Yeah, I’m not too excited either, guys.
CNN.com’s enterainment blog reports that the long gestating Ghostbusters 3 is officially a go. For those of you not aware, GB3 has been in development for like 500 years now – well ok, maybe it only feels that long – but there’s been numerous holdups, including debates over the script, whether to bring back director Ivan Reitman (who hasn’t had a big hit since 1990’s “Kindergarten Cop”), and most notably, whether or not they could convince Bill Murray to participate.
Apparently now Aykroyd is saying they’re going to go ahead with or without him.
Of course, I would prefer that they didn’t add a sequel here at all. I’ve been on quite a tear here lately about revisiting classic properties, and so I’ll spare you from going through that again. Hey, it’s not my fault! Hollywood will NOT stop. I mean, on my way to THIS I learned they’re remaking “Flatliners”… not that I care much about that flick, I’m just saying there’s no movie too small, no movie too big, no movie at all… that Hollywood will not regurgitate right now.
In general I’ve kind of surrendered to the thought of GB3. It’s already had one crappy sequel, so the way has already been paved so to speak. But I always thought they would include Murray. I even thought the idea they had to bring him back as a ghost was very clever. But now it appears they’re prepared to go on without him.
I suppose this shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. Aykyroyd IS the Hollywood Whore that participated in “The Blues Brothers 2000” without John Belushi, so why should it surprise me that he’d do a Ghostbusters sequel without Bill Murray?
There was a time when this movie sounded relatively appealing. Instead of being the stars, the original Ghostbusters were going to be mentoring the next generation (for a franchise rebirth no doubt!), and Bill Murray would return as a ghost. If this article winds up being correct and we don’t get Bill Murray and we do get Ashton Kutcher?
Count me out.