Dan Aykroyd Gives Update on Bill Murray-Free GHOSTBUSTERS 3

     February 28, 2012


Dan Aykroyd has been looking to bring Ghostbusters 3 to life for over a decade, and real studio interest has picked up in the last few years. He’s got a script from The Office writers Lee Eisenberg and Gene Stupnitsky (which apparently Aykroyd is still working on) that would see the original cast handing their proton packs over to some fresh-faced spirit chasers that can really appeal to the kids, with their Twitter and their Justin Bieber. Alas, his good friend Bill Murray (who, I’m told, is also an actor of some repute) is dead-set on playing party-pooper. Today, in an interview with the Telegraph, Aykroyd briefly discussed the film and Murray’s assured absence.  Said Aykroyd:

“At this point it’s in suspended animation. The studio, the director Ivan Reitman and [co-star] Harold Ramis feel there must be a way to do it, but Bill Murray will not do the movie. He doesn’t want to be involved.”

Hit the jump for more.

The quote continues at the Telegraph:


“[Murray's] got six kids, houses all over America. He golfs in these tournaments where they pay him to turn up and have a laugh. He’s into this life and living it. I know we’d have a lot of fun [but] I can’t be mad at him. He’s a friend first, a colleague second. We have a deep personal relationship that transcends business and he doesn’t want to know.”

The no-go is not terribly surprising given that Murray, who’s quite picky at the best of times (despite being in both big-screen Garfield flicks), is on record as a critic of Ghostbusters 2. Aykroyd confirmed that he thought about recasting Murray’s role of Peter Venkman, but, seriously, with who? Even then, what do you do about the retired and allegedly reluctant Rick Moranis? And Slimer who, as we all know, is an uninsurable Meth addict?

Nonetheless, Aykroyd offered some assurance to hopeful fans:

“We’re not going to do a movie that exploits the franchise. The script has to be perfect. I’m the cheerleader, but I’m only one voice in the matter. It’s a surety that Bill Murray will not do the movie, however there is still interest from the studio.”

Around The Web
  • Farzan

    I support Bill Murray in this case. He probably knows the 3rd film is going to suck so he doesn’t want to bother with it. I’m surprised Tommy Lee Jones agreed to do MIB3 when the 2nd film sucked hard.

  • Rev. Slappy

    If Murray doesn’t want to be involved they should just reboot the whole thing with a new cast. It’s been 28 years since the original film. The concept is still a really great one and I think there’s a ton of milage the could still get out of it, what with all the Ghost Chaser-type shows on cable TV.

    • cloxlider

      Bill Murray reminds me of your mom.

  • Steve Rudzinski

    How about Venkman made enough money and moved to the Bahamas with Dana? THE END NO MURRAY NEEDED.

    I mean don’t get me wrong, Murray was the star of the first two films. But with how much the franchise has grown since the second film, the franchise and the mythology all matter more than simply Murray’s involvement. I’d much rather have another film WITH Murray than none at all.

    I don’t see why he’s so against it, he did the game and realized how much of a blast it was to be a Ghostbuster again.

    • MisterEd

      It’s because the script is no good. That’s why Murray won’t do it.

      Another reason is that Murray thinks he’s too old to play the part. He did the videogame because he only used his voice. He didn’t have to stand in front of a camera and run around chasing ghosts.

      That’s why he would only do Ghostbusters 3 if they killed him off in the first half of the movie. So he wouldn’t have to embarrass himself through the entire thing.

      • Steve Rudzinski

        Based on how Bill has stayed so far away from comedy for so long out side of a Zombieland cameo, I have to not fully trust his judgement on the script. Plus he was against a Ghostbusters 3 before there WAS a script.

        I can’t trust him when he says the script isn’t good. That sounds more like an excuse than a reason.

        And I think it’s clear that him carrying a pack around for 90 minutes would be anything BUT an embarrassment to everyone in the audience.

  • DeadpoolDX

    I agree just do it without Bill Murray. The concept and story alone should hold up. Venkman just won’t be there.

