Bill Murry = TOOL or very smart?
- Thread starter Joerib
- Start date
You're not the only one, I just think that fans would give this a chance depending on what the story is with or without Murray. It's hard to think of a Ghostbusters film without Venkman.
I think Bill Murray is the only one of the bunch who is still funny. If Murray isn't in the movie then they're going to need to get somebody as funny as him to fill the gap.
Steve Carrell would be awesome. He's been long rumoured, especially when the two Office writers were working on drafts. Seth Rogen of course was rumoured to play a grown up Oscar. I think Ackyrod mentioned being interested in Alyssa Milano and Eliza Dushku playing roles in the film as well. Casting is going to be very interesting.
Can't say I've ever thought of it as a comedy either.
Action adventure with the odd funny moment perhaps, but not a comedy.
And I say that with it being the first DVD I bought.
But then I have a fondness for the 2nd one
Of course being in the UK and 8 at the time it was released I was never aware of the the actors' backgrounds in comedy.
Moonrise Kingdom was one of the best films of the year so far and Bill Murray was deadpannedly hilarious in it. I'd say he knows what he's doing when he signs on to do another Wes Anderson movie and passes on making Ghostbusters into a trilogy (particularly given the low likelihood the film would be any good even with his involvement).
Ah, but do you really think killing off his character would make people stop wanting him to be in a movie series about ghosts?
It seems like Murray's been reluctant to reprise his role in a Ghostbusters sequel for a long time. This really isn't news. Clearly he isn't interested in revisiting that role. He's entitled to that. Plus, you have to wonder what the script(s) have been like that may have been given to him, or what story ideas were pitched. Maybe they're great. Maybe they're horrible. He's not hurting and in desperate need to find work, so he can be picky about what projects he signs on for.
What's your cutoff for a long gap?
Which I'm sure Sony has no doubt wrestled with.
Ultimately I think Dan is the "heart" of Ghostbusters, not Bill. He's the one that is interested in the paranormal, he's the driving force behind the Ghostbusters video game (2009) and he's been keeping the "flame alive" all these years, so to speak.
It makes no sense for Sony to have this great franchise sitting on the shelf year after year collecting dust. So much can be done in the world of Ghostbusting - take a look at the Real Ghostbusters animated series. Like any other long running cartoon of course there are stinkers but there's some gold in there too.
With Dan, Ramis and Hudson still alive and kicking, I can't think of any reason not to include them... I have a feeling that no matter what the third movie is, eventually if there is a new series (and Hollywood rarely plans a blockbuster one-off) we'll have it with all new characters.
For the record, I'd like to add that I was always in support of the "Venkman as ghost in GB3" rumors that circulated throughout the 2000s.
The problem always to me is Ghostbusters never really became a franchise. There is a long list of films with a single sequel. Can you imagine doing another 20 plus years later?
They never established a format for an ongoing series. The second was mostly a rehash of the first. Are all this time would all 4 guys be living in that firehouse together?! Would the world still be skeptical about the existence of ghosts?
The best way to do it is that Venkman's dream came true. After all these years towns across the country have their own Ghostbusters franchise. With the original guys millionaires. Venkman is kind of a Steve Jobs figure. Maybe there is in fighting among the guys of who really deserves credit. The studio would love this because it would be an easy way to add new characters and endlessly continue the series. It might also be something Bill Murray would agree to because it would different from the other films.
They never established a format for an ongoing series. The second was mostly a rehash of the first. Are all this time would all 4 guys be living in that firehouse together?! Would the world still be skeptical about the existence of ghosts?
The best way to do it is that Venkman's dream came true. After all these years towns across the country have their own Ghostbusters franchise. With the original guys millionaires. Venkman is kind of a Steve Jobs figure. Maybe there is in fighting among the guys of who really deserves credit. The studio would love this because it would be an easy way to add new characters and endlessly continue the series. It might also be something Bill Murray would agree to because it would different from the other films.
Last edited:
The truth is we don't need a Ghostbusters III anymore than we need a Galaxy Quest II. Sometimes a standalone works best standing alone.
There have been comic books, video games, two cartoon series (Real and Extreme), and I think it still has strong public awareness.
That'd be interesting. We're also at a different point, culturally, than we were in the 80's where we've explored different viewpoints of things considered "bad guys". When I was a kid watching Peter Cushing battle vampires, I never thought we'd get to a day when vampires were fawned over by teenage girls. And sparkling.
"Wicked" tries to make the Wicked Witch Of The West from the MGM version of "Wizard Of Oz" sympathetic as well. So when you get down to it, the ghosts in "Ghostbusters" are the loved ones of somebody's family. It seems a little horrific that they're being captured and stored in a facility.
It's been decades since I've seen the first one, but was there any mention of helping them "pass into the light" so to speak?
People in today's culture would be less inclined to simply see ghots as "bad guys"....I guess you could imply that these ghosts are basically ethereal zombie types or something, I dunno. Still, I'm surprised we haven't seen a GB type story from the ghost's perspective.
I know about all that. But those do not have a hook for a years later sequel. Ghostbusters II already did the reunion story. Most of that stuff has the characters the same age and the format of the original film. Unless its a reboot, a sequel could not do that.
That'd be interesting. We're also at a different point, culturally, than we were in the 80's where we've explored different viewpoints of things considered "bad guys". When I was a kid watching Peter Cushing battle vampires, I never thought we'd get to a day when vampires were fawned over by teenage girls. And sparkling.
"Wicked" tries to make the Wicked Witch Of The West from the MGM version of "Wizard Of Oz" sympathetic as well. So when you get down to it, the ghosts in "Ghostbusters" are the loved ones of somebody's family. It seems a little horrific that they're being captured and stored in a facility.
It's been decades since I've seen the first one, but was there any mention of helping them "pass into the light" so to speak?
People in today's culture would be less inclined to simply see ghots as "bad guys"....I guess you could imply that these ghosts are basically ethereal zombie types or something, I dunno. Still, I'm surprised we haven't seen a GB type story from the ghost's perspective.
Interesting you mention this - many years ago, White Wolf did a roleplaying game series like this, called "Orpheus", which reminded me a lot of Ghostbusters, but more along the lines you mention. Corporate franchises set up around the country dedicated to not capturing ghosts, but helping them ascend. There are different kinds of ghosts, of course, and different player character types as well, each one having a matching NPC ghost type they can most easily "untether" from this world, while having difficulty with others. And there is always the danger about becoming untethered yourself, as these people can astrally project as a part of their training. It's a bit darker than typical Ghostbusters, but maybe that's what the franchise needs - and that would definitely be treading into "reboot" territory.
Not in the slightest. Terminal Reality and Sierra had been working on a proof of concept for a game with Sony since the middle of 2006, and then the test videos from ZootFly (for their own game they were developing) hit YouTube, becoming an immediate hit. They were so popular that Sony and Sierra finally gave the green light to The Video Game entering production. Sony was the driving force behind the game, not Aykroyd.
He did write or co-write the script for the game's story though did he not? I know that's not the same thing as being "the driving force".
