This is pretty interesting as it mentions something I don’t think we have heard before. A special clause in which Bill Murray loses rights to say no to Ghostbusters 3 being made. That basically means the movie could potentially go forward without him now.
Bearing in mind that Aykroyd pretty much has confirmed that the movie isn’t in a position to be greenlit yet.
Ghostbusters isn’t Ghostbusters without Venkman, though, IMHO.
Ghostbusters was a movie that came out in 1984.
We need to evolve as a franchise.
We’ve been hearing about this “GBs in Hell” idea for a long time, and I guess I don’t have in my mind the same thing DA does, because that’s always sounded really dumb to me. For all I know it could be amazing, whatever the idea is, but frankly, it sounds stupid.
Anyway, more of the same. Nothing to see here.
well…isn’t really “more of the same”. Now we know that Uncle Murray can’t hold up the production anymore, he has lost his part of the franchise’es rights
Did Bil actually opt out officially, or is Dan jumping a little far ahead. I’m no lawyer, but I don’t think “I don’t want to be involved” is legally binding.
No, not really.
Read the quote again: “uh, I’m not sure Billy does anymore” - that’s not a very definitive statement. Regardless, we still don’t know anymore than we ever really did.
That was the really interesting piece of “news” from the interview, the potential for an opt-out or automatic opt-out in his contract, even if it is hearsay. If it is true that is incredibly intuitive of the lawyers who worked on that contract back in 1988 or 89 right?
I also had no idea that Tom Davis worked on Aykroyd’s GBIII draft from the 90s. I know its universally panned by those who’ve read it but I’d still love to read that sucker.
Last year, an independent film company tried making a new “Evil Dead” film citing that Sam Raimi said he’d never do another one again in a book he had written, thus trying to use “he abandoned the franchise” to legally make another. Well, things didn’t work out too well for them because they were in the process of remaking the original.
I’m no lawyer either but I will assume that this is a common thing in Hollywood, there is probably some kind of truth to Dan’s statement.
So the “Ghost Venkman” rumors were true? weird.
Dan also said that Bill’s lawyer and the studio have to work it out…so maybe Bill is thinking of opting out…or has already opted out but still wants a piece of cake.
It sounds like Dan was in talks, and that they were considering Bill’s refusal and an opt out legal loophole to go ahead without him.
If I were Bill, I’d think he would want in and a chunck of the money, instead of being excluded buy refusing the required number of times to be left out in the cold.
It also sounds to me that Dan is at the end of his road, and is getting tired of the batle, and is ready to gie up after one more try for the brass ring.
Or that he is trying to light fires under a few people to get things moving along.
Couldnt have said it better myself. Venkman is a big part of Ghosbusters but not all of it.
Because Batman Forever and Batman and Robin were such great evolutionary steps for that franchise…
The way Dan is talking they may as well go with the original script with helmets, and wrist wands, and time travel, and only loosely connect it to Ghostbusters.
I don’t recall my statement saying that helmets and wristbands are what I want. He’ll I’ve barely voiced my opinion on GB3 due to statements like yours. My only statement is simply that one character is not the whole making of a good story.
To be frank, I kind of agree that the “Ghostbusters” concept is as essential as the original characters. Though the humor of the concept can still work with new characters as all the natural elements are in place. They tried this with “Extreme Ghostbusters” and it fell dead on its face.
That being said, movie-wise, this has never been attempted with a Comedy franchise. Sci-Fi franchises for sure, Star Wars and Star Trek come to mind, but those universes are so open and thorough there can be a thousand characters to write about, but with a comedy, its really the original central characters that gave the franchise it’s heart to begin with.
Also not to sound “trolly” but “Forever” and 'Robin" weren’t attempts to “expand” a franchise, the franchise had already been established 50+ years earlier. They were just terrible movies tryin to cash in on the success of the Burton films and the Cartoon.
It’s funny that he says Bill’s rights are forfeit because he wouldn’t/couldn’t do it when the studio asked three times, but that the studio needs to make the film now or never because he and Reitman will move onto other things and they have rights…
I disagree man. *Ghostbusters *is an insanely high-concept franchise, and RGB is a testament to just how large the tip of this conceptual iceberg truly is. I agree that the original characters are great, and had a perfect dynamic, but if you boil them down to their archetypes (the Heart, the Brain, the Mouth, the Arm) you can still have that basic dynamic. XGB failed, IMO, because of the farcical political-correctness, bad art design, and a bad air-time slot. I still loved it though, despite it’s flaws, and would’ve watched more.
…I also disagree with trying to label and pigeon-hole *Ghostbusters *as a “comedy.” First of all, I don’t see it as primarily a comedy, and second, even if it was, how does that disqualify it from evolving or branching out like a Star Wars which, mind you, is also pretty dang heavy on humor? If it truly has “never been attempted” before, that’s all the more reason to try it I feel. This irrational fear of (artistic) failure is something I can’t understand. Trust me, NOTHING is gonna take away our beloved originals :sigh: 
…Worst case scenario, we get something like Highlander 2 (and have endless fun bashing and disowning it). Best case scenario (highly improbable though it may be), we get the best GB adventure ever.