Rant: You Know What? I Don't Even Want 'Ghostbusters 3' Anymore

February 29, 2012

Ghostbusters 3

Though we tend to hold off on all the monthly updates on the status of Ghostbusters 3, mainly because they're always the same, recent word from Dan Aykroyd seems to be putting nails in the coffin of the long gestating and anticipated sequel. In speaking with The Telegraph (via Collider), the Ghostbusters star and writer stated: "At this point it's in suspended animation. The studio, the director Ivan Reitman and [co-star] Harold Ramis feel there must be a way to do it, but Bill Murray will not do the movie. He doesn't want to be involved." It was at this point that I realized, I don't even want to see this movie anymore.

Of course, Bill Murray has always been the hold out on the project, though rumors of his shredding the script and being belligerent are vastly exaggerated. But that's not even the problem anymore. The problem is that every time a story like this hits the internet, all the movie, pop culture and Ghostbusters fan sites go crazy with speculation and it's always the same routine. The sad thing is, nothing has really changed over the years that we've been hearing about this potential sequel, mostly ever since that kick-ass video game was released in 2009. And now, with all this hype, and all these problems delaying the movie, I just don't care anymore. Aykroyd keeps trying to reassure fans with quotes like this:

"We're not going to do a movie that exploits the franchise. The script has to be perfect. I'm the cheerleader, but I'm only one voice in the matter. It's a surety that Bill Murray will not do the movie, however there is still interest from the studio."

But does anyone really think the movie will be as good as it's been hyped up to be at this point? Forget the fact that Bill Murray may not do the movie, even if he was involved, is there any chance that a Ghostbusters sequel, decades after the original, would be anywhere near as good or entertaining as that first film back in 1984. Of course, if the studio is willing and everyone besides Bill Murray is willing to strap on the proton packs and get a new crew together, what's the harm in fighting some more ghosts with a positron collider? Well, the studio just wants the money from an established franchise. If you haven't noticed, everyone is going back to the well. Hell, Columbia, behind Ghostbusters, also has Men in Black 3 this year. There's no guarantee it would be a success, but with a fanbase spanning generations, they'll get asses in seats.

But do we want a movie where everyone seems so desperate to get it together when one of the driving forces behind the film just isn't willing? I don't think so. It's like when you ask a girl on a date (yes, bloggers like us actually do that from time-to-time). You don't want the girl to be reluctant or agree just because she lost a bet. You want her to want to go out with you. Bill Murray doesn't want to go out with us anymore, and when he does, he certainly doesn't want to play Dr. Peter Venkman. It would be really awkward role-playing with some other older guys involved and even some new people joining in, and that just sounds like it's going to be messy. Don't even get me started on Slimer being involved. That's just sticky.

I'm sorry everyone, but I think we're going to have to sit back and just let Ghostbusters be the classic comedy (and sequel) it has been for the past 28 years and celebrate it on anniversaries. It'll be like having an ex-wife or ex-husband, and while we might get depressed every now and then that they're not around, other days you're glad that bitch isn't coming around anymore.

And you know what? If they end up convincing Bill Murray to do this movie, and the film actually gets greenlit and goes into production and makes it into theaters: you will be disappointed. It's pretty much a guarantee. Remember Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Remember Episode I - The Phantom Menace. Hype like this and troubles like this mean that while some of you might be pleased with the end result, the large majority of people who have been clamoring for this film simply ride the hype, then let it collect dust in the bargain bin at Wal-Mart a few years later. It's time to let it go. "This chick is toast!"

Find more posts: Discuss, Editorial, Feat



It wouldn't hold well if the Bill isn't in it.

ur_babys_daddy on Feb 29, 2012


Way ahead of you on that one Ethan, but I don't think it'll matter; I didn't want Ghostbusters 2 but it came anyway LOL

Hattori Hanzo on Feb 29, 2012


I honestly can see them making it without Bill, but at the same time they have to factor in the quality of the picture as a whole. It will lack without Murray. He was a key part of it all, and without him it will just feel empty.

fsas13 on Feb 29, 2012


unless they half-ass and base it off the 90s animated tv show 'New Ghostbusters' 

Jericho on Feb 29, 2012


It is pointless. If the script is not there. If the actors (the original cast) will not be there. I will not be there. I'm a huge fan of the first movie. The second it's "ok". I can live the rest of my life without GBIII. Please, move on, stop making sequels, prequels, and crap from the past.

Manuel on Feb 29, 2012


Hollywood simply isn't capable of producing a sci-fi comedy like Ghostbusters any more. It's forgotten how. The closest I've seen it come has been Evolution (ironically a Reitman film as well - not saying it was an amazing flick, just that it tackled that campy near-lost genre). A film like GBIII would have to be made because the actors want to do it for the love of the characters, the story, and the universe. Venkman is a key to that. Without him, the character vacuum left will be a major problem. I'm disappointed he appears so uninterested in returning to something people so love him for - as an actor, that makes my heart hurt a little. But he, and the rest, are getting plenty old now. That doesn't mean they couldn't pull off a good film, it just means it's understandable when one or more say "you know what guys, it's just not in me any more." Go out on top. I like GB1 and GB2 equally well. Nothing is lost leaving it be. So I totally get the feeling that you just don't even want a third now.

