What’s the point of having a right of refusal if you legally give up that right… by refusing.
To me, it sounds like Sony isn’t confident enough in this contract loophole to jump up and make the movie, fearing legal retaliation by Murray. I’m sure it’s not as cut-and-dry as Aykroyd is making it out to be.
After 25 years of listening to dan aykroyd, I’m surprised you all are still listening to dan aykroyd.
My guess is that its one part of an attempt at reigning in controlling rights to the film and its franchise potential absolutely so they can do whatever they want with it (reboots, new cartoons, sell it to Disney, etc) without having to pay out on the original rights. If I was a bit more versed in contract law I’d love to do a little research and see if there’s any kind of established precedent for this kind of thing.
Ghostbusters is about to be thirty years old, and that’s a treacherous age for a high concept idea as we all know-- 30-35 seems to be prime remake “reboot” time. While no one is really hot on the idea of Ghostbusters without the established principles, and in particular an on his game Murray as Venkman, one last adventure on the big screen could serve as a perfect transitional film into what’s going to be an inevitability-- new Ghostbusters.
I didn’t take it as cut and dry. He actually mentioned he wasn’t sure, didn’t he?
It’s been ages since I’ve read about it, so I could be mistaken. I’m pretty sure the whole “5 parties must unanimously agree” thing was a product of Columbia head David Puttnam trying to get a low-budget GB sequel produced sometime between 85-87 without any of the primary players involved. After Puttnam was canned from Columbia in 87, new head Dawn Steel was super gung-■■ about getting GB2 in front of cameras. In addition to more dough, Reitman asked for new contracts to be negotiated so that no one would be allowed to mess with the property without the consent of the entire inner GB circle 'o friends.
Zemeckis and Gale have a similar thing for BACK TO THE FUTURE. Both have said there will never be a new sequel or remake. Stick to your guns, guys.
Kinda… but not really. He mentioned “letting the lawyers sort it out”, but he seemed sure enough of it to mention it multiple times in a national magazine interview, as well as basically giving Sony an ultimatum to make the movie without Murray’s consent.
As long as people don’t start screaming at Bill in public for not wanting to be part of what could potentially be a bad movie. Plus thinking in a realistic way, they are getting old and maybe Bill wants to retire on a good note, and seeing as his latest film is being pushed towards the Oscars he may wanna look towards what he could win before going “Okay fine, lets do the third.”
If Bill where to back out and say no thanks I’m done with Venkman, I for one would hold no grudge against him for it.
Not to be “argumentative” but, um, did i miss the time when primarily everyone (aside from a few cast memebers ) involved in the production of the first GB, had a background in comedy? and were hired because they DID have a background in comedy? and were intent on making a comedy? a VERY DIVERSE one with new broader ideas and elements of other genres, yes. but they were still setting out to make a funny “new” film. The concept of a group of eccentrics starting a blue-collar business in catching ghosts with home-made equipment, sounds like a humorous idea to me. Maybe i’m crazy.
Star Wars had “comedic relief”, but so do most movies. Though, to be considered a comedy there’s more emphasis on humor, which both GB films tend to lean toward. I believe AFI and other scholarly cinematic lists that consider GB one of the finest made comedies of all time, take notice of this too.
Anyway, back to previous post, I’m simply stating that expanding the character count in the GB franchise seems tricky as it’s style is more “small scope”, a company that deals with paranormal problems is a bit smaller an idea than an intergalactic civil war, just saying there can only be so many characters before things get messy depending on the style and concept. If they (Dan and Co. ) think they can do it, I say go for it.
Maybe I misunderstood you – if you’re talking about the quantity of characters, as opposed to the nature of characters, then I agree - fewer main characters is better. Although I think that that’s just generally true. Too many characters means watering things down.
…Also, I wasn’t implying that Ghostbusters is not a “comedy.” Obviously that’s part of it. I’m just saying there’s so many elements to it, that reducing it to just a plain old “comedy” bugs me. I don’t watch these films repeatedly because they’re “funny” or make me “LOL.” I watch them because they’re “cool.” They’re fantastic, imaginative, and awe-inspiring, first and foremost in my book…
Yeah, i’m basically stating GB isnt a “epic” film, where there can be all these extravagant subplots, twists, and easily rotated main characters, it just isn’t in the style of what GB is. That’s why the wording of “expanding the universe” just seems odd to me.
Which is why when people try to cite “Star Wars” and similar franchises in comparison, I’m saying that it’s all a matter of style.
Ah, I see where you’re going, Ghostbusters is too awesome that it defies categorization! 
Exactly!
I’m fairly certain Dan’s legal argument is based on Murray’s waffling. On Monday he is interested, by Thursday he’s not. The same cycle over and over.
By saying he’s interested once, he may have removed the ability to stop production. He’s still a right holder, and will get paid, he just loses say-so. Of course, you could always argue that the rights agreement was always a legal fiction and that Murray is a minority rights holder and what they have is really a partnership, and thus that partnership can be dissolved.
I saw on Yahoo just the other day that Dan Aykroyd was interviewed by Esquire. It did not reveal much but it did talk about the studio and it would be smart to make the movie now or something like that. It really made it sound like they were doing it regardless if Bill Murray agrees or not. It also sounded like there was finally a script Bill liked. Anyone know any more about this?
I’ve kept my mouth shut about Gb3 long enough on here (As well past GB’s sites) but now I’ll speak…
As a LONG time member of the community I wouldnt mind seeing Gb3. Why? Well its simple, remember Dan’s original idea for Gb’s? He wanted many many franchises across the world. Pretty much that’s what we got going on now, as much as I would like Bill in GB3 I wouldnt miss him in it.. If GB3 does get made kids will fall in love with the first and second movies like we did when most of us growing up.. Ghostbusters is a timeless classic that wont get old. I’m sry if I’ll ■■■■ some of you off but this is how I feel about the subject.
I’m not so sure about that…
http://mobile.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/billmurray411635.html
“Awards are meaningless to me, and I have nothing but disdain for anyone who actively campaigns to get one.”
Screw all of this, forget the movie. Reboot with a cartoon/animated film penned by J Straczyski and move on.
Bill Murray is punk rock.
No - punk rock is Bill Murray.
maybe…by saying “I don’t want to be involved” Billy has lost his rights on the creative side of the project (he cannot say anymore if a script can move forward or not) but not his rights on the financial side.
