SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Posted: Feb 05 2007 07:09 pm

Dan Aykroyd likes to talk. The once-relevant comedian was a guest on a talk program on radio station CISN FM as well as holding an interview in The Edmonton Sun, and dropped the following two pieces of info:

1.) Another Ghostbusters movie is on the way. It will be CGI as opposed to live action and will include both Aykroyd and Bill Murry, previsouly a holdout. Here's how Aykroyd described the flick: "We go to the hell side of Manhattan, downtown, Foley Square. It's all where the cops are--they are all blue minotaurs. Central Park is this huge peat mine with green demons there, surrounded by black onyx thousand-foot high apartment buildings with classic red devils, very wealthy. We go and visit a Donald Trump-like character who is Mr. Sifler. Luke Sifler. Lu-cifer. So we meet the devil in it"

2.) Here's what Aykroyd told The Edmonton Sun: "Universal [Studios] purchased the rights from Sony for a game...I'm actually going to have to perform and do some motion capture for them. That will be next year."

Joined: Apr 14 2006 Location: Lake Michigan Posts: 3332

Considering that the first sequel sucked (except for the courtroom scene which actually had ghosts in it), and that Aykroyd is the one that brought us another horribly unnecessary sequel, Blue Brothers 2000, this movie is almost certainly a bad idea.

Posted: Feb 05 2007 09:13 pm

I've been letdown by Ghostbusters 3s before. I'll believe it when I see it.

I joined the club of people who think Wes Anderson should direct it awhile ago.

Why do people hate Ghostbusters 2, actually, why do people find it so hard to believe that inbetween Ghostbusters 1 and 2 that they started doing birthday parties? 1 out of 4 people I meet have a problem with it and I will not be satisfied until everyone in the world knows what its like. Let's see how you do up there without the accompaniment.

Posted: Feb 05 2007 09:34 pm

Tebor wrote:

Why do people hate Ghostbusters 2, actually, why do people find it so hard to believe that inbetween Ghostbusters 1 and 2 that they started doing birthday parties? 1 out of 4 people I meet have a problem with it and I will not be satisfied until everyone in the world knows what its like. Let's see how you do up there without the accompaniment.

The doing birthday parties thing... does that seem extremely lame? Of course, it does! That's why it justified by the fact that the Ghostbusters had to pay repair damages from the fiasco at the end of Ghostbusters 1. They're basically dirt poor. Sure, Ray was a book shop, but it's an Occult book shop filled with weird, odd books that most people don't buy. Egon went to doing some more paranormal experimentation probably funded by some college or science group and Peter got a hoaxy show full of fake psychics. I don't know what Winston moved onto. They weren't making much money on the little they had, so it makes perfect sense that they'd try to make some extra money by utilizing what's left of the Ghostbuster name.

I love 2. I don't see what the problem with it was. Plus, I think Peter MacNicol played Janosh (sp) perfectly. I honestly thought he was foreigner until I saw him on Numb3rs and 24. Also, I always thought Vigo was infinitely more badass than Gozier, which always made me think of my health teacher, Mr. Gosier.

On Ghostbusters 3... I don't know. I'm pretty much with Tebor and seemingly everyone else on this one. If it happens, it happens... and hopefully it'll be any good. I haven't seen Blues Brothers 2000, but I've heard... things. >_>

Posted: Feb 05 2007 09:38 pm

Rycona wrote:

Also, I always thought Vigo was infinitely more badass than Gozier

And there was definite end to his character unlike that freaky Michael Jackson she-man. I've never really understood that ending... did it become Stay Puff?

Joined: Apr 14 2006 Location: Lake Michigan Posts: 3332

Ghostbusters 2 sucks because there were no ghosts in it. When you go to a movie called Ghostbusters, you expect to see ghosts as the bad guys not a river of ectoplasm. The courtroom scene was the only good scene in the entire movie.

Posted: Feb 05 2007 11:52 pm

Cattivo wrote:

Ghostbusters 2 sucks because there were no ghosts in it. When you go to a movie called Ghostbusters, you expect to see ghosts as the bad guys not a river of ectoplasm. The courtroom scene was the only good scene in the entire movie.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

Ghosts over goo anyday.

Joined: Feb 24 2006 Posts: 2578

I will give lots of love to Ghostbusters II. It was a lot of fun.

Incidentally, rewatching both movies, I was also surprised at the ending of the first. It's pretty anti-climactic. They fixed that in number two.

