Tron: Legacy is a bad example because it was more financially successful and better received than the original.
Bill Murry = TOOL or very smart?
- Thread starter Joerib
- Start date
No, he did not. Ramis and Aykroyd are credited as writing the game, but it was written by Terminal Reality staff. They did minor touch-ups. I've shared this link before, but once again, from The New York Times:
New York Times said:
It's a real crime, honestly, that the people at Terminal Reality were shafted like that. I understand why the game was marketed with Ramis / Aykroyd as the writers (I work in marketing, and I probably would have done the same thing if the decision were in my hands), but it's a real credit to the actual writers that they did as good a job as they did.
I think I'm going to become "disenfranchised" because apparently I don't know what the word means as many threads have told me.
I think I'm going to become "disenfranchised" because apparently I don't know what the word means as many threads have told me.
What I really meant is a film series. I think 3 films is the minimun neded to be a true full fledged series. There a number of movies with a single sequel that I doubt anyone would consider a film franchise, series, whatever.
I did not know that about the game story, thanks for posting that Timby.
I wouldn't be surprised that part of what plays into this is Aykroyd's name on the writing credits which I think means he probably see some extra profit from GB projects that Bill wouldn't.
I think its a smart move by Bill to not do the film. Look at the pros/cons: Why should he do the film? Who cares what the fans want.
The reason Aykroyd and Ramis want to do the film is probably because they had fun doing the other two, and want to do another one because they think it will be fun, too. That's usually the reason people want to make any film (except when its a money thing). If Murray doesn't want to do the film, why should he be forced to? This has nothing to do with the film being good enough or worthy enough, and everything to do with him just not wanting to do it.
The reason Aykroyd and Ramis want to do the film is probably because they had fun doing the other two, and want to do another one because they think it will be fun, too. That's usually the reason people want to make any film (except when its a money thing). If Murray doesn't want to do the film, why should he be forced to? This has nothing to do with the film being good enough or worthy enough, and everything to do with him just not wanting to do it.
Ghostbusters was Dan Aykroyd's idea. So its no surprise that he cares about it more. Bill Murrary was really just an actor for hire. It was just a movie he did and moved on. He was recluctant to even do the second one. He wanted it to be called "The Last of the Ghostbusters". With the fear that he would be associated with a single role his whole career.
Also I suspect he is not aware how big a deal it was to a generation of fans. John Lennon once said he never knew or saw the Beatles. Meaning the phenomenom. He was in the calm of the eye of the storm. So he had no way of preceiving it the way everyone else did. Lennon had conflicting feelings about the group in the years after the breakup. Sometimes he said he was the biggest Beatles fan and other times say they were overated.
It would not surprise me if there is a similar situation with Bill Murrary. Based on his comments and actions, he does not mind a little Ghostbusters nostalgia. Or nostalgia for his early comedic roles. But he does not want that to overshadow his current acting roles.
Also I suspect he is not aware how big a deal it was to a generation of fans. John Lennon once said he never knew or saw the Beatles. Meaning the phenomenom. He was in the calm of the eye of the storm. So he had no way of preceiving it the way everyone else did. Lennon had conflicting feelings about the group in the years after the breakup. Sometimes he said he was the biggest Beatles fan and other times say they were overated.
It would not surprise me if there is a similar situation with Bill Murrary. Based on his comments and actions, he does not mind a little Ghostbusters nostalgia. Or nostalgia for his early comedic roles. But he does not want that to overshadow his current acting roles.
Yeah I shouldn't say just profits but I don't know if Bill feels he "owns" it in the same way as the others.
I'm sure he knows, and I'm sure he doesn't care. He doesn't owe anybody anything.
Sometimes, people get a little too invested in their entertainment; that's why celebrities are celebrities. We sometimes forget that they are people, too, and entertainment is just a job. Imagine if people followed your every move at whatever it is you do for a living.
Of course there are celebrities that enjoy the attention or feel they have to give something back; not everyone does, though.
I highly doubt he isn't aware or doesn't care or else he wouldn't have worn the full outfit again on the Spike Television Awards segment from a couple years ago, or he probably wouldn't have participated in "Zombieland" either since his entire cameo almost revolves around the "Ghostbusters" joke. This seems solely about the quality of the script and reaching the quality of the first movie.
Especially this particular movie. GB II was a piece of crap. Back then Akyrod claimed to have needed all the time (between GB I and II) to finally come up with a good script. The script for GB II was crap. It was obvious Dan just wanted another pay day. Hard to believe the same thing isn't going now with him pushing GB III.
With respect to Murray being hard to contact for movies; I've heard that if you want Murray for a movie, there is a phone number you can call and leave a voice mail. If Bill likes your idea, he, or a rep (temp rep), will get back to you. How one obtains this "number' is anyone's guess. Likely, it is a matter of knowing someone.
1-800-IMA-TOOL
Would that be your pitch to Bill Murray? "Well GGII was bad but I've seen worse." 
It was representative of most sequels of that era. Mostly the original with slight modification. For that is was good not great. Most expectations of continuing Ghostbusters is based on the cartoon.
Both of the movies use the premise that the real mass ghost sightings are only the result to the the comings of Gozer and Vigo. Otherwise their buiness is limited. While the cartoon had them be the equivalent of firefighters needed for emergencies that would crop up often.
Both of the movies use the premise that the real mass ghost sightings are only the result to the the comings of Gozer and Vigo. Otherwise their buiness is limited. While the cartoon had them be the equivalent of firefighters needed for emergencies that would crop up often.
But they weren't drippings with goo!
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSiOncZT0TI[/yt]
Last edited:
