Bill Murray Says Ghost Busters 3 is a Crock


All the talk of Ghost Busters 3 have been resting on the flippant attitude of one Bill Murray. Apparently there was some deal written way back that said they wouldn’t do another Ghost Busters film unless the three principal actors and director Ivan Reitman would direct.

So far everyone is on board except Bill Murray. They even re-wrote the script to have his character a ghost after one of his offhanded comments suggested he would only do it if Venkman was a ghost.

Now he has come forward with a statement that seems to suggest undeniably that he is out for good.

ScreenRant quotes Bill Murray.

It’s all a bunch of crock. It’s a crock.

He elaborated by saying that the critical and commercial failure of fellow Ghostbuster Harold Ramis’ film Year One had a negative impact on Ghostbusters 3:

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.

So while Bill Murray wasn’t moved to change his mind by Dan Akroyd publicly saying “stop acting like a jerk” it looks like Bill has put his foot down and will stick to his “no sequels” rule (except for Garfield which he did for the “challenge” and a paycheque)

What I don’t get is why Bill is trying to stop the film outright? If he feels this strongly about not doing it, why don’t they just write him off completely and just get him to sign off his rights to the franchise. That way the remaining Busters can get to making this movie before Reitman dies of old age.

Worst of all, the new script looks to delicately handle a passing of the torch to introduce a new generation of Ghost Busters as the original gang is getting “too old for this shit”

So why doesn’t he just walk away instead of delaying it? He doesn’t want to do it, and doesn’t want to be involved… so go on without him.

He will be missed, but I would rather they take a shot at it instead of all this wonder what it might have been like if Bill Murray’s ego didn’t hold the whole thing up.

Comment with Facebook

19 thoughts on “Bill Murray Says Ghost Busters 3 is a Crock

  1. It sounds like a wind up. Bill Murray would wind up a reporter. I am not that interested in having another GB sequel. The first one was a masterpiece, and the second one was crap, so I’m good leaving it at that, and if Bill Murray is done, I say use those resources to make something original. Why flog a dead horse?

  2. Actually, in that part of the interview, he’s talking about why he was against it BEFORE. Funny how you left off the end of the interview where he states he’s now on-board and ready to do the movie.

    1. The quote says he was thinking twice about his stance back during SXSW, and NOW he is saying “its a crock”

      It clearly points out that he recognized how much it means to people and that made him second guess himself. But the article says that NOW he says any Ghost Busters 3 buzz is “a crock”

  3. Sorry to say it, and Bill Murry may have become a bit of an asshole (well that’s at least what the “media” would want you to think), but it ain’t Ghost Busters without Murry. It just isn’t. He was always the funniest and carried the movies. The other guys played off of him.

  4. After seeing “year one” I’d run for the hills as well!

    I stand by Murray, If you wanna see him one last time wearing a Proton Pack watch Zombieland, his cameo was the best thing in that movie

  5. Where’s the rest of the article? Murray goes on to say more…

    —————–
    He says, “And it’s still one of the biggest movies of all time. And ever since that story broke, everywhere I go people are like, “So are you gonna make that movie?” I was down in Austin at South by Southwest, and you go at it hard down there—fun but, man, you need to sleep for days afterwards. Anyhow, I got into it one night with a bunch of younger people who were like, Oh, I love Peter Venkman! I grew up with Peter Venkman! We got to talking, and the more we talked about it, the more I thought, Oh Christ, I should just do this thing.”
    —————-

  6. I don’t agree with the statement “there’s nowhere to go with the franchise”. Look at the animated series form the 80’s, there were some great storylines and really original ghost creations.

    I would love to see a third movie, but would also love to see someone thinking about a live action series. A mix of Supernatural (With the apocalyptic season climax) and some of the great recent comedy injected series like Eureka, Reaper and Wearhouse 13. Theres still plenty of life in the series IMHO.

    Hell, I can think of five different episode ideas off the top of my head!!!

  7. Year One, that heap of cow manure aside (I’ll even forgive Ramis’ ‘The Ice Haarvest’)

    I personally feel that while revisiting the Ghostbusters, seeing the old guard pass the torch to the new guard, a ghost Venkman playing cards with Slimer (or something like that) might have some appeal, there’s nowhere to take the characters and nowhere to take the story. As mentioned, Ghostbusters 2 was not as enjoyable as the first film. Busters 3 has been in development hell ever since.

    Some past franchises (Die Hard, Indy Jones) have some punch to them, but I don’t think Ghostbusters is one of them. As much as it pains me to cop to this, there is but one way out.

    Eakmer spelled backwards.

    1. I can totally picture a ghosty Peter and Slimer playing cards in a dusty forgotten corner of the firehouse.

      I demand somebody make a fan movie this instant!!!! lol

      1. im pretty sure someone did make a fan movie a few years ago, i cant remember the title but it was a full length film

  8. Rocky Balboa was a good sequel that was made nearly twenty years after the last film. However, I don’t disagree with Murry’s reaction to not wanting to be part of a movie that was made by the people who created Year One. It would have been better if he’d seen the movie to give a fair critique of their work, but that film really is poorly made movie.

    I don’t wanna see a Ghostbuster’s film without Murry though.

  9. Murray’s Ego Aside, I think it’s more his instincts on the script being utter crap.

    Seriously how many reunion movies have been any good? Look at Indiana Jones. We ended up with Shia Lebeauf swinging in the jungle with a bunch of f***ing monkeys.

    1. Got to agree with you. As much as I’d like to see this film come about, it would probably suck. Even Ghostbusters II kinda sucked.
      It seems that sequels need to be made within five years of the original or they’re doomed to fail. Look at the Star Wars franchise for god’s sake…

      1. It certainly sucked more.

        Also, Temple of Doom was definately the weak link of that franchise…until the Cystal Skull, of course.

      2. I’ll take rafts and mining rail cars any day of the week. There’s just some weird magic about those darn CGI monkeys that took me out of the movie experience and got me thinking about things like:

        Wow, they must have Copy/Pasted those monkeys from Jumanji.
        What do the monkeys have against the Russians? They must hate commies…
        Where’d Shia learn to swing like Lord Greystoke?
        How the hell did they cover so much distance? The jeeps were driving with good haste for about 5 minutes.
        Why are my eyes bleeding?

        That was a bit Off-Topic, but in any case. I believe there will be a Ghostbusters 3 with Bill Murray, but not until the man is satisfied with the script.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *