There's always been a rumor that that some involved (especially Murray) intentionally made a bad movie so they'd never have to make a third. I remember Murray insisting for a while they call it "The Last of the Ghostbusters" instead of "Ghostbusters II". In fact (and I know he said this), he was quoted as saying "We'll burn in hell if this is called 'Ghostbusters II'".

Do people really hate GB II that much? I thought it was a pretty worthy sequel, although not as good as the first.

Apparently there was a playable demo at comiccon and Sierra still wants to release this. They'll find a way to release it as much time as has been put into it.

GBII to me was just ok. I'll watch it if it's on for bits pieces for Ackroyd, Ramis, and Murray. Hudson really feels out of place in those films, especially in II. But I never go out of my way to see GBII. GBI was smart, witty as hell, and created a world that could make you believe that yes, Ghostbusters would be something worth having around...

It's been a long, long time -- but here is another edition of "Abob Teff's Random Page 3 Thoughts" ...

As for the Hell idea -- didn't Bill & Ted already do that? If not, I know that Halle Berry did -- or was that the Hell she puts us through in her movies?

I've said before and I'll say it again -- Evolution was as close to GB3 as we'll ever get. That movie really felt like that the script may have started as GB3 and then been adapted into a stand alone project.

What the hell is up with the new Mountain Dew flavors? Ehhhh....

Having said that -- David Duchovny would be a great addition to the GB crew.

Will Smith already did his version of Ghostbusters -- It was called Men In Black.

Here is a script idea -- and archive this so then I get some credit when it pops up on screen ... one of the Ghostbusters (odds are Venkman ... although Dan Aykroyd's looks anymore may indicate Ray would be the one who has "cashed in") has moved on from the group and franchised the Ghostbusters ... this cannot be used as a throw-away vehicle though to write out the originals. It can serve to bring in new cast and still keep the old crew in the film. Of course, Dan Aykroyd would have to use the line "We're getting the band back together."

Voltage is the only good one...tastes like a carbonated take on the Ice Blue Raspberry Lemonade Kool-Aid. Super nostalgic and quite awesome.

The original is a true classic. Ghostbusters II was a big step down. Parts of it worked, but others were just silly, and not in a good way. I would love to see that long rumored CGI version of a sequel, though, with Bill, Dan, Harold, and Ernie voicing their characters.

Anyway, if a Ghostbusters 3 is, in fact, coming to the big screen, I will almost certainly give it my $7. Love Steve Carell and Seth Rogen, and a new Ghostbusters story could be great, if handled with care. Cautiously optimistic.

--THX

To clear up any of this, all of this rumors that surfaced this week stemmed from - yes - a photoshopped picture by one of the members over at Ghostbusters Fans. Proton Charging had a contest a couple of months back where you'd photoshop the actors you could see fit in to a third film.

THERE IS NO TRUTH TO THIS RUMOR.

Some website picked up on the notion via the pic that it was happening, and one website picked it up from there and yadda yadda yadda.. there's a huge discussion on the matter over at GB Fans.

Here's the thing.. with the game being delayed to coincide with the 25th anniversary of the franchise, the last thing coming anywhere is GB3. Aykroyd has stated numerous times that the game is essentially Ghostbusters III, taking elements from his first draft as well as an entirely new storyline.

So again, sorry to burst the bubble here, but that rumor has been debunked.

Also, on the subject of Ghostbusters II, it's pretty obvious Murray was going through the motions of being there. It's obvious. Before GB2 even happened all 4 GBs and Reitman sat down and wanted to reunite for another film - but not necessarily a sequel to Ghostbusters. Push came to shove though and we got GB2.

Given that I'm an 80s child, Ghostbusters is my favorite movie and I pretty much live for the franchise, I hold GB2 as equal as I do the first film. It has its merits. Maybe I'm more partial to it since I saw it in theaters when I was 3.. I dunno. But yeah.

No GB3 for awhile.

I always felt like Hudson was one of the strong points, especially in II where I thought Murray was just terrible compared to his outstanding performance in the original. And you needed Hudson's character in the first because he was the normal guy that was just doing a job and not a scientist, or a pseudo-scientist anyway:)

Where and when has this been stated? I know the Activision/Blizzard merger has shaken things up and Ghostbusters is in limbo right now but I've never seen a mention of holding it for an anniversary release.

That's the game plan now since Activison put the kibosh on publishing it.

http://blog.ghostbusters.net/2008/07...-of-franchise/

I apologize if I worded my previous statement incorrectly.

potentially delayed ≠ delayed

Ghostbusters 2 sucked, and was critically panned. It was also a cheap copy of the first movie. I don't see why a Ghostbusters 3 is even necessary.

While I can't say I disagree with any of this, the good thing about stuff like this is that it doesn't have to suck merely by its existence and there's a chance it'll be worth watching. We all have the choice to not push play.

So because it was critically panned, that makes it a bad movie?

Don't watch a third movie if it's made then, because Lord knows it's bound to get some negative reviews.

Ghostbuster 2 is awful, but I'm down for a third.

Well, my point was that it seemed like the franchise was tapped, and the cartoon was the natural evolution for the series. Even the cartoon became repetitive after a while.

And I mean... critically panned movies tend not to have sequels made. At least, for a long time... take the Superman and Batman franchises for example. And the only reason they were brought back was because someone new was at the helm who wanted to do something different with the movies. Although the concepts i've heard for a GBIII sound... interesting... they don't sound like they'd make a good movie.

You mean like 20 years or so? ;)

That's not true at all. Studios don't care how a movie is reviewed, they only care about how much money it makes. Every so often a movie is so universally reviled that the studio knows better than to try and milk it anymore, but that's the exception, not the rule. I'm sure Columbia would have loved to make more Ghostbusters movies, but Murray and potentially other members of the creative team weren't interested.

I think a prime example of movies that are shit-canned in reviews but always get semi-sequels are those stupid parody movies (Date Movie, Epic Movie, Meet the Spartans, etc. etc). They're always guaranteed to bring in more than enough money to recoup the budget and then some.

There are also seven Police Academy movies, and it's not because each one got 4 stars from Ebert back in the 80s.

So, as Supermallet pointed out, it's definitely money. And say what you want, but with all of these 80s revivals a third Ghostbusters if done right could make bank.

i just think that the movie has limited potential. GBII and the cartoon really showed that the concept can only be stretched so far.

Although, I don't want to completely discount the idea, i'm not interested in seeing a sequel. I still love the first movie, and the first few seasons of the cartoon.

Also, I think Extreme Ghostbusters really left a bad taste in my mouth.

GBII wasn't bad, it just wasn't as good as the first. but I think a lot of it has to do with the chemistry of the cast, which is undeniably there on the screen.

I don't disagree but, 1984(GB), 1989(GB2) and 2009(GB game) isn't stretching it too thin. I wouldn't consider the cartoon canon(not to mention I've never seen it).

I wish they had gone with Murray's original idea, where his character dies early on in the film and spends the rest of the movie haunting the remaining guys as a ghost.