News Worth Sharing: Ghostbusters 3 “A Go”.

Yeah, I’m not too excited either, guys.’s enterainment blog reports that the long gestating Ghostbusters 3 is officially a go. For those of you not aware, GB3 has been in development for like 500 years now – well ok, maybe it only feels that long – but there’s been numerous holdups, including debates over the script, whether to bring back director Ivan Reitman (who hasn’t had a big hit since 1990’s “Kindergarten Cop”), and most notably, whether or not they could convince Bill Murray to participate.

Apparently now Aykroyd is saying they’re going to go ahead with or without him.


Of course, I would prefer that they didn’t add a sequel here at all. I’ve been on quite a tear here lately about revisiting classic properties, and so I’ll spare you from going through that again. Hey, it’s not my fault! Hollywood will NOT stop. I mean, on my way to THIS I learned they’re remaking “Flatliners”… not that I care much about that flick, I’m just saying there’s no movie too small, no movie too big, no movie at all… that Hollywood will not regurgitate right now.

In general I’ve kind of surrendered to the thought of GB3. It’s already had one crappy sequel, so the way has already been paved so to speak. But I always thought they would include Murray. I even thought the idea they had to bring him back as a ghost was very clever. But now it appears they’re prepared to go on without him.

I suppose this shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. Aykyroyd IS the Hollywood Whore that participated in “The Blues Brothers 2000” without John Belushi, so why should it surprise me that he’d do a Ghostbusters sequel without Bill Murray?

There was a time when this movie sounded relatively appealing. Instead of being the stars, the original Ghostbusters were going to be mentoring the next generation (for a franchise rebirth no doubt!), and Bill Murray would return as a ghost. If this article winds up being correct and we don’t get Bill Murray and we do get Ashton Kutcher?

Count me out.

7 thoughts on “News Worth Sharing: Ghostbusters 3 “A Go”.

  1. Well, I think you know how I stand on this: firmly opposed. I don’t think the general public wants to see a Ghostbusters film without the actual Ghostbusters being the focus. I didn’t even like the “Venkman as ghost” idea. And I’m seriously unsold on the idea of passing the torch to a “new generation” of Ghostbusters, especially if one of them is Ashton Kutcher or Ben Stiller (previously rumored), as I can’t stand either of those lack-talents. At one point Aykroyd mentioned he was interested in seeing Eliza Dushku and Alyssa Milano as the first female Ghostbusters, and while I can appreciate the idea of seeing them fill out the jump suits, I can’t really say I can picture either of them being a good fit acting-wise.

    What it comes down to for me is a simple aversion to “passing the torch” stories. Has there ever been a good movie with that premise (on existing franchises, I mean; I don’t count ones where an old hero passes the torch to a new one, but it’s the first we’ve heard of either of them.) “BB2000” didn’t and couldn’t work without Belushi, “Indiana Jones 4” caught flack (wrongly, I believe) even though it technically subverted the concept and doesn’t count, “Mission Impossible” took a steaming dump on the hero of the TV series, and “Star Trek Generations” bobbled the ball even though the Next Generation had been a successful TV series on its own for years. And those are, arguably, the positive examples.

  2. Wait. So. Indy 4? Did you think it was good? Or just not as bad as they say or what?

    I haven’t heard anything good out of the “additional cast” beyond the original Ghostbusters either, although… I’m not as down on Ben Stiller. He’s had moments. He’s ok. You know, in my book.

    Ironically, Generations was the best movie the TNG cast did!

    So, no, I can’t think of a “Pass the torch” that didn’t get dropped… but I’ll mull it over today around the house. Maybe there’s one.

    Nah. LOL.

