So I’ve been a life long fan of the franchise since seeing the 1st film as a small child in the 80’s. I grew up through all of the hopeful years and rumors of a possible GB3 getting made, just to deal with the sadness of Murray dropping the ball due to the claims or a poorly written script. Then “Ghostbusters 2016” pops into the picture and everyone is onboard, including Murray with nothing but praise. After having seen the new film I can’t help but have some strong feelings about it, pretty much all of them being that I think the movie was a giant stinking pile of ■■■■ for an assortment of reasons. With this being said, my question to all of you is this…
Do you think all of the previously written GB3 scripts were literally that terrible that Murray wouldn’t do them?
I just have a really hard time believing that a script or film could have been done any more poorly than what was done for Ghostbusters 2016, and for Murray to think that this movie was a good idea and to appear in it for a longer duration than any other actor from the original is just mind boggling to me. I cant help but feel like Mr. Stay Puft has kicked us all in the junk repeatedly!
Have you seen Murray’s performance in GB16? Now compare it to his cameo in the new series “Vice Principals”. You’ll see how much he didn’t care about GB16.
He didn’t really do that much in Vice Principals, though. Looked like he enjoyed his character more in GB16 more, though, and liked to ham it up.
I’ve heard from those that read them that some of those scripts were really bad. Then again, I don’t agree at all with your assessment of the new film. I think Murray didn’t want to hurt the original more than GB2 did. This new film was Ghostbusters, but it took it in a different direction, he like the actresses, and decided to be a part of it. And he liked the finished product, too.
The movie was terrible, and Bill Murray phoned in his performance. I think Sony put pressure on him to appear, because the earlier scripts couldn’t have been any worse than the product in 2016.
There is also no way Bill Murray saw the completed movie, IMHO.
I don’t think all the GB3 scripts were flat-out terrible, though I’m sure some might have been. I just honestly believe Bill wants distance from the franchise and has for a while. It would’ve taken something unrealistically great for a sequel to get him back in that flightsuit for a full movie. He doesn’t seem like the type of actor who likes being wrangled back in for the same same thing over and over again and he seems to have decided as he’s gotten older that hes just going to do things his way.
An article that just came out recently about the game showed that Terminal Reality had to go so far as replacing the original mayor with Bill’s brother Brian in the hopes of convincing Brian so that he could pass along the word to Bill because Bill was unresponsive. Then when they did get him he only showed up for two days of recording. While it’s nice to hear Bill’s voice, there is no doubt in my mind that a lot of the dialogue in that game feels phoned in. I also don’t doubt that Sony put pressure on him to get him to cameo for GB16 and that also feels phoned it.
I agree, Bill’s performance in the video game was by far the weakest of the original four. His performance in the new movie was embarrassing. He should have allowed them to make Ghostbusters 3 with an up and coming star stepping into his role in the 90’s if he wasn’t into it.
I remember reading part of Hellbent, and it didn’t seem that good. Then again I wasn’t big on the passing of the torch idea, with the simplicity of the original equipment it really wouldn’t make sense to make a movie about training Ghostbusters.
Weird, maybe it’s because I was not looking because I liked the film, but I saw no problem with the portrayal of Bills cameo. It did not seem as lacklustre as his voice work on the videogame.
I’ve seen him vouch for the movie and the ladies a few times.
On top of that, if Bill did not attend the premiere that could be seen as a silent protest, but it could also just be one of Bills Famous No Shows, or him being busy like Chris Hemsworth who also did not show up, because he was busy with the new Thor movie.
He only did GB to do a movie he really wanted to do, which bombed. He did GB2 after a lot of pressure, and was not happy with the result. Bill seems the kind of guy who hates to be pressured into a project, and only does what he wants to do. It looks like GB was a surprise hit he never really stood behind, but I could be wrong.
Well, maybe he shouldn’t be signing contracts if he doesn’t want to be pressured into following through with them. He only did GB16 because he didn’t have to reprise the Venkman character and he knew the media had been reporting that he’s been “shredding scripts” and refusing to do a new film.
Bill’s cameo was the weakest, I agree. You can tell based on Paul Feig’s interview with deadline.com that Bill barely wanted to be involved. He hung up on Feig without even saying a word. He had Jon Hamm waiting in the wings because they weren’t sure if he was going to show up.
I’m so conflicted. I think Bill really hurt Ivan & Dan’s feelings. Read Ivan’s interview with Drew Mcweeny over at Hitfix. You can sense his regret. Bill does all kinds of bad films, he couldn’t do Ghostbusters 3 just as a favour to Ivan & Danny? Or the fans? He and Dan are friends. Dan even said on Howard Stern that he probably won’t ever work with Bill again because of this. He said they will always be friends but business wise? They are done. He wouldn’t read the script! Every time Ivan or Dan tried talking to him about it? Well read the hitfix interview. I know he doesn’t owe anybody anything but just out of decency? Ghostbusters helped make him what he is today. Christ he even did the video game for barely any money at all! I’ll always be a Murray fan. But this hurts. Finding out how they were waiting and waiting on him and then Harold got sick.
Have you seen a Rock the Kasbah? My god it’s bad! Yet he did that over GB3.
What would get me chuckling is, pending a sequel gets made, they reveal it was secretly canon all along and involve the ghost of Peter Venkman. In doing so they would have managed to get Bill to reprise his role without even knowing.
I read part of it, and didn’t really like it that much. I’m not huge on the idea of adding new Ghostbusters to the original canon, and even if they did make GB3 now, I’d want it to be only Stantz, Venkman, and Winston (of course Louis could be a 'buster too.)
Personally I’m very happy where they ended the series with NYC celebrating the Ghostbusters, and that great shot of Ms. Liberty with Lower Manhattan in the background.
To answer the original question, I don’t know if Hellbent was bad but it was probably too fantasy driven and high concept like Ghost Smashers and The Seed but I think maybe 1 or 2 of the later scripts were probably good enough. I would have been fine with Peter and Egon being written out, more of a spotlight on Ray and Winston, and a new team.
Actually, Hellbent was just Aykroyd for the 1st draft then Aykroyd and the late Tom Davis on at least one subsequent draft. The later GB3 scripts, Ramis was involved along with Reitman and Lee Eisenberg and Gene Stupnitsky then Etan Cohen.
The Video Game wasn’t primarily Aykroyd and Ramis despite the end credits. It was mostly John Zuur Platten and Flint Dille. The story idea and initial development I guess is John Melchior and Drew Haworth from Vivendi then the script was by Platten and Dille (who did 4 drafts), Patrick Hegarty added some dialogue at some point, Aykroyd & Ramis consulted on things like the terminology and polish and gave some notes to Platten and Dille. I was happy with TVG being the last thing from the prime canon – the birth of a new franchise.
I just get the impression Murray didn’t want GB to be his big legacy, he wanted more of a drama like Razor’s Edge or Lost in Translation. I’m thinking of some New York Times reviews from years back, implying what the guys were doing in GB wasn’t great acting. I disagree with NYT of course, but I can understand why comments like that might sting a performer.
