Ew.com reports that even Rick Moranis who played the gate keeper Louis Tully will also return to the Ghost Busters III cast.
… And yes, the original cast will return: Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson, Rick Moranis, and even the elusive Bill Murray. “Everybody said they’d do it,” says Ramis, who doesn’t intend to direct Ghostbusters III. “They’ll be looking at younger actors [for the lead roles], I’m sure. But we’ll be in it as mentors or advisers. I think the first one captured something that hadn’t been seen for a long time: the combination of scary movies and smart broad comedy. That was a great comic edge to play. Fortunately, we stopped before we beat it into the ground. If we’d done a third one then, no one would want to see one now, I think, cause we were headin’ downhill, even with the second one,” he laughs. “We’ll see, everyone’s gonna have to love the [Ghostbusters III] script to move it forward.”
– Ew.com
Read more about Ghost Busters III on EW.com here.
Stay tuned to Shockya.com for the latest from Ghost Busters III.
Is this a real Ghostbusters 3 Logo or fake? i’m working on Real Ghostbusters wiki and i’d like to know so can someone let me know if it’s real or fake? please email me at dar111191@gmail.com or come to http://www.realghostbusters.wikia.com and let me know, cause if it is i’d like to add it to the ghostbusters 3 page, but if not i’d like to know who designed cause whoever designed it i’d like to know how and why, because it is copyrighed!
also why are you guys using avatar names? it’s also copyrighted?
and ghostbusters 3 isn’t coming out for a while but hopefully it will come out soon!
RE to: Daniel Abraham Raviv. … Shut up. Copyright schmoppyright, Why can’t you just apprecitate the creative artistic rendition for what it is?? Nobody is making money off of it here. And besides isn’t GHOSTBUSTERS the name/word copyrighted too? Then by tyoing it just now have I too violated copyright law? As did you by typing AVATAR. HYPOCRITE!!!
dont worry Daniel, Edward just got out of the wrong side of the bed today..
yes its a FAKE LOGO
Wouldn’t the logo be trademarked, rather than copyrighted? If so, then it wouldn’t necesarrily matter if it were used for commercial purposes–e.g., if the owners of GB’s logo sued for “dilution.”