i read the mail on sunday today,(uk paper) inside was a LIVE mag with a page on bill murray about the Mr Fox film. As always there was a ghostbusters 3 thing. when asked about it he said, “i’ll come back in ghostbusters 3 only if i get to be a ghost. i said to them i’ll do it if you kill me off in the first reel’ so now they are going to have me as a ghost in the film”. i have seen something about bill being a ghost on the internet but untill i saw it in a interview i just thought it was a load of ■■■■.
if you want to see it get a copy of the mail on sunday and its in the mag inside called LIVE page 32-33
This is what was being reported back in 97, I’m not entirely sure this is real. Doesn’t seem like something that would really jive with the films.
If it is something they’re going with… (Unless they do it with weird science and it is not permanent) I’ll be a little let down with the film’s premise.
Agreed. You don’t make a successful film by killing off one of the chief characters in the first few minutes. This would be very disappointing. I hope he’s just fueling knowingly-false fires to keep the scent off of the real deal.
Well if Venkman’s spirit gets trapped in another dimension and the boys have to rescue him I wouldn’t mind that plot as opposed to him just dying and coming back as a ghost. Think about it, in the first 2 movies, it was about saving / helping Dana and Oscar (in the 2nd). This time around if Oscar is a GB, he’d be helping to save Venkman.
If they kill off Bill and thats what he wants I say F him and dont even have him in it. I dont get his deal its prob his best known role in films and he seemd to hate it. I say f him if thats how he feels about the character and the movie. He can go do another garfeild or some other p.o.s
If GB3 doesn’t have all four guys in the flesh I say don’t even bother. I hope this is a dated interview or fake or something because I thought Murray was past the whole I’ll only do a ghost cameo business.
You can still do GB3 without Bill. Dont forget Ray is the heart of the ghostbusters. You will have to have one of the rookies replace Bills style (will be hard to do) but its possible. Lets not have Bill F this up for the rest of us.
I swear these quotes are lifted from an interview in '97. I remember reading that exact quote “I told them I’d do it if they killed me off in the first reel.”
Meh. Murray’s just pulling our collective chains, and if he isn’t then more power to him. I honestly couldn’t care less about him being in the film or not simply because of his attitude.
I have to agree with you there. I’m trying not to react too much and hope that this is just Bill messing with people and making fun of all the rumor ■■■■. If he were serious about this, I’d honestly rather them say to Hell with him and do it without him.
The ONLY way I could see that working is if it were done in some sort of way kind of like the recent comic series, “The Other Side.” Have Venkman somehow “die” in some non-final seeming way, like in the comic when he was possessed and that forced his soul to the other side. (Any kind of death too definitive and it just makes for too cheesy and ending if he comes back.) Then, the movie centers around the others having to save him, and in the end, he comes back as the Peter Venkman we all know and love, alive and well.
The only problem with that is I just don’t see how they could ever do that without it being EXTREMELY STUPID. So, I’d almost rather just not have him in it anyway.
If our options are:
New movie with Venkman dead
New movie were Venkman dies and somehow comes back to life in the end
New movie without Venkman
Yeeeeah… I think I’d choose option # 3. Option # 1 would just suck, and I don’t see how option # 2 could be done without being extremely lame.
You know, I always enjoy learning from people who are good at what they do, as I want to be good at what I do. In most situations, I wouldn’t question what Murray would want as…well, he’s Bill Murray. But, this is too much. Should we ruin a whole movie because of what one actor thinks should happen? He bitches that GBII was a bad movie, but then wants to kill off one of the original four with a stupid idea? Does he want GBIII to be a worse movie? If this is real, just leave him out.
Don’t want to start a new Bill Murray thread…BUT…you have to give credit to Anthony Bourdain of the Travel Channel for getting reclusive Bill to appear on his NEWEST installment of his show No Reservations with Anthony Bourdain
It aired tonight on the travel channel. (Monday, Feb. 8th)
Just a clip of it here, and no idea if GB is discussed in the *entire *show at all. They are in NYC however…makes for interesting conversation.
The ‘preview’ youtube video seems unable to appear here, so here’s the link:
Oops. I messed up in the previous post. They were not in NYC but instead The Hudson Valley.
Travel Channel will run the episode again. Mostly though, these days it’s so rare to *ever * see Bill Murray interviewed. Anthony Bourdain talks about his time spent with Bill in his blog: Tony’s Travel Journal
In keeping with the original post, here is the article that was in the UK Mail Live section:
I think what Bill is saying in that article regarding GB III is something like this: “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I’ll consider GB III if I can be a ghost.”
Just now noticed the link within the link.. Original article intact.
Thats like the offside kick-off during the superbowl… huge chance they are taking if they go through with it…
If it fails miserably then we will have something worse than GBII to complain about… Bill as a ghost is not a bad idea but ONLY if the writers are very careful with the character and its interactions with the rest of the people in the movie.
