ROTTEN TOMATOES: Bill Murray Talks Ghostbusters 3 Comments

Bill Murray Talks Ghostbusters 3

by | September 29, 2008

Summary

We've all assumed that Bill Murray was going to be the holdout that prevented "Ghostbusters 3" from ever being made, but based on some comments he recently made after a "City of Ember" screening, Murray might just be open to another round of bustin' after all. Back to Article

(1-19 of 19 posts) | Reply

Defmonkey writes:
on Sep 29 2008 03:21 AM

As long as Dan doesn't pull a BB2000, then we'll all be fine.

(Reply to this)

Sulaco2k writes:
on Sep 29 2008 03:58 AM

I'm glad he recognized just how bad the 2nd one was and I'm not looking forward to this at all regardless of how excited Murray or any of the other players are about it. Ghostbusters is a comedy classic that manages to pass the test of time (unlike a lot of 80s movies) and it should be left that way. I'm surprised Murray expressed interest at all considering the critically acclaimed movies he's been attached to in his later years.

(Reply to this)

Looselycult writes:
on Sep 29 2008 04:09 AM

This whole thing continually reeks of Hollywood's lack of ever coming up with an original idea. I think sequels should be outlawed. Imagine with those kind of constraints what kind of original ideas writers and producers would actually be able to come up with. But nah throw a quick money fix at it so we can all continually dumb down the public.

(Reply to this)

jocampo writes:
on Sep 29 2008 04:54 AM

i'd rather see city of ember.

(Reply to this)

jacog writes:
on Sep 29 2008 06:11 AM

Heh, when I saw the preview for City of Ember the first time I thought it was Bioshock the movie hitting us early. :)

(Reply to this)

Neeeeek writes:
on Sep 29 2008 07:04 AM

Eh, I'm game for a Ghostbusters 3. The first one was comedic gold and one of the best ensemble casts ever assembled. If the script is worthy, how can anyone want this to be passed on? And as horrible as Ghostbusters 2 was in comparison to the original, it really wasn't THAT bad compared to much of the crud being thrown our direction by studios these days. I would go see Ghostbusters 2 again over any "comedy" featuring Dane Cook.

(Reply to this)

Shatter24 writes:
on Sep 29 2008 07:39 AM

Bill Murray wants to be in something people actually see. Too much small, critically acclaimed films and you fall out of the public eye. And lately its been more small than critically acclaimed. Maybe he's figured out if he wants to keep getting scripts, he needs to be in something popular that gets his name buzzing again.

(Reply to this)

Dachshund96 writes:
on Sep 29 2008 07:56 AM

Ghostbuster 2 was very bad. No 3 please.

(Reply to this)

Neeeeek writes:
on Sep 29 2008 08:46 AM

In reply to this comment (#2053273)
53% Tomatometer. It could have been worse. Far worse. Put it into perspective. Almost any comedy looks bad next to the original Ghostbusters.

(Reply to this)

Merlin235 writes:
on Sep 29 2008 09:12 AM

Ghostbusters 2 wasn't good by any means, but it wasn't as bad as people insinuate. At least not in my opinion. There have been plenty of worse films.

(Reply to this)

Shatter24 writes:
on Sep 29 2008 09:16 AM

Ghostbusters 2 wasn't great but it wasn't terrible either. There are more than the two extremes. Ghostbusters 2 was a decent comedy follow up to a great film. Sometimes its just fun to see characters you like return for a second go around.

(Reply to this)

halose7en writes:
on Sep 29 2008 09:53 AM

I must be the only person who thinks Ghostbusters 2 was actually good. It's not intended to be Shakespeare. It's just good fun, and if you watch the film with that frame of mind, it will be a great movie. I think the same should be said of Ghostbusters 3, and I, for one, would love to see it.

(Reply to this)

rle4lunch writes:
on Sep 29 2008 10:41 AM

In retrospect of the film, it wasn't that great if you watch it today. But when I was 12-13 years old when the sequel came out, it was freakin' awesome. I think the sequel was made to franchise off all the little kids that loved the first one, plus the nation was still in Ghostbusters mode, with all the cartoons (real and fake) that were being pumped out to the kids.

I think a third one would be great, considering it's going to be made for the people that are now all grown up and want to have a more mature comedy now that the target audience is grown.

Where George Lucas failed by continuing to target kiddies with his new triolgy, GB3 could excel.

(Reply to this)

Matanuki writes:
on Sep 29 2008 01:58 PM

In reply to this comment (#2052463)
I'm definitely on board with your ideology! I don't however think sequels should be outlawed, per se. They should, rather, only be made when the story warrants it. In the interest of expanding an inherently progressive narrative, instead of just emptily servicing the underpinnings of corporate greed.

Indeed, Hollywood regrettably has become so much more about vacuous dreck than inspired artistic expression. I've said it before, but this is why most writers with vision turn to writing books instead of screenplays. This is also, by extension, why announcing you're a screenwriter doesn't buy all that many drinks in intellectual circles the way announcing that you're a novelist does.

It's a sign of hope, in fact. At least we can be sure the entire world hasn't gone brain dead. This so long as certain politicians whose names we won't mention here don't get their free pass to start banning books.

(Reply to this)

EmmG389 writes:
on Sep 29 2008 05:32 PM

Murray won't jump on board unless the script is good. Why is this such a bad idea? There is plenty of opportunity for good comedy with a new ghostbusters film. With the whole original cast coming back, why not?

(Reply to this)

tomwaitsjr writes:
on Sep 29 2008 05:40 PM

The best thing is that Bill Murray acknowledges that Ghostbusters 2 was ridiculous. . .

(Reply to this)

bluestar2000 writes:
on Sep 29 2008 06:41 PM

I thought that Ghostbusters 2 was garbage. I'd like to see Bill Murray do another Ghostbusters movie, instead of Garfield 3. I think that he desperately needs a hit.

(Reply to this)

Matanuki writes:
on Sep 29 2008 07:53 PM

In reply to this comment (#2054314)
Desperately? He's done a few pretty solid independent art films over the past few years, the brand of which are often way better than the common big studio fare. Lost in Translation, The Life Aquatic, The Royal Tenenbaums, Broken Flowers, Coffee and Cigarettes. All good stuff. My personal favorite is Lost in Translation. But hey, that's me. Be nice to see him return to his old roots, surely. But I don't think desperate comes into the equation.

I sort of agree with what folks are saying about GB2. But I think it's getting more flack than it deserves. After all, the film gave us one of Bobby Brown's last great tracks, and we got to see the statue of liberty walk the streets. ;-)

(Reply to this)

darth_chef writes:
on Sep 29 2008 09:13 PM

Hell Son Bring On GhostBusters 3

(Reply to this)