movie but what's really the point without a logline. And I agree that the original cast should be kept far away unless it's something quite minimal like Dan Aykroyd just so happens to be in the store buying some mallows at one scene.

On a separate note and to digress back to the Superman Reboot, I've personally always wondered what the film would have been like if they went forth with Burton's Superman.
*"Logline"? And you honestly think that someone's "fan-fiction" guised as a "GBIII" script is going to floor everyone here? Trust me there'e been a gazillion of those already, and 90% of them SUCKED IMHO...

*And the "originals being kept away"? Gimmie a break...All this "new guys for the GB's as the originals are owld" crap is getting old and fast...And as for Dan and Harold's hand in the script writing "going south" just because of GBII? I'll only "cry foul" if the story to the new video game [which both of them wrote] ends up sucking - To which I HIGHLY DOUBT that'll happen from what we've all seen in the past year or so...

*And FYI - Batman meshed with his style and vision...Superman wouldn't have...And from what I saw of his drawings for a proposed "Superman" film way-back-when blew..."Superman Returns" was too dark for a "Supes" film as it stands...

*Cheers.


Dude you're right but that's the "BIZ." People aren't going to stop writing just because the odds of getting it made are equivalent to the lottery. Simple scripts from the common man get bought all the time but we could argue the angles of how, when, and the why(s) for days on them becoming films. We all know timing is everything and that it's not the best idea to bring a scipt you've just written to Mark Wahlberg's attention in church. And I wouldn't dare question the validity or skill to which Ramis and Aykroyd have writing so don't think that's what I was doing. To any die hard GB fan this is always going to be a touchy subject but if nothing else, it's an excellent conversation starter.

I saw some of the concept drawings myself of Burton's Superman and it was pretty freaky but who says Superman can't be dark?

*And that's the way the cookie crumbles.*
By JDW
#77141
JackIvyGB wrote:Batman needed a reboot because the last ones= fail.
Superman is getting a reboot because the story of Superman Returns failed, not the character itself and all the things he's known for.
In the same way, the first Hulk movie = fail.
If Ghostbusters had been a failed concept in the 80s and only got one lousy movie, then I'd say go for it. Maybe they can actually make it cool.
But if that were the case, you wouldn't be here on a message forum inhabited by thousands of members who go to sometimes incredible lengths to make replicas of the movie's equipment and vehicles, which we then parade around in public wearing/driving, and get astoundingly positive responses from nearly everyone. They all recognize us, they all know what we're supposed to be, and they all want to take pictures with us. They ask us if we are Gods and if we've seen Elvis lately, they all want to know if we have an inside scoop on GB3 and hope it has the originals in it, and they all leave having their day been made a little brighter, because incase they forgot, we reminded them who they're gonna call.

Superman, Batman, and Hulk were broken, forgotten, and swept under the carpet.
Everyone loves Ghostbusters, everyone remembers Ghostbusters. If they didn't, none of the things AJ pointed out would exsist. Maybe you're a little new to GB. If that's the case, there's a couple things you should now:
1) Ghostbusters. It's the only answer to the question "who ya gonna call" for almost 25 years, so much so that people have to rephrase their inquiries into who another person is attempting to communicate with just so they can avoid the other person shouting "GHOSTBUSTERS."
2) If it ain't broke, you don't need to fix it.
GHOSTBUSTERS. IS. NOT. BROKE.

Have a nice day :-)
Amen brother,amen.
By Ectofiend666
#77160
VenkMan101 wrote:
Dude you're right but that's the "BIZ." People aren't going to stop writing just because the odds of getting it made are equivalent to the lottery. Simple scripts from the common man get bought all the time but we could argue the angles of how, when, and the why(s) for days on them becoming films. We all know timing is everything and that it's not the best idea to bring a scipt you've just written to Mark Wahlberg's attention in church. And I wouldn't dare question the validity or skill to which Ramis and Aykroyd have writing so don't think that's what I was doing. To any die hard GB fan this is always going to be a touchy subject but if nothing else, it's an excellent conversation starter.

