Bill Murray Admits He's What's Holding Up Ghostbusters 3

LadyRhian

New member
May 13, 2010
1,246
0
0
I'd like a GB3 movie, but I want it to be a *good* GB movie. Not a slick cash-suck or something that distorts my memory of the original. **Cough**CrystalSkull**Cough**.
 

Allurse31

New member
Feb 2, 2011
8
0
0
Ugh, I'm picturing a third Ghostbusters now, written with corporate saccharine bloodlessness to appeal to kids and get the PG rating. Can you imagine:

1) One of the Ghostbusters saying "I'm getting to old for this"

2) Slimer gets way too much screen time and meets a female Slimer love interest, and they have a big slimy kiss!

3) Dana's kid Oscar has to suit up for some inane reason and becomes the first Kid Ghostbuster.

NO THANKS!!!
 

Aurgelmir

WAAAAGH!
Nov 11, 2009
1,566
0
0
se7ensenses said:
GB II came out in '89, budget was $25 million, it grossed over $200 million. That's considered lackluster? WTF?!? With todays FX, a 3rd movie could be incredible. Especially if Danny Boy & Ramis penned the script. Come on Billiam, do it!
From what I understood it wasnt that the movie was bad, it was the Murray didn't like how it turned out.
 

Tsaba

reconnoiter
Oct 6, 2009
1,435
0
0
Aurgelmir said:
se7ensenses said:
GB II came out in '89, budget was $25 million, it grossed over $200 million. That's considered lackluster? WTF?!? With todays FX, a 3rd movie could be incredible. Especially if Danny Boy & Ramis penned the script. Come on Billiam, do it!
From what I understood it wasnt that the movie was bad, it was the Murray didn't like how it turned out.
For the most part he really doesn't do sequels. Besides Garfield and obviously Ghost Busters, name a sequel to a movie that he stared in both..... I would love to see a third as much as anyone else, but, I can be happy with the first two ghost busters, just like I'm happy with the 3 Indiana Jones, I'm sure if they made a fourth it would be God awful and I would refuse to acknowledge it's existence.
 

fordneagles

New member
Dec 22, 2010
86
0
0
As much as I loved Ghostbusters, I would rather see it pass away peacefully than risk burying it completely. It doesn't matter so much whether they get the old actors back or get a bunch of new ones in, it's been so long that I just feel they're trying to make money off the property. Still, I can think of a few franchises (Star Trek, Indiana Jones, James Bond and Star Wars) that have done quite well after decades of remakes and new actors. I'm glad Murray is sticking up for what he feels though, good for him :)
 

Jfswift

Hmm.. what's this button do?
Nov 2, 2009
2,396
0
41
I thought Rick Moranis refused to get involved in any more Ghost Buster movies or games. Also they're all very old now which could be cool I guess if they filmed it that way, but really I'd prefer they just let it end gracefully. The last movie to come out wasn't that bad and the game recently was kind of fun too. (another game might not be a bad idea though)
 

PopcornAvenger

New member
Jul 15, 2008
265
0
0
Yeah, let it go, Hollywood. For once.

Ghostbusters was great because of the chemistry of the cast. They're hitting their twilight, not that they couldn't be funny, but lugging around that portable nuclear accelerator has got to be taxing.
 

Shoggoth2588

New member
Aug 31, 2009
10,250
0
0
hansari said:
Bill Murray is old...



He will look less comfortable "ghost-busting" then Harrison Ford did in Crystal Skull.
Unless the third movie has his character play a ghost in need of busting? Or a ghost who is to be busted.

I would rather not see a third movie. I still haven't seen the second and that's mainly because it took me a few times to get through the first. Not a terrible movie but one that was hard for me to get into. I should try the game.
 

Sniper Team 4

New member
Apr 28, 2010
5,433
0
0
I would like to see a third movie, but I highly doubt it would work. The feeling of the movie would be all wrong. I bet the director would try to make it edgier, more special effects, and throw in some young hot blond character on the "new" team--because let's face it, the original team is too old to be ghost busting now--just for eye candy. That's not Ghostbusters.
 

skylog

New member
Nov 9, 2009
153
0
0
What would actually be a good idea is following in Extreme Ghostbusters footsteps with the premise of the original four being too old leading them to hire a new staff. It ensures that the movie series could continue without having any new actor try to play a character embodied by the original actors.
 

bushwhacker2k

New member
Jan 27, 2009
1,587
0
0
I understand his hesitation, a lot of sequels get ruined easily it seems. I wanna watch Groundhog Day now...
 

mr_rubino

New member
Sep 19, 2010
721
0
0
SuperMse said:
This would seem like some nice integrity on Murray's part had he not voiced Garfield in two God awful movies.
Garfield's voice actor played his character in the Ghostbusters cartoon. It was probably just a favor.
What you should blame him for is Charlie's Angels.
 

Antidrall

New member
Mar 16, 2010
244
0
0
I don't understand why people despise the second movie so much. The original Ghostbusters was a tough act to follow, you can't expect to turn out gold twice.
 
Mar 29, 2008
361
0
0
I wonder how much of his protests are true, it seems he had to be talked into doing the second one by being allowed to do another failed attempt to putting Somerset Maugham's Razor's Edge to film. BTW, Studios: If you are wondering why your film adaptation isn't as successful as the book, writing an ENTIRELY new story for a movie and naming it, and a few characters, after a book doesn't make it a film adaptation.