GBFans.com

savintheday wrote: ↑January 17th, 2019, 9:40 pm GBII Slimer always looked a bit off to me. Gimme Onionhead.

My guess would be it was in order to make him to be more kid friendly. GB2 is definitely toned down from the first.

The sound in the teaser is an original '84 cyclotron proton pack straining numerous times to power up.

You can hear what sounds like the magnetic coil at 0:09s and the crank knob at 0.28s.

After trying a number of times, in the end it finally powers up with that glorious sound.

The proton pack straining to power up is metaphorically the strain of getting GB3 off the ground after all that has happened. The "actual sequel" GB3.

This is huge. We've been waiting for this since 1989.

The teaser plays on things the 2016 movie did not touch. The cyclotron bootup and shutdown sound (not synchrotron) and the '59 Ecto-1. These signs indicate to me that it looks to be a nostalgia fest, a true, final sequel to Ghostbusters, that the entire original fanbase has been waiting for since 1989.

The teaser looks similar to the dark, gritty tone of '84. No kids, No glitzy franchises, no legions of Ghostbusters running around all over the planet.

Just someone discovering things long abandoned, neglected, forgotten.

Working to get an actual proton pack to fire up again.

Uncovering the abandoned and rusted Ecto-1.

On a dark, gloomy night.

Discovering a memory, a feeling lost in time.

Is it Ray Stantz? I can think of no-one more deserving of being in that barn on that night.

The cyclotron also sprays in the teaser.... it super branches. We weed to do some tweaks 20 years later. Things have changed.... we arent just doing kids parties these days.

Entertainment Tonight on the new movie:

https://youtu.be/Uysr98sKIs0?t=317



(apparently there was more footage but I didn't catch it, thought that was the end of it all)

That said nothing more that what we were talking about....

UntouchableGen wrote: ↑January 17th, 2019, 10:17 pm That said nothing more that what we were talking about....

It's for the straights...the more common folks who don't stay up to date over the internet.

But the teaser.. said more than that.

If you weren’t keen on teenagers, you’ll have fun with this:

https://twitter.com/DanielRPK/status/10 ... 3597776896

“Not an all-female team this time, but the main character/Ghostbuster is a 12-year-old girl!”

Supposedly this guy is somewhat reliable for leaks. Doesn’t mean it’s true of course.

UntouchableGen wrote: ↑January 17th, 2019, 10:41 pm But the teaser.. said more than that.

I guess I didn't get the rest of anything that aired, I assumed that's all there was on it and stopped recording. I don't watch Entertainment Tonight and had no clue there was more content to follow. Sorry guys.

Davideverona wrote: ↑January 17th, 2019, 3:44 pm BUT...

https://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/fir ... busters-3/

I can see the 'Internet' dismissing this as Stranger Things fanfic but it kinda reminded me of the first Aykroyd/Ramis collaboration draft for the first movie in that the guys were working at a small college in New England, they investigated a converted farmhouse where a family was being bothered with incessant knocking, got fired and went to New York. Then later on, Egon concluded a small community in northern New Jersey was the likely epicenter of major psychic activity.

I originally thought the old barn teaser was just a gag to illustrate Jason Reitman's 'we found the car' tweet and would have nothing to do with the actual movie...
But if there's any thruth to this plot about the young kids and the family moving back to a small town the teaser could be more than a just a standalone gag...

Anyway. If this teen thing turns out to be true, I'm not worried about it. I have full confidence in the Reitmans.
Also- don't forget that the some of the most cherished blockbusters from around the time the original Ghostbusters came out centered around teens.
E.T., The Goonies, Gremlins, Stand by me, The Breakfast Club, The Karate Kid...
Kids didn't seem to bother anyone in those movies.

Neih, I ain't afraid o' no kids.

*crosses fingers*

Well its been a while! Looks like sh*t just got real again in the GB universe.
...Anyone else notice the Ectoplasm on the Fence?

The Daily Mail interview with Ernie took place in January 3rd. He was at a NAACP IMAGE SCREENING. Maybe he knew something was going on but didn't know the details that were revealed later. I think this is why his declarations doesn't align with the official statement by Reitman Jr.

Some thoughts:

In the first movie, when Spengler, Venkman and Stantz leave the bank, Stantz says "But my parents left me that house. I was born there!" I'm wondering if this barn is a part of that very house that they took out a third mortgage against.

I don't buy into the 12 year old girl being the main character in the sense that she is going to strap on a proton pack and start busting ghosts. However, if true, then this girl may have some kind of special ability that allows her to communicate with the undead or is otherwise haunted by something much like Dana was in the first two movies.

Other trades are reporting that Sony is looking to cast four teenagers. Maybe they'll strap on some gear like Extreme Ghostbusters?

I could see these kids being told ghost stories by their crazy neighbor/relative - which turns out to be Ray Stantz. Then this 12 year old girl somehow channels this new threat, Stantz fixes up the gear, and he and Winston train these new kids to save the day. Something like that anyway.

Ivan stated that the story was incredibly emotional and funny; having unknown kids in main roles and a rural setting vs. a big city are two great ways to keep costs down and we have to assume that Sony isn't wanting to throw $150 million into another risky GB project. Jason Reitman is a character driven writer/director and there's no way that this is going to be Goosebumps-esque.

I think it's going to be a struggle for a lot of fans to distance themselves from the "getting the band back together/passing the torch/franchises everywhere/going back into business" type of storylines that we've all been pondering for the last 30 years. We are more than likely going to get something completely original and pretty different from the first two movies; and that's okay by me.