I saw some of the concept drawings myself of Burton's Superman and it was pretty freaky but who says Superman can't be dark?

*And that's the way the cookie crumbles.*
*You seem to have a ton of faith in guy "Slimer" or whatever...Unless he's some person involved with "the biz" [which I HIGHLY doubt] he's just another young misguided numbskull who thinks everything that's old "needs to be re-invented"...And just becuase it's become the "norm" in Hollywood over the last decade-and-a-half, doesn't mean that Ghostbusters should be a part of that unholy money-grab trend...It's [the franchise] is fine where it sits, with the movies, cartoons, comics, the new video game, ect. ...There's no need to "re-invent"..."Expand" maybe...Like they've been doing with the video game thus far and with "Extreme Ghostbusters" before it...

*And I realize that it could happen, however the chance of an outright sequel is much greater at this point...And might I point out that scripts get, optioned, picked-up, and bought daily...However the odds of any particular script getting made are, as you said - Like winning the lottery...

*Cheers.

*P.s. - Superman needs actual weighty drama and suspense to account for the genuine heroics of the character, otherwise you have "camp"...On the otherhand you make it too dark and brooding, and you miss the fun of the characters and the situations they're placed in...Compare "Superman" [With Reeves] to "Superman Returns" [With Routh] and see what I mean...
By slimer28
#77359
Amen Ecto fiend and Jack Ivy! Obiviously this guy must be new to GB, if he hasn't noticed this website says GB FANS!!!! Anyway Batman really needed a remake because joel shoumacher f***ed up the franchise, he even admits to it on the difectors commentary. Tim Burton had the right idea for Batman, and as far as his Superman went I really think that he was using it as a way to make another Batman/ keaton film. In interviews Michael Keaton was set to make an appearance as Bruce wayne making that superman movie set in the same universe as Burtons Batman totally disregarding the non Burton sequels. Batman neede to be done right so Batman Begins comes along. Now why in the hell would you want to make a remake to something that was already done right 25 years ago and has managed to keep strong and permanently set itself on the hall of fame shelf as a classic. The whole reason Ghostbusters was good was because of the original actors, that what made it what it was.
I gues not anyone can grasp what Ghostbusters is about and like mentioned earlier this guy must be the type that expects everything old to be remade! Even though im not a Rocky fan that new one started something because now you have another Rambo, a fourth Indiana Jones, and coming soon Beverly Hills Cop4.
By VenkMan101
#77702
slimer28 wrote:Amen Ecto fiend and Jack Ivy! Obiviously this guy must be new to GB, if he hasn't noticed this website says GB FANS!!!! Anyway Batman really needed a remake because joel shoumacher f***ed up the franchise, he even admits to it on the difectors commentary. Tim Burton had the right idea for Batman, and as far as his Superman went I really think that he was using it as a way to make another Batman/ keaton film. In interviews Michael Keaton was set to make an appearance as Bruce wayne making that superman movie set in the same universe as Burtons Batman totally disregarding the non Burton sequels. Batman neede to be done right so Batman Begins comes along. Now why in the hell would you want to make a remake to something that was already done right 25 years ago and has managed to keep strong and permanently set itself on the hall of fame shelf as a classic. The whole reason Ghostbusters was good was because of the original actors, that what made it what it was.
I gues not anyone can grasp what Ghostbusters is about and like mentioned earlier this guy must be the type that expects everything old to be remade! Even though im not a Rocky fan that new one started something because now you have another Rambo, a fourth Indiana Jones, and coming soon Beverly Hills Cop4.