    • On Indy 4, I thought it was all right. I enjoyed it. Weakest of the series? Sure, I’m willing to go along with that (though “Temple” makes it a close call). But it’s not the dire suck-fest that a lot of people paint it as. I have a defense of it I should write up some time; basically it boils down to the series not being the genre the complainers think it is. Had they not gone in thinking of the series as the wrong genre, the “shifts” and “errors” in Indy 4 would not have surprised them or felt wrong. (Of course, there’s also the anti-LeBeouf faction, but that’s a separate issue. Also exaggerated, in my opinion, though.) It’s that whole “expectations” factor weighing in; I think even the worst of the detractors wouldn’t be giving this lower than a 3 out of 5 if they were being objective, but because they expected different from it (not just better, but different), they tend to give a 1. But their expectations are predicated upon a false assumption of what kind of movies the series is made up of. I’ll work on writing up the defense, maybe get my own WordPress blog going. I’ll let you know.

      And yeah, I’ve been trying to think of a good “passing the torch” movie since GB3 was first announced as having that element. That was a few years ago, and I’m still trying. BB2000 and ST:Generations may actually be the best of the bunch, and that’s a sad statement.

      • Ooh. I refuse to watch BB2000 in any way shape or form. NOOOOO.

        Aside from that, I’d be interested (of course) in that Indy piece. But I’m not sure about the genre thing. It’s an adventure movie, right? Action genre…

        I just think it’s raggedly uneven. There are some really really good moments. Some things that I think are patently Indianna Jones moments. And I have no problems overall with the alien related McGuffin.

        But then there are times like the monkey swinging vines scene and the swordfight on the top of the tanks where I’m like “I cant believe this is a Steven Spielberg movie.” Its one of his worst efforts ever. I think its far worse than ToD. Of course, I’m no fan of Labeouf either. 😀

      • Well, perhaps I should have said sub-genre or specified the problem is with nuances within the greater “action/adventure” genre. I’ll hash it out, and I’ll let you know when it’s done, however long it takes me to get to it. I think you’ll see what I mean when it’s done, but it’s a bit more involved than is appropriate for a mere comment. And I’ll acknowledge the movie does have some weaknesses, and I won’t quibble with those who dislike the movie on THOSE grounds.

  3. I can’t quite let this alone yet… something else was bugging me in the back of my mind, and it just ambled its way up to the front.

    Aykroyd says they’ll start filming in Spring ’12 with or without Bill Murray. That’s only six months away. You and I both know how long a script or a script re-write can take. That means there are only a few possibilities. One, they could have two separate scripts; unlikely. Two, they could have it one way (probably with him, since that was the plan), and re-write it to suit the other way if that happens. In which case the re-write will be rushed, further jeopardizing the movie’s chances of being watchable. Possibility three is that Bill Murray’s role is minor enough that they could cut it without unduly affecting the movie… which is a possibility that manages to be even worse than #2. Even putting aside the “torch-passing” issues… can you think of how bad a Ghostbusters movie would be if the absence or presence of Peter Venkman just didn’t MATTER? A little footnote, a line of dialogue tossed off, and that’s it? No… just… no, please. Even “Blues Brothers 2000” at least made the death of Jake the impetus for Elwood’s actions. The last possibility, and I swear if they do this I might add Aykroyd, Ramis, and Reitman (or whatever director they end up with) to my permanent blacklist, would be if they recast the role. I hope they’re not insane enough to do that. But since they’re insane enough to do a Ghostbusters film without the originals as the focus, and insane enough to consider doing it without Murray, I can’t place any bets on their sanity.

    • My biggest hope at this point is that he’s putting this out there in order to force Murray’s hand. Maybe Murray’s been a pain in the ass about things. I’ve heard he has that capacity.

      Its happening with or without him though, so…

      If it does happen without him, they’d HAVE to play him off as dead. I cant see any other way. I dont think his part was ever supposed to be huge anyways. From all I heard around the net, this started with the video game, where they all lent their voices. Aykroyd and Ramis want to resurect it. Bill Murray says he’s not interested, then they came up with the Venkman as a ghost idea. THAT he liked – reportedly. But it was always going to be minor I think anyways.

      We’ll see. Aykroyd is already on my shitlist for BB2K. Not that I still wouldn’t love to meet him and get his autograph one day LOL! 😀

Join in the discussion!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s