Aykroyd Comments on Murray, Ghostbusters 3! Working on Script w/Ramis!

[nvek86]

Trekker4747 wrote:

---

To quote the Video Blogger host of "Shameful Sequels" in his review to "Garfield 2" (paraphrased): "Bill Murray refuses to do Ghostbusters 3 but he says yes to this shit?"

Apparently it was a case of mistaken identity:

http://blog.moviefone.com/2010/07/21...field-mistake/

Of course, this does not explain why he did the second one as well (but to be fair: he was the best thing about those films).

[Captain Craig]

Dream wrote:

---

Damn! Just kill this already! We don't need another Kingdom of the Crystal Skull!

I like Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

[Admiral_Young]

I liked "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" as well. It's not a great movie by any means but it was enjoyable.

[Timby]

nvek86 wrote:

---

Apparently it was a case of mistaken identity:

http://blog.moviefone.com/2010/07/21...field-mistake/

Of course, this does not explain why he did the second one as well (but to be fair: he was the best thing about those films).

If you think that Cohen / Coen thing is anything more than Murray being completely tongue-in-cheek, you need to think again. Bill Murray is basically the ultimate troll, and with Garfield, he got paid a truckload of money to go into a voice booth for a few days and record his dialogue.

In any event, I hope this finally kills the project once and for all.

[Admiral_Young]

I think Bill would do it if they had a script in place that pleased him...to me that seems to be the problem with any of these attempts, there isn't a script that is of interest to him.

[Aragorn]

nvek86 wrote:

---

Apparently it was a case of mistaken identity:

http://blog.moviefone.com/2010/07/21...field-mistake/

Of course, this does not explain why he did the second one as well (but to be fair: he was the best thing about those films).

If you believe that, then you'd also believe that Chuck Norris can personally make a $100 million movie he's barely in PG-13.

Maybe Ian McShane and Joan Allen can explain Death Race by saying they thought they were going to be working with the Paul Anderson who made Magnolia and Boogie Nights.

[Timby]

Admiral_Young wrote:

---

I think Bill would do it if they had a script in place that pleased him...to me that seems to be the problem with any of these attempts, there isn't a script that is of interest to him.

Since you're apparently on a first-name basis with him, maybe you can ask.

No, Murray's reluctance (and now, refusal) is due to two factors: One, he had a terrible time on Ghostbusters II and it really soured him on the franchise. Two, he and Ramis still have never really mended their fences since the complete and utter falling out that came about because of Groundhog Day. It's not a Cold War like it was until about 2004 or 2005, but the two are still not anywhere near being on the best of terms. Murray's a very sensitive guy, and he was very hurt by Aykroyd and Reitman on Ghostbusters II, and he felt incredibly hurt by Ramis on Groundhog Day. He very clearly doesn't have much interest in resurrecting a franchise he isn't terribly fond of in the first place, especially when there's no real creative reason to do so.

[MPH]

Should just reboot it!

[Trekker4747]

Timby wrote:

---

If you think that Cohen / Coen thing is anything more than Murray being completely tongue-in-cheek, you need to think again. Bill Murray is basically the ultimate troll, and with Garfield, he got paid a truckload of money to go into a voice booth for a few days and record his dialogue.

In any event, I hope this finally kills the project once and for all.

Yeah, I don't believe the "Cohen/Coen" story for a minute it sounds to me like classic Bill Murray trying to make a joke out of a bad choice. If he likes the work of the Coens so much he'd certainly notice the different spelling of the name, the lack of the other brother and, oh, the fact that he never met them during production.

[Guy Gardener]

You have absolutely no proof that Bill Murray can spell.

For gods sake, the man is an actor.

AN ACTOR!

And he's not one of those actors that remembers lines either.

[Cyke101]

Timby wrote:

---

Since you're apparently on a first-name basis with him, maybe you can ask.

No, Murray's reluctance (and now, refusal) is due to two factors: One, he had a terrible time on Ghostbusters II and it really soured him on the franchise. Two, he and Ramis still have never really mended their fences since the complete and utter falling out that came about because of Groundhog Day. It's not a Cold War like it was until about 2004 or 2005, but the two are still not anywhere near being on the best of terms. Murray's a very sensitive guy, and he was very hurt by Aykroyd and Reitman on Ghostbusters II, and he felt incredibly hurt by Ramis on Groundhog Day. He very clearly doesn't have much interest in resurrecting a franchise he isn't terribly fond of in the first place, especially when there's no real creative reason to do so.

I'm fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing... what happened in Groundhog Day that split them apart?

[Dream]

Since Murray did Garfield 2, he is obviously not above doing a bad movie simply for the paycheck.

[Timby]

Cyke101 wrote:

---

I'm fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing... what happened in Groundhog Day that split them apart?

Murray felt his character, and the story, should be played completely seriously, as though it were a drama, while Ramis said, "Come on, this is a comedy." There were several large blow-ups between the two on the set, and it culminated in Murray, after his last scene was completed, going over to Ramis and saying, essentially, "I have nothing more to say to you." Ramis reached out several times throughout the '90s and the early parts of the aughts, but Murray didn't return any calls from Ramis until something like 2005 (I believe that was the year; I need to check my interview notes); they're on speaking terms nowadays, but Murray is still pretty hurt. I'm sure that part of it is him being childish, but, really, he's earned it.

[Admiral_Young]

I'm well aware of the issues that Murray has had...which doesn't make my point any less valid. I think he was waiting for a draft of the script which would absolutely convince him to come back and that addressed his concerns and problems. Obviously that script never came about due to his previous comments on the subject, and frankly based on what some of those supposed drafts were, I'm not surprised he has rejected the project.

[Trekker4747]

Timby wrote:

---

Murray felt his character, and the story, should be played completely seriously, as though it were a drama, while Ramis said, "Come on, this is a comedy." There were several large blow-ups between the two on the set, and it culminated in Murray, after his last scene was completed, going over to Ramis and saying, essentially, "I have nothing more to say to you." Ramis reached out several times throughout the '90s and the early parts of the aughts, but Murray didn't return any calls from Ramis until something like 2005 (I believe that was the year; I need to check my interview notes); they're on speaking terms nowadays, but Murray is still pretty hurt. I'm sure that part of it is him being childish, but, really, he's earned it.

Bill Murray, as is suggested in that very movie about his character, is a big prima donna.