Bill Murray pulls out of Ghostbusters 3 - for good

I think Murray did that because he was implored to do it by his longtime friends Ramis and Aykroyd, plus Landis had directed some of his biggest films. But at this point, I think Bill Murray has so much money, he only works when he feels like it.

What amazes me about Bill is when he'll consent to doing a small part in a little film just on a whim. His role in Zombieland (as himself!) is hysterical and also pivotal to the picture.

 

This also raises the question of why he agreed to participate in junk like Garfield. Just to shore up his wealth, or because the producers had blackmail material oh him?

 

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garfield:_The_Movie#Reception

Murray said in an interview with GQ that he was fooled into playing the voice of Garfield for the film.

I thought it would be kind of fun, because doing a voice is challenging, and I'd never done that. Plus, I looked at the script, and it said, "So-and-so and Joel Coen." And I thought: Christ, well, I love those Coens! They're funny. So I sorta read a few pages of it and thought, Yeah, I'd like to do that...So they went off and shot the movie, and I forgot all about it. Finally, I went out to L.A. to record my lines. And usually when you're looping a movie, if it takes two days, that's a lot. I don't know if I should even tell this story, because it's kind of mean. [beat] What the hell? It's interesting. So I worked all day and kept going, "That's the line? Well, I can't say that." And you sit there and go, What can I say that will make this funny? And make it make sense? And I worked. I was exhausted, soaked with sweat, and the lines got worse and worse. And I said, "Okay, you better show me the whole rest of the movie, so we can see what we're dealing with." So I sat down and watched the whole thing, and I kept saying, "Who the hell cut this thing? Who did this? What the **** was Coen thinking?" And then they explained it to me: It wasn't written by that Joel Coen.

 

Fool me once, fool me twice? There were two Garfield movies.

 

I would not like to see Ghostbusters 3. Or Beverly Hills Cop 4.

The franchises need to stay as is. Even if they made a Ghostbusters 3, it would be a hit for maybe a week or 2 then be in the bargain bin a few months down the road and quickly forgotten. You can't recapture lightning in a bottle when it comes to sequels.

 

It just about money for all involved.

I prefer Bill in his low-key amusing quirky roles.

 

Actually, the movie was partially written by Joel Cohen. Big difference.

I suspect Bill wouldn't have problems like this if he had an agent to go through the scripts offered first.

 

His ad for Crystal Skull vodka is embarassing. It's like one of the old SNL skits where he used to play a TV huckster.


Ghostbusters 3? Sure, why not. It's not like One or Two were so great they are iconic, untouchable works of art. They're just silly action movies. I would rather they'd make Ghostbusters 3 than have made Godfather 3.

 

It's generally known that Coppola totally did Godfather 3 for the money, since he was almost bankrupt after the failure of New York Stories. Paramount threw an ocean of cash at him for that one. The sad thing is, the studio wouldn't come up with more than a token amount for Robert Duvall (reportedly less than 1/3 of what Pacino got). Duvall was extremely hurt and walked away from the deal, and they replaced him with a similar character played by George Hamilton. (Full story on Wikipedia.)

I think Bill Murray is specifically trying to stay away from "sequels done for money's sake" at this point in his career. But I think Dan Aykroyd truly has a love for the material, the subject matter, and the characters, and I can sympathize as to why he thinks there's another story to tell. I know for certain he was heartbroken that John Belushi didn't live to be in the movie, which had been written for Belushi, John Candy, and Eddie Murphy, which would have been one incredible film.

The original film made almost $300M, making it the single biggest comedy of the entire decade, so I can see why the studio execs are still interested in coming up with a sequel. The first film was so original, funny, scary, and surprising, it'd be very hard to duplicate that today. I got to see it a month before it came out, and it totally blew me away, since I had no idea what to expect.

 

Smart move, Bill.

 

I would as well.

 

They should absolutely drop the project without Bill Murray.

As others have said, Bill Murray is a "comedy god" to my generation, and to me he's one of the few from that era that has rarely ever sold out (ok, so he made Garfield---the only two good things about that movie was Jennifer Love Hewitt)--and who has remained true to the original Saturday Night Live rebellious spirit. Ghostbusters III without Bill Murray will be as bad or worse than Blues Brothers 2000, and that's saying a lot.

 

I can understand and respect that- it's his baby after all.

That would have been something. Not to say that their replacements were a fluke. Ernie Hudson's introduction and screen time in the film always felt a bit shoehorned/forced to me for for some reason. I just read on Wikipedia that he auditioned for the voice role of Winston on the Ghostbusters animated series, but lost to Arsenio Hall- if true, how crummy is that?

 

Id much rather see him doing stuff that at least inspires to be good drama, like some of the recent things he has done over the last decade or so.

Comedy has come and gone with him. Hes an old guy that really isnt funny anymore and arguably wasnt that funny as I had remembered.

Most of his older movies are stuck in an 80s comedy mentality and id prefer they just leave all that old stuff alone and where it is.

How about something on the level of "Lost in translation"......"Broken flowers", "Royal Tenenbaums"

 

You forgot "Quick Change", the best of the bunch!

 

Murray never acted in a Landis movie...

 

I think Murray acts in some of the more mainstream movies for the bucks but I also think he does it just to mess with people's heads. When people peg him as having gone the "art" route, he shows up in some totally commercial POS. He definitely dances to a different (career) drummer...

 

If they can't get back the original Ghostbusters, they should just go the total reboot route. Maybe bring back some of the old actors as cameos but leave it at that.

If Murray's not gonna do it, don't give Aykroyd or the others major roles, IMO...

 

Yup. This is the only way they could make it a movie I'd want to see.

 

Even if he is in this I don't have any interest.

 

I'd really like to see the cast and writers from Psych cast in the film somehow.

That's the sensibility I'd like to see in GB3.

 

Apparently he is now in.

 

But the thread title says "for good"!