
Dan Aykroyd was interviewed by Dennis Miller today (information gleaned through Deadline) on his radio show, and let loose some details about the stuck-in-limbo third flick. There’s a question, though, as to whether or not Bill Murray would be involved. To me, and I’m sure everyone else, he’s one of the best reasons to even think a third film would remotely work. The films aren’t funny without him but the chemistry of all the guys together is the most integral part of it all. What Aykroyd said in the short clip regarding Murray and the film in general was this:
”What we have to remember is that Ghostbusters is bigger than any one component, although Billy was absolutely the lead and contributed to it in a massive way, as was the director and Harold (Ramis), myself and Sigourney (Weaver). The concept is much larger than any individual role and the promise of Ghostbusters 3 is that we get to hand the equipment and the franchise down to new blood.”

You love this music video....admit it.
If you actually listen to the clip, the most hilarious part is Dennis Miller’s obvious obsession with Avatar, thinking that Sam Worthington and Zoe Saldana should be involved. Not too sure about that, but there’s a whole slew of young actors that people have speculated about. Michael Cera, Seth Rogen, Anna Faris, and an actor Aykroyd would love to have in Matthew Gray Gubler of Criminal Minds fame. But if this thing really starts to get going (with Ivan Reitman still directing, I’d imagine) I’m sure we’ll hear word on casting or at the very least a plot synopsis over the next few months. All we know about it is that the guys are passing the torch to a younger generation, and some sort of mayhem will ensue.
Obviously, though, we don’t want them to move forward with this if it doesn’t feel right and honor the legacy of the franchise. Aykroyd always said that if the script (penned by The Office writers Gene Stupnitsky and Lee Eisenberg) wasn’t right, it wouldn’t be done, so let’s have faith that Aykroyd’s judgement is sound where the story is concerned. Sony Pictures, however, still says “no Murray, no movie” but if we’re to believe Aykroyd’s assertion that it goes on with or without him is planted anywhere near reality, that ultimatum would seem to be a lot less final. At this point I’d rather just go back and play the video game and pretend that truly is the third film and be done with this.





5 comments
Leave it alone. Ghostbusters is great because it’s an anomaly. It exists as a right place, right time phenomenon. The sequel is proof of this. Yeah, yeah, G2 has its (very, very few) moments, but as a whole, it blows. Search your feelings, you know it to be true.
But whatever. If Aykroyd thinks more scenes like our heroes driving the Statue Of Liberty through New York City with the aid of a Nintendo controller and “mood slime” are necessary, so be it. I’ll still end up seeing the fucking thing. And very likely feeling bad about myself once it’s over.
All the good bits in G2 are Murray’s, with Peter McNicol coming in a long second.
I really don’t want to pay to see a bunch of fat old farts trying to be funny, running around with protopacks zapping ghosts. You can see that for free at the old folks home.
No Murry, no dice. Agree with Costeelo: it owes it’s place in our hearts and film history due to when it was released. And Bill Murray.
You lost me at “…was interviewed by Dennis Miller.” Pretentious twat alert!
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.