You two must share the same bunk bed or something. New to GB, not likely. Batman, Superman, GB...apples and oranges ladies. And I can guarantee you Slimer 28 if the world went according to that, "if it's not broken don't fix it" motto, than such things as Myspace, Youtube, this GB paradise and such projects like the LHC (you can youtube it if you don't know what i'm referring to) wouldn't exist. Expansion is key and that's traditionally what remakes try to do. They're not out to purposely guise the movie into something it wasn't meant to be. It happens though. I'm sorry you guys take this so personal but there are worse things. It's a catch 22. Fans want to see it remade for the effects and others just don't want it touched. At every angle someone loses. Enough said.

And just one question for EctoFriendship up there...are you a screenwriter?

Best Regards.
By slimer28
#77777
No sir I am not a professional screen writer but I am a film student. I completely agree with what you said I totally support the idea of expansion, but come on a complete overhaul is not needed. I do think that its time to pass the tourch, and the original guys should be involved to a certain extent. I still support what I said the first time being that Ghostbusters was done right the first time and there is no need to reinvent the wheel.
By Quendor
#77780
I don't think the torch needs to be passed literally. Personally, I don't want to see another live action movie at all. A computer animated movie (ala beowulf) would be fine...especially since it could be set back in the day, as the video game is. The only way I would want to see live action is in a well written and well acted tv series (perhaps on showtime, since it could be longer and more nitty gritty. They've done awesome with Dexter). I would prefer that this be a world where the franchise came about, and is not placed in New York (which to me keeps the original guys out of it without disregarding their existance). Chicago might be a good place, I suppose. However, even if it came about in that manner (or any other), I'm not sure it can be done justice as this time. I think by virtue of all the differing views by the hardcore fanbase on where an actual movie (particularly live action) would go, it should probably be left alone (excepting the video game et. al. of course)
By JackIvyGB
#77788
There's a difference between expansion and starting over. Infact, THEY ARE COMPLETE OPPOSITES! One is moving forward, the other is Backward!

If I did GB 3, I'd pass the torch. Does that mean get rid of the originals? HECK NO! It's a logical progression though. Even Dan's original first draft of the first movie ended with them EXPANDING. The movie would start on the eve of GB opening world wide offices. The originals get a call the night before and decide to go on one last hurrah. however, it's a trap and the paranormal world is making one last attempt to stop the GBs before no place in the world is safe. The originals are thrown into a sort of paranormal coma as the team they trained to take over the NY outpost try to unite GBs around the world to solve the mystery. Shenanigans insue and the new team attempts to stop the paranormal legions by themselves, as GBs world wide get ready for the fight of there lives. As they do, a few of the smartest recruits (along with Janine for guidance and memories, obviously) work on waking up the guys. At the last minute, they succeed and the ORIGINAL 4 show up to deal the final blow to whatever this HUGE paranormal threat is as all the other recruits hold off the zombie/ghost/ghoul/goblin minions.
The film ends with GB international opening world wide and the originals becoming more like CEOs. They still build new equipment and run experiments, but they hand the new stuff off to the various teams to test and report back.
Peter becomes the guy who does all the corporate business talk and gets investors for the company, Ray and Egon develop new stuff, and Winston goes to each franchise for reports on how things are running.
THE END.
NO MORE MOVIES (unless it was a darn good story that somehow got the originals back in uniform).
Then I'd pick up with live action TV series and do like CSI, with GB:Dallas, GB:Tokyo, GB:London, GB:Boston, GB: Phoenix, GB Wherever! Ernie Hudson is always doing TV shows nowadays, so he could show up and it would fit his role he ended with in the movie of a supervisor of sorts, popping up randomly from time to time, maybe even strapping on a pack once in a blue moon.
Even the game's storyline has the team pursuing the idea of expansion with the new recruit (not to mention it retains the ORIGINAL CAST).

