Comments on: Ghostbuster 3 CONFIRMED – and it’s CG!!

By: drew

drew — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 15:44:10 +0000

So long as the CG versions of the characters look better than the Bill Murray one did that was up on AICN a while back, I’m okay with it. God, that was terrible.

By: Sonojinshi

Sonojinshi — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 15:36:37 +0000

Actually, I tend to think that anyone who would be turned off by “hell” being in the title would probably have already been turned off by many of the supernatural and demonic(-like) events in the previous movies, if not the entire premise itself.

By: John M

John M — Sat, 03 Feb 2007 23:33:20 +0000

Not so sure how a full CG movie is going to be cheaper. Unless it ends up looking like junk, CG movies are not necessarily cheaper.

By: Mark Pellegrini

Mark Pellegrini — Sat, 03 Feb 2007 18:18:00 +0000

I don’t care if its clay-mation, JUST GIMME THE ****ING MOVIE!!!

But really, CG sounds like a good idea. The original cast is WAY too over-the-hill; even as a die-hard Ghostbusters fan I can see that. Harold Ramis doesn’t even look remotely like he used to. Ageless CG-renderings of the actors is honestly the only way we’ll ever get Ghostbusters 3, and I’m all for it.

The announcement that Murray is onboard threw me through a loop. Looks like everyone finally wore him down.

As for the title, “Ghostbusters: Hellbent”, I’m not so agreeable. I know Aykroyd has always invisioned the third film as “Hell on Earth”, which is fine, but you don’t need to put “Hell” in the title. This is a family franchise, after all. I’m no prude when it comes to language, but such a “hardcore” title isn’t really necessary.

And why give it a fancy title, anyway? “Ghostbusters 3″ is ALL the general audience needs to hear to get them into theaters.

By: Jeremy Steele

Jeremy Steele — Sat, 03 Feb 2007 03:54:02 +0000

Hopefully they use good CG and none of that cheapy crap.