Bill Murray on why the 'Ghostbusters 3' script is gathering dust: Blame 'Ghostbusters 2'
Image Credit: Jeff Kravitz/FilmMagic.comThe song and dance has gone on for more than a decade: They're going to make Ghostbusters 3! Bill Murray's not interested. They're going to relaunch the Ghostbusters with all new actors! All new actors? Why? They're going to make another Ghostbusters with the original guys, but kill off Peter Venkman? Yeah, thanks, but I already saw 'Zombieland.' They're finally going to make this movie, with the old guys handing the proton packs to a new generation of Ghostbusters! Great. Fine. Has anyone heard from Murray since the AT&T Pro-am?
Actually, Murray still hasn't read the most current version of the Ghostbusters 3 script. He told Howard Stern this week that it's collecting dust somewhere nearby, but he also hinted at the reason that he's been so elusive and noncommittal about resurrecting the franchise. "About five years after we did the first one, the clever agents got us all together in a room [for the sequel]," Murray told Stern, in a long telephone interview. "And we really are funny together — they are funny people, Harold [Ramis] and Danny [Aykroyd] and myself — and it was Ivan [Reitman] and maybe one or two other people, and we were just really kind of blindlingly funny for about an hour or so. And the agents, there was this foam coming off of them, they had this pitch and Danny and Harold had already concocted some sort of story idea. It was a story, and it was a good story. I think I'd already read one or two that Danny rolled out before that, but this one was a good one. I said okay, we could do that one…. And [Ghostbusters 2] didn't end up the way it was presented."
So Murray wasn't cool with the sewers of pink slime either. I get it. But doesn't the statute of limitations on bad movie experiences expire after 20 years? I don't need there to be another Ghostbusters movie, but I wish Murray would stop crossing up everyone's streams. Just do it. Or not.
The worse that could possibly happen to Murray if he makes the film is that he'll be artistically unfulfilled. But he'd still reconnect with some really funny guys he's shared a professional lifetime with, and he'll be able to buy Augusta National with his share of the profits. Plus, the film is critic-proof. As bad as it might be, I guarantee that the critics single out Murray's performance, no matter how small, as the best part of the film. Am I wrong?
I'm conflicted on another Ghostbusters film, but I hope Murray says yes to it because maybe then, saying yes will become a habit. There's no greater star in my book than Bill Murray, and I'm weary of chasing him everywhere but on the big screen.