Raptor-chan
07-01-2009, 02:32 PM
http://wii.kombo.com/images/content/news/blurb_ghostbusters2_20090630.jpg
When Ghostbusters: The Video Game was announced, I knew I'd have to try the Wii version. And having played it, I can honestly say that I have not been disappointed.
Of course, in the early going, I was a little disappointed that so long as they were going for an animated style, theirs more akin to "The Incredibles," as Dan Aykroyd put it, then why not use the designs of "The Real Ghostbusters," which were familiar to tons of kids who grew up in the late 80's?
That disappointment did come to pass; after all, if you're a real fan of the Ghostbusters, then you were no doubt happy to be getting a game of this caliber after all this time. And the Ghostbusters have had no shortage of iterations: The original movies, the Real cartoon, modern comic books (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostbusters:_Legion), manga (http://www.tokyopop.com/product/2656/Ghostbusters/1), and even the Extreme (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4TjIkAYAZw) update. So new looks are nothing... well, new.
But, the question remains: Why didn't they go with the "Real" look?
In the August issue of ToyFare magazine (#144), an interview with Creative Director Drew Haworth of Terminal Reality provided the answer:
Did you draw any inspiration from The Real Ghostbusters animated series?
We avoided reference to any of the animated series. This isn't a reflection of their quality, but because the animated series isn't actually considered canon, and everyone from Sony to the original creators to us didn't want to create any confusion by blending them.As an aside, I had heard that in the Real Ghostbusters universe, the movies that we know and love were also movies in that universe-- sort of a "the same, but different" telling of one of their adventures. However, I have seen nothing to substantiate that claim, and do remember an episode Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_Ghostbusters) makes note of, which follows the events of the movie and even shows them getting their new suits.
Just the same, it's strange to think, that after all this time, that series "wasn't canon" to the films.
We understand why this disappoints some players, and even some of the people on our teams-- especially the younger ones that grew up with the series as their prime source of Ghostbusters-- but there is enough excellent material to derive from the original material to fuel twenty great games.Speaking to that, I have to admit: As a child of the time, the movie was neat, but I did not appreciate it nearly as much then as I do now, as an adult. That said, The Real Ghostbusters series really was what got me hooked, and I still believe it to be one of the greater cartoons of its day. Just the same, I can understand and appreciate why they did as they did.
On a related note, in the same issue, ToyFare interviews Ghostbusters co-writer and star Harold Ramis, who plays the part of Egon Spengler. And in that, he reveals just why it seems that the changes were made to the characters from the movies to the cartoon and toys. It starts with a question regarding Mattel's new movie-accurate Ghostbusters figures:
What was it like seeing an action figure that actually looked like you?
I saw the maquette-- the clay model of my head, which was cool-- Then they showed me a fully dressed figure without the head. It was weird coming after all the merchandising that was really predicated on the cartoon show. The movie drove the merchandising and yet they were afraid to use our likenesses because they didn't know that we would stick with it. And now, to see one that actually looks like me and to see our likenesses in the new video game is incredible. It's kind of exciting for me, having spent so much money as a father on action figures.And so there is that. Which, thinking back, I would certainly hate to take that feeling of joy away from Mr. Ramis, even if it was just for the tooned-up versions of the cast.
Courtesy: Kotaku, Kombo via GoNintendo
When Ghostbusters: The Video Game was announced, I knew I'd have to try the Wii version. And having played it, I can honestly say that I have not been disappointed.
Of course, in the early going, I was a little disappointed that so long as they were going for an animated style, theirs more akin to "The Incredibles," as Dan Aykroyd put it, then why not use the designs of "The Real Ghostbusters," which were familiar to tons of kids who grew up in the late 80's?
That disappointment did come to pass; after all, if you're a real fan of the Ghostbusters, then you were no doubt happy to be getting a game of this caliber after all this time. And the Ghostbusters have had no shortage of iterations: The original movies, the Real cartoon, modern comic books (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostbusters:_Legion), manga (http://www.tokyopop.com/product/2656/Ghostbusters/1), and even the Extreme (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4TjIkAYAZw) update. So new looks are nothing... well, new.
But, the question remains: Why didn't they go with the "Real" look?
In the August issue of ToyFare magazine (#144), an interview with Creative Director Drew Haworth of Terminal Reality provided the answer:
Did you draw any inspiration from The Real Ghostbusters animated series?
We avoided reference to any of the animated series. This isn't a reflection of their quality, but because the animated series isn't actually considered canon, and everyone from Sony to the original creators to us didn't want to create any confusion by blending them.As an aside, I had heard that in the Real Ghostbusters universe, the movies that we know and love were also movies in that universe-- sort of a "the same, but different" telling of one of their adventures. However, I have seen nothing to substantiate that claim, and do remember an episode Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_Ghostbusters) makes note of, which follows the events of the movie and even shows them getting their new suits.
Just the same, it's strange to think, that after all this time, that series "wasn't canon" to the films.
We understand why this disappoints some players, and even some of the people on our teams-- especially the younger ones that grew up with the series as their prime source of Ghostbusters-- but there is enough excellent material to derive from the original material to fuel twenty great games.Speaking to that, I have to admit: As a child of the time, the movie was neat, but I did not appreciate it nearly as much then as I do now, as an adult. That said, The Real Ghostbusters series really was what got me hooked, and I still believe it to be one of the greater cartoons of its day. Just the same, I can understand and appreciate why they did as they did.
On a related note, in the same issue, ToyFare interviews Ghostbusters co-writer and star Harold Ramis, who plays the part of Egon Spengler. And in that, he reveals just why it seems that the changes were made to the characters from the movies to the cartoon and toys. It starts with a question regarding Mattel's new movie-accurate Ghostbusters figures:
What was it like seeing an action figure that actually looked like you?
I saw the maquette-- the clay model of my head, which was cool-- Then they showed me a fully dressed figure without the head. It was weird coming after all the merchandising that was really predicated on the cartoon show. The movie drove the merchandising and yet they were afraid to use our likenesses because they didn't know that we would stick with it. And now, to see one that actually looks like me and to see our likenesses in the new video game is incredible. It's kind of exciting for me, having spent so much money as a father on action figures.And so there is that. Which, thinking back, I would certainly hate to take that feeling of joy away from Mr. Ramis, even if it was just for the tooned-up versions of the cast.
Courtesy: Kotaku, Kombo via GoNintendo