So, I know it’s blasphemy to even think such a thing, but I don’t think they should totally nix the entire project if Bill doesn’t want to be part of it. Yes, I agree, without him there would be something missing…and the worst thing they could try to do is “replace” his character (i.e. “Mighty Mac” in Blues Brothers 2000). I really think that if he doesn’t want to be part of it the best thing they could possibly do is go make the best damn Ghostbusters movie they can without him and (hopefully) make him regret not being in it.
The internets say its not “they” that will be choosing to make it or not. If Bill Murray says its not a good script, he owns 1/5 of the rights, and can say no to them making it even without him.
Ok…I didn’t realize it’s in his contract that if he says he doesn’t want to do it then it’s dead. I guess it’s neither here nor there then.
Of course he has every right to say no to something he doesn’t want to do. I just thought it was a case of if he didn’t want to do it, they wouldn’t move forward even though everyone else is signed on. in that case, I think they should do it.
Does their agreement allow for him to say he doesn’t want to be in it himself though grant them permission to do it without him? in that case, my original statement still applies.
I honestly don’t care. With him, without him but still gives the okay… Doesn’t matter, I don’t care if they make it and I don’t care if they choose not to. Unlike to some here probably, I never got to see either of the Ghostbusters on the big screen and it would be a thrill for me regardless of it being good or bad.
I’m one of those people that likes The Godfather 3. You know why? Because it let’s me know what happened to the characters, even though it didn’t have to exist. I know it’s not great and I know it’s not as good as the first two, but I’m still glad it’s there.
It boggles my mind how against the idea of a third one people are. What are you going to pop Ghostbusters in, watch it, and then half way through turn it off because of how upset you are that a horrible third movie exists? Or is it that you don’t want a third movie to tarnish the legacy for people who have not yet seen the first and go in, hate the third, and don’t bother with the others? Well, who cares about them either… less idiots to bid against for memorabilia online as far as I’m concerned.
Honestly, just the amount of energy put into posts and articles about NOT wanting this movie made… I just don’t understand it, and yet I DON’T CARE if a third one is made or not.
Besides the fact that I understand the issues regarding rights holders, congratulations on your astute word play Sir.
However, no, what I care about is the amount of negativity towards a film that doesn’t meaningfully affect anyone other than the careers of those involved.
I don’t think this film can move without Bill, aside from his name being big juju in Hollywood now, Peter Venkman was a hugely integral part of why Ghostbusters is so beloved and why it was such a massive hit. Dan and Harold did an excellent job on writing a script that was funny, scary, and pretty intelligent in terms of parapsychological origins, but the character this movie hinged on was Peter. Ray, Egon, and Winston have their fans (heck 9 out of 10 times when my friends and I quote the movie it’s usually Ernie) but Peter was the one remembered the most.
It seems Bill prefers voice work for stuff like this, he had a blast providing his voice to the video game, so I say let’s Avatar/ Tron this thing, CGI it, give me a story with the younger original Ghostbusters. Not for nothing, but a story of them getting younger people just does not appeal to me. Look at the recent history of classic’s returned to the screen. Older Indy; hated by many. Tron fared better, but it’s not as loved a franchise as Indy, Star wars or Ghostbusters. Plus, it had a younger Jeff Bridges in it.
I say, older Ghostbusters will be depressing and I don’t want to see a new generation of Ghostbusters. I want the classics, back and better than ever. But without Bill, it just wouldn’t work.
Going that route using CGI to make them young is not a good idea. They would look too artificial throughout the movie. Plus I don’t think they would have a budget big enough to cover the cost of four actors with SFX rendered on them for an entire movie. That’s a lot of dough! It worked in Tron 2 because everything around them was artificial but for the real world flashback scene, the lines on Bridges ‘young’ face were too smooth. That’s why his back was to us for most of the scene.
I’m talking Avatar quality CGI and their talking $150 mil budget for this movie, I think they could get that quality of movies for these guys. Especially since they don’t need to create an entirely different world.