Posted: Feb 06 2007 12:05 am

Cattivo wrote:

Ghostbusters 2 sucks because there were no ghosts in it. When you go to a movie called Ghostbusters, you expect to see ghosts as the bad guys not a river of ectoplasm.

Viggo is dead. Hence he's a ghost.

The Scolari Brothers are big time ghosts. Ghosts run amuck throughout New York. There's a montage of ghost busting in the film to Run-DMC. Slimer drives a bus. The pier just called, they say the Titanic just arrived! If that's not enough ghosts I'm going to just cut a Slimer subplot out of a movie. Confused

Posted: Feb 06 2007 12:14 am

Yeah, Vigo was totally a ghost.

Joined: Apr 14 2006 Location: Lake Michigan Posts: 3332

A ghost we mainly saw as a frickin painting. That's boring.

Posted: Feb 06 2007 03:29 pm

He was a strategist ghost. He didn't just go flying around crazily. He waited in the painting for the negativity to build so he could dominate and generally improved his position. It's like a chess game. Of course, his big blunder was when he kidnapped the baby of the lady who was closest to the Ghostbusters. If he had grabbed someone else's baby, the Ghostbusters wouldn't have been on it and it would've been a regular police investigation. Of course, they might still have realized what was going on and beat him in time, but it would have been close.

Title: Nothing Special Joined: Oct 25 2006 Posts: 396

I still blame it all on Carpathian kitten loss.

Posted: Feb 06 2007 05:37 pm

jonnymorgue wrote:

I still blame it all on Carpathian kitten loss.

If Janosh had let him paint it in there, perhaps the spell would have been broken and everything would have be fine much earlier.

2010 SLF Tag Champ Joined: Jun 07 2006 Posts: 12294

Cattivo wrote:

Considering that the first sequel sucked (except for the courtroom scene which actually had ghosts in it), and that Aykroyd is the one that brought us another horribly unnecessary sequel, Blue Brothers 2000, this movie is almost certainly a bad idea.

pure insnaity. you need help.

Title: Scientist Joined: Jan 11 2007 Posts: 210

How will they hunt ghosts when most of the characters would need oxygen masks and walkers?

Posted: Feb 13 2007 08:02 pm

It's going to be CGI.

Posted: Feb 13 2007 08:21 pm

Is this gonna be like Ghostbusters: Unleashed, or whatever the hell that shitty cartoon was called?

2010 SLF Tag Champ Joined: Jun 07 2006 Posts: 12294

do I need to track down the nightwish music video again?

Joined: Jul 16 2006 Location: 22 Acacia Avenue Posts: 324

I don't know about you guys, but I thought Viggo in the painting from GB II was scary as hell. Especially at the end when his face gets all weird looking.

Posted: Feb 26 2007 01:19 am

Avian wrote:

I don't know about you guys, but I thought Viggo in the painting from GB II was scary as hell. Especially at the end when his face gets all weird looking.

Agreed. There was a certain spot in my kitchen where I could stand to look through the window of the door onto the back porch and there would almost always be lighting shining in such a way that it looked like a distorted Vigo head.

In another room of my house, they was a similar effect bearing the face of the main character on the arcade cabinet for Operation: Wolf.

Posted: Apr 23 2007 07:56 pm

i just want to go on the record saying that the original ghostbusters is easily my favorite move of all time. there are so many damn quotable lines in that movie. ghostbusters II, not so much.

i think III could be cool if it is geared towards adults, rather than kids. the blue minotaur cops could be bad ass. like most, however, i'll expect something lame, until shown otherwise.

Posted: Apr 23 2007 10:09 pm

Wilkommen, new guy. For the record, don't go bumping old threads. No big deal, though.

Posted: Apr 23 2007 11:10 pm

The rule is "Don't go bumping old threads for no reason".

As monachetti stated, he is a huge fan of the original GB and that is reason enough. I would also wager to guess that he joined the forums specifically so that he could reply to this thread. So let's not go jumping on him.

As for GB3, I'm kind of intrigued. When I first heard about this project, I was largely disinterested. I mean, come on. CGI Ghostbusters? How could that possibly turn out well? However the recent TMNT movie has demonstrated that old franchises can be successfully revived via CGI and not suck.

Posted: Apr 24 2007 12:14 am

I still keep hearing it's a hoax... And as far as I know there isn't video of Danny Boy saying a film's a go, unlike his infamous wine interview. The video game is definite however.

People, this a call for proof (preferably video) that this project is happening.