There’s an unbelievably entertaining Bill Murray interview at GQ (where among other things he claims he made Garfield because he thought that screenwriter Joel Cohen was Joel Coen), and in it he reveals what may have finally killed Ghostbusters 3: the nigh upon unwatchable Year One.
Harold Ramis said, Oh, I’ve got these guys, they write on The Office, and they’re really funny. They’re going to write the next Ghostbusters. And they had just written this movie that he had directed… Year One. Well, I never went to see Year One, but people who did, including other Ghostbusters, said it was one of the worst things they had ever seen in their lives. So that dream just vaporized. That was gone. But it’s the studio that really wants this thing. It’s a franchise. It’s a franchise, and they made a whole lot of money on Ghostbusters.
Murray doesn’t quite close the door on Ghostbusters 3 forever – he remarks that while hanging out at SXSW the young crowd’s enthusiasm for Peter Venkman made him think he should revisit the role – but it does seem that the current iteration, with a script by Gene Stupnitsky and Lee Eisenberg, has been averted.
14 comments
Good for Murray!! A true artist who actually gives a fuck about the end product, rather than just numbers and money!
I'd rather it takes 15 years ala Toy Story 3 and it actually be good (I know the main players will be stupidly old, hell Murray could play a ghost without worrying about special effects and Dan Ackroyd would give one of his high octane speeches and then forget what he was actually saying half-way through), but people want a memorable movie, not throw-back nostalgia, phoned-in shite.
I find it hard to believe that the studio cares that much about getting a quality script.
One could argue that his Cameo in Zombieland (which has a lot of Ghostbuster love) was enough for Murray to give back to his Venkman fans, and he didn't even need to do a sequel do it.
It's been 21 years since GB2. I'm of the belief there can be no good script that includes "passing the torch." It never works. Do GB3 with the originals only, then make 4 with a whole new cast in the same movie "universe.")
This is actually a sequel I really want to see. But I also want to see it done RIGHT. So I count this as good news.
Ya know, why are Ramis and Akroyd so keen to do this when it's painfully clear that Murray despises the idea? A studio couldn't pay me enough to work on a film with someone who would bring the type of attitude that Murray has for this property.
Well, there might be a dollar amount … but I'm not sure what that might be.
It's just sort of thrown out there in the interview and will probably never happen, but the mere thought of an Apatow-Murray convergence makes me smile.
I get that he's being facetious, but I can think of a couple of Murray movies that sucked more than Year One. Before Rushmore it was Murray that was the slimer.
They should just make the damn thing, in this day and age people will hate it even if its on par with the Godfather
will do it if he likes the script, period. I think his idea of him being a ghost is brilliant and full of comic opportunities. Is it THAT hard to come up with a funny script nowadays?
You should all really read the GQ article. I read it at the gym yesterday and I had an ear to ear smile the entire time reading his words. Particullary about the "rumor" that he goes up to people in NYC covers their eyes and runs away.
Christ. I haven't seen Year One, but now I kind of want to. Not that I'll ever see it, but Murray was the perfect choice for Garfield's voice.
Good! Put this terrible idea to rest! We don't need another Ghostbusters, especially one that involves handing the reigns to a new crew, which I am sure would be Seth Rogen and his cronies, since they are fucking every where and have worked with Ramis before. I would be perfectly content with never having to witness that.
9/11 and terrorist ghosts OR fighting the second coming of Jesus.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.