Now THAT is expansion in a way I would like. What you suggest is a move back to square one! Sure, some completely hate the idea of new recruits, and I'm sure there are ways to do a movie with just the originals (CGI Movie is one way). It's not what I'd prefer, but it's an opinion. One thing that is for sure a common theme with what I'm sure is 99% of GB fans is that we want Bill Murray as Peter Venkman, Ernie Hudson as Winston Zeddemore, Harold Ramis as Egon Spengler, and Dan Aykyroyd as Ray Satntz. PERIOD.
Maybe you're not new to GB, but you MUST be new to how we GB fans think. Instead of insulting us, try to see just what you're getting into before you come in here saying you're right and we're wrong.
By Ectofiend666
#77836
VenkMan101 wrote:
Batman, Superman, GB...apples and oranges ladies. *AND IN THE SAME BREATH* And I can guarantee you Slimer 28 if the world went according to that, "if it's not broken don't fix it" motto, than such things as Myspace, Youtube, this GB paradise and such projects like the LHC (you can youtube it if you don't know what i'm referring to) wouldn't exist.
*The Internetz and the Ghostbusters - "Apples and Oranges" baby...Next thing you'll be comparing GB to is Ronco Food Dehydrators I'm guessing...
Expansion is key and that's traditionally what remakes try to do. They're not out to purposely guise the movie into something it wasn't meant to be.
*Right - Like Rob Zombie's "Halloween", Platnum Dunes' "Texas Chainsaw Massacre", SONY's Prom Night", and the upcoming "Night Of The Demons" remake...They were reeeealll "faithful" to the source material alright - They attempted to "re-invent the wheel" ["Prom Night" being the worst example out of the 4] and FAILED miserably...And that was just a few choice contemporary examples..."The Blob '88" was NOTHING like it's original, neither was David Cronenberg's 1986 remake of "The Fly" to it's original...It just happened that the latter two came out at a time [the 1980's] when Hollywood was ripe with imaginative directors and SFX crews, and as a result were exceptional films on their own...

*However "Ghostbusters" and it's sequel are too quirky and original to change completely, without it becoming almost completely unrecognizable...Before the films - There was no "Proton Pack", no "Ectomobile", and no "Ecto-Containment Unit", unlike the previous films I mentioned, to where face-less stalkers, or hairy man-creatures had existed...So changing those said "movie monsters" to suit a particular director's "vision" isn't as bad...Which makes the "making more recognizable and/or relevant to today's audiences" "point" moot - When you say "Ghostbusters", the 1984 Original is still as fresh in their minds as the day they first saw it, or heard the song...And 95% of the people I've ever come in contact with LOVE IT...Young AND old...So any excuse for a "GB Remake" using that flimsy ploy is just a blatant cash-grab as "all the other "hip studios" are doing it" with other older franchises...
I'm sorry you guys take this so personal but there are worse things. It's a catch 22. Fans want to see it remade for the effects and others just don't want it touched. At every angle someone loses. Enough said.
*Yes - People are going to find fault with something, but at least working with the original characters/actors on some degree, even if it's transitioning to a "younger crew" with "updated equipment" is better than outright cramming "new and hot young stars" in "chic" jumpsuits with slick I-POD-esque apparatuses strapped to their backs, and the "phattest" of rides to chase all latest CGI freakshows this side of M. Night Shylama-ding-dong...

*"Ghostbusters" is just one of those things that is FINE as is..."EXPANSION" again, yes - "Reinvention" NO...I mean even the "reboot" of "Knight Rider" is a DIRECT SEQUEL - AN EXPANSION...Micheal Knight's son w/ new ride [that's still black, talks, and is the next model up from the original car]...
And just one question for EctoFriendship up there...are you a screenwriter?
*Um no...Are you, VenkmanNeedsALessGenericMoniker, a screenwriter yourself?

*And yes - I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. "JackIvyGB"...At least he gets what I'm trying to say...

*Cheers.
By VenkMan101
#77897
I'd only like to say a few things and then i'm done with this topic.

You'd like to brand me with the mark of the beast and somehow imply that i don't know what i'm talking about but If you knew me personally, all of this would be water under the bridge. Which it is because it's more or less opinonated banter from various perspectives. Though yours are under beer goggles. I'm just kidding. Really I'm kidding.

