Ghostbusters

On the contrary. If you would activate the comments option of the Ghostbusters DVD, you would realize that the reason producers had a lot of trouble nailing down the name "Ghostbusters." That was due to a '70s TV show of the same name.

I was living overseas at the time, so I only saw this series and not the "Real Ghostbusters." Until I came to the States, that is. Of course, I was familiar with the popular movie (and the fabulous MTV video), but I like both cartoons. I loved Lorenzo Music as the voice of Peter Venkman and Garfield, as well, but I digress.

Ironically, both were originally live-action, and Ghostbusters (with gorilla) came before Ghostbusters (with Slimer) in both instances, yet most people think that it's the other way around--or weren't aware of the '70s series at all. Like a previous user pointed out, that's the way it will be forever remembered by people.

From 9/6/75 - 9/4/76 there was a live action show known as Ghost Busters. After the Ghostbusters film was a hit, Filmation put out an animated updated version of the show, the Original Ghostbusters in 1986. In the live show The Ghost Busters were a trio (Jake Kong, Eddie Spencer, and Tracy, the gorilla) that dealt with ghosts and other supernatural creatures. At the beginning of each episode, the trio get a taped message outlining their new mission. Once the message plays, the recording self destructs (ala Mission: Impossible). But unlike Mission Impossible, they never manage to get rid of the recording before it explodes.

The Ghost Busters then head out to find, capture, or get rid of the supernatural being. In almost every case, the various creatures end up in the old castle. The various creatures they encountered included vikings, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, vampires, gypsies, werewolves, and of course, various ghosts.

I use to love this show as a child. It's not a rip off from the movie as i twas already mentioned many times. I had a really hard time getting a DVD and now I finally have it. I'm a teacher at a elementary school and I teach English as a foregin language. Guess what - this cartoon is a perfect tool for that. The language and the plot are simple enough for kids to follow it even without listening to the words, so the language sort of slips into their conscience. It's good for basic vocabulary and listening comprehension. The cartoon is also not violent (not really) and funny enough with a strong moral point at the end. So it's perfect for a classroom. At first I was afraid the children would hate it, because the plots are simplistc and the are quite a few goof-ups, but children up to the age of 10 simply loved it and learned quite a few things. We could always start a discussion about the moral of the story (told at the end), revize the new words they've learned and simply reenact some scenes (for pure fun and relaxation). This made me think about this cartoon in a whole new light. It's not just a trip down the memory lane, but it's also a useful tool for foregin language teaching (who would have guessed :)

This cartoon was something that I fondly remember from my childhood of yesteryear. It was based on an older show from the seventies long BEFORE the dan akroyd/bill murray type ghostbusters that were more popular. The only thing about this show that I hated was the talking car.

We used to watch this at my house as a kid - it was in the time slot right before "The Real Ghostbusters", on another network. As has been pointed out, it was nothing compared to "The Real Ghostbusters". However the claim that this show was a rip off is not entirely true.

In 1975 "The Ghostbusters" was released. This film is, in fact, a movie about two guys and a gorrilla who fought Ghosts with their dematerializer. When "The Ghostbusters" (starring Dan Aykroyd) was released, it was quickly made into a cartoon show, and as it was, some genius realized that they had the rights (or could obtain the rights) to a show which actually had a better claim to originality. The show was very slapstick, vaudeville, just like the movie it was based on, and worth a watch. But it's attitude (and quality) we're far different from what fans of the later film expected, and it was quickly labeled a rip off, and lost to time.