More video proof that I'm a Millennium nerd

[Guest Black's Babe]

I did! I have the dvd set right next to me right now! In fact, I originally joined TIWWA mainly to discuss Harsh Realm. The HR sub-forum was a lot more active back then by the way. You can still go visit the old threads and maybe resurrect one or two, because as I remember, there were some interesting discussions going on.

edit: Here are the two subforums dedicated to the Realm:

Realm of the Rabit Hole

Harsh Realm (1999)

I own HR on dvd, haven't watched it yet though.

got from Best Buy, when they had a huge sale on all F0X shows.

that was back in 2007, haven't seen it there the last few times I was at BB.

They stopped selling Millennium "in-store" as well.

it's still available at deepdiscount.com and dvdempire.com

Edited March 8, 2009 by Black's Babe

[HighPlainsDrifter]

Here is the Ghostbuster 3 story:

Los Angeles, CA (CNS) - Dan Aykroyd has confirmed reports that a third "Ghostbusters" movie is in the works. The 56-year-old actor, who starred in the first two films, revealed in a chat session that the movie is indeed happening.

During the reader chat session on the Boston Globe's website, a fan asked him if reports of another film in the franchise are true, he replied, "Script is commenced early summer. Hope to be in production by late fall 2009."

Hollywood.com then reports that "The Office" co-exec producers Lee Eisenberg and Gene Stupnitsky are penning the screenplay that will bring back the original film's stars - Aykroyd, Harold Ramis, Bill Murray, and Ernie Hudson - back together.

The website adds that the plot concept of the third film will have the old Ghostbusters appear in the film in mentor capacity.

"Ghostbusters" topped the box office for five consecutive weeks when it was released in 1984, grossing over $229.2 million. It was followed by a sequel in 1989, "Ghostbusters II."

source: allheadlinenews.com

[Earthnut]

As much as I would love to discuss Harsh Realm, it's taking all the time I can muster to keep up with all of you on Millennium episodes. I will definitely go there and read some of the posts, and who knows, I might just get the wild hair to start it up again.

It was a good series, but unfortunately it only lasted for one season. The final episode wasn't closure for the story, but it was closure for the season. It couldn't compete with The Matrix that came out at the theatres, with all of it's special effects, yet the filming for Harsh Realm started first. I personally prefer the Harsh Realm story over The Matrix.

[Guest RodimusBen]

I suppose anything is possible and the film could be good... but I'm thinking about the last time Akroyd dusted off one of his old films for a sequel... Blues Brothers 2000... shudder.

I also did not care for the new Indy film, although I know a lot of people did. So for me, personally, the record for resurrecting old franchises has been at least 0 for 2, but I'm probably forgetting some.

At least no one has tried to do a Back to the Future IV... yet.

[Earthnut]

They definitely overdo the sequels and I so hope they leave the "Back To The Future" story alone.

I too wasn't impressed with the latest Indy movie either. It was entertaining, but not as good as the others.

Did you see the original "The Day The Earth Stood Still?" The remake was good, but to me, nothing can compare to the original classic.

Now the remake of, "Journey To The Center Of The Earth" in 3-D was awesome. I love 3-D.

[Guest RodimusBen]

Remakes are a different animal than sequels, though. I'm all for a remake if there is a legitimate reason to make one (the updating of special effects, for example). I can point to any number of remakes that I've enjoyed.

Sequels are hit or miss, but if you have the same talent for the return installments, the chances for success are greater. These days franchises are planned from the outset, so keeping the same talent isn't that difficult.

However, there is a difference between making a sequel 2 - 4 years after the last film and making one more than 20 years later, as the case would be with Ghostbusters 3. The culture, filmmaking and special effects have all changed so drastically in that time frame that by definition it is impossible to make a film anything like the previous two. So then, it becomes not quite a remake, not quite a sequel... I'm not really sure what it is.

Not trying to be a doubting Thomas here, but I am just sick of the lack of creativity in Hollywood these days and I think resurrecting old franchises is one more way they are trying to avoid generating original ideas.

[Earthnut]

"Not trying to be a doubting Thomas here, but I am just sick of the lack of creativity in Hollywood these days and I think resurrecting old franchises is one more way they are trying to avoid generating original ideas."

(Still not sure how to use the quote thing)

You're not being a doubting Thomas, and I think Thomas got a bum rap. He was doing exactly what is expected of us, to try the spirit and see if it's of God. The devil can copy everything but the wounds; those are exclusive.

I agree, Hollywood, just doesn't have the writing talent it used to. Nowadays, if it doesn't have foul language, tons of violence, blood, guts, nudity and sex, it isn't popular. And the awards, absolute, total politics. If I watch them it's strickly to see the dresses and some of the handsome men. That's the woman in me coming out. Otherwise, I can't stand all the flaunted and struting egos. I was raised out there, and met tons of celebrities, and was impressed with very few.

" there is a difference between making a sequel 2 - 4 years after the last film and making one more than 20 years later, as the case would be with Ghostbusters 3."

You are so right, and please tell me we won't be subjected to another GB. Lord help us all.