Predicting a once in a lifetime, Oscar worthy performance from Dan Aykroyd.

Besides, if this GB is successful, we can get another, more traditional "in the city" movie. I think the only possible cast member we could lose is Murray (assuming he's in 3, but Ernie makes it sound like he might be), so in 4 we could still have Winston/Ray along for the ride.

Ghostbusters 4? Well most of them will be pushing 100 by then but I'm down. Them nursing homes have to be haunted...

Perhaps one (or two) are related to the Ghostbusters. I remember one script having the daughter of Egon in it, in search of her lost father after an experiment gone wrong and I really liked that idea.

The others can be friends of her or something.

Alphagaia wrote: ↑January 18th, 2019, 9:27 am Perhaps one (or two) are related to the Ghostbusters. I remember one script having the daughter of Egon in it, in search of her lost father after an experiment gone wrong and I really liked that idea.

The others can be friends of her or something.

I was going to reply to you but maybe one of them could be Oscar the little baby from the second one as that was a rumour years ago. Then I realised that was 1989 and went "oh no he'd be too old" then I remembered I was born 4 years before that and went "oh god .... I'm too old!" Now I feel bad lol

They did the "we're back!!" plot in GB2 so I'd be happy with a different plot. Or, at least, they can reopen the firehouse right before the big battle at the end. Then the new team pick up the business at the very end of the movie.

This popped up on Jason Reitman's Instagram feed:


(Click here if the image doesn't show up).

Will the uniforms be next? Will they have a new logo like GBII? I really would love to see the new gear out before Con Season begins!

Duuuude, they did that with practical effects?! I thought it was a quick CGI job, that's impressive. My faith in his project to not make it a CGI eye sore has just tripled.

Kingpin wrote: ↑January 18th, 2019, 11:50 am This popped up on Jason Reitman's Instagram feed:


(Click here if the image doesn't show up).

That is awesome, I really hope they try to do as many practical effects as possible. Too many movies now are just all green screen and I feel like all the effects end up taking me out of the movie. I think someone mentioned earlier in this thread how well the effects done in the first movie still stack up today, I’d love to see more of it!

Kingpin wrote: ↑January 18th, 2019, 11:50 am This popped up on Jason Reitman's Instagram feed:


(Click here if the image doesn't show up).

Guys...you know what?

I think Jason is going to make this movie JUST FOR ME. No I'm kidding but based on that small trailer snippet and then this picture? He's doing things OLD SCHOOL. No over done CGI. It's going to be like Blade Runner 2049. A mix of both. Miniatures, optical compositing, rotoscoping and matte paintings. I swear to god I'm going to cry if that's the case, because I'll feel like it was made just for me. That's all I've ever wanted from an aesthetic stand point. It'll be like how Wes Anderson does effects.

Knock this out of the Park Jason. I believe in you. This was your destiny. Use old school methods, use Elmer Bernstein's score, hire the best production designers and cinematographers.


That's one other thing that bothered me about the reboot. The first two movies crew reads like a whose who of filmmaking legends. Check out these names: Laslo Kovac, John De Cuir, Richard Edlund, Steve Johnson, Elmer Bernstein, Michael Chapman, Bo Welch, Rick Heinrichs, Dennis f****g Murren, Phil Tippet, Randy Edelman. And that's leaving out the Harold Ramis's, Bill Murray, Ivan Reitman's etc

Someone should count the Oscar nominations for the names in those crews. The crew for the reboot had...
Not a single "top mind" in any field. Not in photography, effects, production design or otherwise. Just as a interesting contrast between the two ways the two different directors approached the movies. One got the cream of the crop. The other settled on people still making a name for them selves(which isn't wrong. Everyone starts out somewhere. It's just an interesting contrast)

SpaceBallz wrote: ↑January 18th, 2019, 12:24 pm Duuuude, they did that with practical effects?! I thought it was a quick CGI job, that's impressive.

I think it's a mix. The beam effects and general text were very likely CGI, but the smoke effect was achieved practically.

Kingpin wrote: ↑January 18th, 2019, 2:09 pm

SpaceBallz wrote: ↑January 18th, 2019, 12:24 pm Duuuude, they did that with practical effects?! I thought it was a quick CGI job, that's impressive.

I think it's a mix. The beam effects and general text were very likely CGI, but the smoke effect was achieved practically.

Yeah that's about it, but the text was practical as well. They handcut the text as well and placed it in front of the smoke. This is some smart marketing, as besides a teaser filled with nostalgia in look and sound, they follow up by implying practical effects are real important.

Only thing I'm a little negative/nitpicky on is that I kinda feel the process was a bit pointless to do that way as digital would be just as good for a text or two. Seems a waste of time, but eh what do I know. It is good for marketing.

Furthermore, ATC also did a lot of practical effects overlaid with (stylised )cgi, which people seemed to dislike (I loved it), but I'm curious how they will update the ghosts (and hope again they go with the more scary GB1 style ghosts.

By the way, that's me preferring GB1 over GB2 twice now, but I still love that movie as well for the most part!

I think the problem with the ATC FX was that they were too colourful, too bright. Reminded me of Schumacher's Batman.

Yeah, it was heavily stylised and bright. I loved the huge amount of detail in them, but others weren't as charmed by it. No biggy.

Davideverona wrote: ↑January 18th, 2019, 3:00 pm I think the problem with the ATC FX was that they were too colourful, too bright. Reminded me of Schumacher's Batman.

The looked like the effects in goosebumps movie. Which like that style it looks great but I understand it's not for everyone