Michael Fienen on Feb 29, 2012


Bill Murray is himself over-hyped and not as funny as he thinks himself to be.  However, with so much time now passed a 3rd film would be a failure, another Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (woudn't agree with the Phantom Menace as a failure as such, other than Lucas having to many yes-men to direct him).  Leave it as the classics we love.

Steven on Feb 29, 2012


They need to forget about doing a sequel. If they really want to do another Ghostbusters movie, I say do a reboot/remake like they have been doing with everything else and use Dan Aykroyd's original script. The one that was too expensive, with multiple Earth ending giant monsters, and was impossible to make at that time. Where Ghostbusters are common all around and its no different from being a cop or fireman.

Tyaxle on Feb 29, 2012


I definitely agree, a reboot or at the very least a side story (maybe a new Ghostbusters branch opening in LA that has the original cast help them?) would be the best way to go. Something that breaths new life into the franchise, similar to what Star Trek did. If a true sequel happens, I really think at this point they'd be stuck with rehashing what's already been done in some way... and just like Ethan said, it'd probably end up just like Indiana Jones.

Brandon Carey on Mar 1, 2012


If Bill Murray doesn't want to do it then who cares at this point? They might as well do a gritty reboot I don't think a comedy film will work anymore it'll just look campy and I'm sure the ghosts will look ridiculous surrounded in a pointless plot like alien ghosts from another planet trying to take over earth. If they want to do a comedy ghostbusters then I believe it will only work as an animated film like they did with the Ninja Turtles. All in all a reboot is a sensible thing to do at this point cause the original casts are aging and no one wants to see old men running around with proton backs with their backs bent trying to hold themselves up wearing clothes that look bigger than them.

BinaryChaos on Feb 29, 2012


Props to Bill Murray for this. It isn't necessary. I love the first two, but I don't want another. As Ethan said, it would only be disappointing. Another way to feed their wallets. What's easier than a remake? A sequel. If there was to be a third, it should have come in the nineties. Just been too long, unfortunately.

grimjob on Feb 29, 2012


They shouldn't have waited too long! Now Bill Murray is too old and too lazy who doesn't wanna do anything except be in boring Woody Allen movies!

Jedibilly on Mar 1, 2012


Without Bill I won't be seeing this! 

John on Mar 1, 2012


for once i agree with you people. i didn't mind them making 3 at first, as long as they brought back the entire cast and make the movie look like the first two looked. i love that 80's new york look (can't explain it any other way). after awhile though i started souring on it. you got a former big star in Aykroyd pushing this movie. it does reek of desperation. Murray or no Murray, i don't want to see this happen. "grimjob" put it perfectly. it's too late.

Maverick Pete on Mar 1, 2012


Sadly - I'm fine with it dying.  Though I would have loved to see more of the original characters, the whole premise of them turning the packs over to a new crew - made me shudder @ casting choices for the new kids.  Course... I was pleasantly surprised with the way J.J. handled Star Trek - garnered new respect for Pine & Quinto as well.  Probably not ideal, but I'll take it.  G.B. without Dr. Venkman though is like... pizza without cheese.  (?!)

bozo connors on Mar 1, 2012


Hey All. I am here to have a little rant myself. It starts with me telling Bill Murray to go do one. How many people forget the part of Venkman was never written for him, It was written for John Belushi (RIP). Ghostbusters still has the best team possible to put it together. As long as Dan Aykroyd (The creator) is still on board this has legs. It will work. Writing this off is like writing off anything Aykroyd has done without Bill Murray. It's not right. The guy is a comedic genius. If Dan reads this, (Highly Unlikely, I know) I would urge him to do it. I will voluntarily work behind the scenes as runner/grip if it would save a couple of thousand dollars. This has to happen, Please Dan. 

Jon Chamberlain on Mar 1, 2012


Nothing But Trouble wasn't genius.

Max Renn on Mar 1, 2012


If they're going to do it without Murray... bring on Chevy Chase.  That's the only .02 I can offer to the conversation, really, other than to tell Akroyd and Murray and Ramis and Hudson to shit or get off the pot.

RobOh on Mar 2, 2012


Actually Murray already made a pretty bold statement on the Ghostbusters franchise relatively recently... just check the last few reels of "Zombieland."  😀

Jeffrey on Mar 4, 2012

New comments are no longer allowed on this post.



Subscribe to our feed or daily newsletter:

Follow Alex's main account on Twitter:

For only the latest posts - follow this:

Add our posts to your Feedlyclick here

Get all the news sent on Telegram Telegram