    • Rev. Slappy

      I have no interest in seeing a Ghostbusters movie without Murray and Moranis but with Aykroyd and Ramis. It would turn out as awful as Caddyshack 2. And speaking of Caddyshack 2, didn’t Aykroyd pretty much replace Murray in the Carl Spackler role? Jackie Mason replaced Dangerfield with horrifying results. Aykroyd should know from firsthand experience what a disaster this iteration of a third Ghostbusters would be.

      I agree that the premise is sturdy enough to carry on without them. Why not get Jim Rash involved? He knows comedy and just won an Oscar. Joel McHale has Murray-like tendencies.

  • someone

    All they have too do is start the movie with bills character having been killed Offff an they realize its time To hand over the business to a new group an boom movie continues..sure they can talk him into doing a 2min cameo as a ghost

  • Womanshouldbeinkitchen

    Murray made Garfield, both of them!!! He has no clue about the script of the movie, nor does he care…the theme or ideas of this 3rd movie has zero weight in Bill Murray’s reluctance…he just doesn’t want to be involved.

    • Eric Nixon

      I have to agree. I think Murry’s mind was made up years ago. Hell, he didn’t really want to do Ghostbusters 2 either, and didn’t even read the script until the day before shooting started (or so I’ve read).

      I say do it without him. I mean, honestly, when was the last time we saw him be as funny as he was in the Ghostbusters movies? Sentimental attachment aside, he’s not that important to the overall picture.

  • WEV

    Sounds like Murray is making a wise move and respect to him for sticking to his guns.
    The project has fail written all over it. Whatever they do this will be a story that involves passing the franchise on to a new younger group of Ghostbusters, so even though it will have 3 slapped on the end of the title (more likely 3-D) it is going to be a reboot in disguise, therefor if that is the case then just lose all the original cast (maybe have cameos) and reboot the franchise totally from fresh……..well, either of those routes would be a total disaster and travesty.

    If this is something Akroyd and co have wanted to do so bad then why have they left it this long….i can only surmise that its due to no decent story ideas or script, or maybe its the fact that he is the only one who really wants to do it. Hey, with the powers of the latest state of the art computer effects technology perhaps they can do a cgi Murray/Venkman ;)

    Murray you remain a legend, good on you! I will acknowledge this by watching the first Ghostbusters!

  • WEV

    Bill Murray you remain a legend! Good work for sticking to your guns, this project has fail written all over it.
    To acknowledge this i will now watch the first Ghostbusters :)

  • Pingback: Ackroyd Gives ‘Ghostbusters 3′ Update - The Hollywood News()

  • murdernexxus

    Garfield 1 & 2, Larger than Life, The man who knew too little, Osmosis Jones..but no to Ghostbusters 3……….Where the Buffalo Roam is my fav Bill Murray

  • Smith

    Yeah I don’t think it’s a quality issue since, as noted, Murray’s imdb profile is peppered with some real stinkers. I think Akroyd’s right: the guy is just enjoying his life now: playing golf, getting drunk and going on letterman, and watching his son assistant coach our terrible basketball team… probably just isn’t that interested in buckling down for a big-budget movie.

    Personally, even though I admire Akyroyd’s desire to get this movie made, I just don’t really think it’s necessary. I pretty much feel like I got my Ghostbusters 3 with the video game that came out about two or three years ago

  • Josh

    i think we all know that with or without murray this film isnt going to be a blockbuster, and that in 5 years time we’d probably have a reboot anyways, so maybe they should just give up. its too old anyway, i think scream 4′s box office flop of last year shows that time does take its toll, even though it was a good movie. could couple of films, lets not do what most franchises do and ruin it in the third :/ (rambo 3, scream 3, shrek 3, alien 3, predator 3, meet the parents 3) it just doesnt often work.

  • Ainge

    I don’t get it, Bill had no problem making those ultra shi tty Garfield movies but when it comes down to a movie in which where thousands of kids (me) have idolized him and he goes ahead and refuses the roll. Dang Bill you were my hero as a Ghostbuster put the bong down and get your shit in order

  • Pingback: Rant: You Know What? I Don't Even Want 'Ghostbusters 3' Anymore | FirstShowing.net()

  • montana

    Finally mr murray proves himself as someone with common sense… this movie shouldnt exist,you hollywood people always messing with the classics… ¿What next back to the future 4?FU.. YOU EXECUTIVES.