From what I understood it wasnt that the movie was bad, it was the Murray didn't like how it turned out.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!
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.Aurgelmir said:From what I understood it wasnt that the movie was bad, it was the Murray didn't like how it turned out.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!
Unless the third movie has his character play a ghost in need of busting? Or a ghost who is to be busted.hansari said:Bill Murray is old...
He will look less comfortable "ghost-busting" then Harrison Ford did in Crystal Skull.
Garfield's voice actor played his character in the Ghostbusters cartoon. It was probably just a favor.SuperMse said:This would seem like some nice integrity on Murray's part had he not voiced Garfield in two God awful movies.
That was my first thought. We already had GB3.Arkvoodle said:I'm glad.
The game's good enough for me.