I don't want to insult anyone. I don't want to step on toes. I want friends and casual conversation. This little GB frito pie of do's and dont's should still be delicious. Not nasty.

I'll humbly digress and say i'm winded already. And on a serious note I'm not new to any opinion, verse, lecture, fallacy, or any other GB derivative therein and around. I am a Ghosthead inside and out. Saying that was the real insult Ivy. Just like Chaz Micheal Micheals is Figure Skating...Adam (Venkman101) is GHOSTBUSTING! BOOM!

:cool:

P.S.

Yes Fiend I am a screenwriter.
By JackIvyGB
#77923
Hey I wasn't trying to pick a fight, but defend a stance. I just wasn't hearing anything that said you were a hardcore fan, compared to others. If you are and you still believe a reboot is best, than more power to you. There alot of people that show up and fuss about a reboot just to start stuff though. I meant no harm. As you can probably tell, the rest of us are pretty passionate about GB, as it now sounds like you are too. I apologize for jumping too conclusions, but you have to understand that some of us take offense to the notion of just sweeping all that has come before under the rug and starting over, when all think what we have was and is still pretty great. It doesn't matter if you're new to the site or have been here since the dawn of time, when someone jumps in and opposes what you believe, it warrants a reaction. Again, I apologize if mine was hasty. Calling names didn't help you out here though, but I'm willing to "reboot" our discussion in a more civil manner if you are as well.

:)
Last edited by JackIvyGB on November 4th, 2008, 5:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
By Mjollnir
#77931
Simply put, Ghostbusters doesn't need a reboot. Its doing better than ever.
By spandex wondermonkey
#78225
Well, the way I see it, we're all agreed on one thing; GB III will be made (or broken) by it's script and casting. I personally would love to see the original guys back in the thick of things, but I wouldn't want it to be set up in the script as a kind of 'look how old and past-it these guys are' as an excuse to bring in a who's who of twenty-something actors who are doing the rounds of money-making mega-budget blockbusters at the moment. I like the idea of them being in it as CEOs of the whole Ghostbusting franchise (which, in a way, they are in real life), since it would give a good real-world type of explanation of how they could still be Ghostbusters despite thier advancing age. If written in properly, something like the newer recruits not having the skills or knowledge to deal with a given situation, it would seem plausible for the guys to strap on thier proton packs one last time. What I feel would be nescessary is for them to do a kind of newsreel kinda thing (like straight after the guys bust slimer) to account for the intervening years between GB II and GB III right at the beginning. This would serve to not only fill us 'old skool' GB fans in on what has happened in the past twenty years, but help to introduce the new generation to the GB world, since this may be the first Ghostbusters film they may have seen, and would have no real prior knowledge of the franchise. The newsreel would give a lot of background very quickly to bring them up to speed on who they are, what they do and why they do it.

Just my two cents.
By JackIvyGB
#78266
That's a really good idea! Kind of like how they recapped the Hulk's origin in the new Incredible Hulk.
Start out in the present, the opening scene being the original GBs on a normal bust, end with the ghost being trapped, start the credits and as the song plays, we see flashes of GB 1, GB 2, some other newly shot scenes (maybe based on the events of the game!), maybe a voice over explaining what it's all about, then afterward, get back into the present and the rest of the movie. I like it!
By Mjollnir
#78289
True. They could do that for GB3. Or they could do what they did for Iron man and start off in the present, credits, then go back to the last few hours leading up to it, and then continue with the story.
User avatar
By Icer Rose
#78369
They should make a GB reboot where every character is now played by stop-motion animation pieces of toast.
Positron Props GB1 Pack Build

Awesome!! Good luck on your build! Tom's shell i[…]

Trailer posted for release for the Frozen Empire u[…]

Trivia, callbacks etc I noticed so far *Cover A *[…]

Matty Trap - Replace Pedal?

Has anyone successfully transferred the pedal elec[…]