Ghostbusters 3 may recast Peter Venkman says Dan Aykroyd
Dan Aykroyd recently shot down the script-shredding rumor, but it seems they may have to move along without Bill Murray. Here's what Dan Aykroyd had to say below.
"Bill Murray is not capable of such behavior. This is simply something that would not be in his nature. We have a deep, private personal relationship that transcends business. We communicate frequently and his position on the involvement in Ghostbusters 3 has been made clear and I respect that. But Bill has too much positive estimation of my writing skills to shred the work."
Dan Aykroyd revealed that they may pull a Jack Ryan and cast another actor to portray Peter Venkman. Dan Aykroyd also said that they are trying to bring Rick Moranis back for Ghostbusters 3.
"If we can get the script to Ghostbusters 3 right, then it would definitely have Moranis as a major component. None of us would want to do the movie without having him as a participant.
The script must be perfect. We cannot release a film that is any less than that. We have more work to do."
The script must be perfect. We cannot release a film that is any less than that. We have more work to do."
Back in August, Dan Aykroyd said Ghostbusters 3 will start shooting in the Spring of 2012, with or without Bill Murray. However, it seems Dan Aykroyd is still polishing the script, so it could still be quite some time before the cameras ever start rolling on Ghostbusters 3.
Ghostbusters 3 is in development and stars Sigourney Weaver, Anna Faris, Eliza Dushku, Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis, Annie Potts, Ernie Hudson. The film is directed by Ivan Reitman.
Comments (13)
To leave a comment, please sign in or use
Facebook or Twitter
Junior Roberts
I am a DIEHARD Ghostbusters fan and even I have to agree with Murray's stance on this. I think the best option would be to reboot this franchise to introduce it to today's core movie audience and still please previous GB fanatics. As much as the original cast was great, Dan Akroyd and Harold Ramis gotta understand their times have past. Besides, have you seen both of them lately? They look NOTHING like their old-selves from the previous film. I can't imagine them "suiting up" again.
4 months agoby @junior-robertsFlag
JasonKat
@incmob
Right back at cha dude. but I only agree with most of what you said, However i think that Ghostbusters as a whole. sucks! I liked part2 the best, but overall they both dont need sequels, What this really needs is a remake. not a reboot just a remake. Yea there are lots of films that could might as well get sequels as well. but I would rather that they redifind those films with a new taste, New cast, new direction, new plot, better storyline ect. Sometimes it works bringing back the cast/actor, sometimes it doesnt, like rocky balboa, rambo, american pie, die hard. ect.
Making Ghostbusters 3, wouldnt b such a bad idea, it just depends on what direction they take it. The only reason such film like this will sell, was if the same cast came back, Yea even if most didnt, people will still go see it.
Just so you know, I'm not against Murray's work. he was/is a great actor, who does well taking on suporting actor roles, this guy is funny. But the only reason Ghostbusters hasnt had a green light, was because of him. if its not 1 thing, its another. I really dont care if he joins the cast or not. I dont even care if this movie gets made or not. All i want is a 'better" updated" Ghostbusters movie, with or w/out the cast. We all do. i hope!
4 months agoby @jasonkatFlag
incmob
@jasonkat sorry dude, gotta disagree with you on that one. I think murray thinks enough of his fans to realize and be the most open cast member that is out spoken enough to say that GB 2 sucked. Personally i am partial to it, i thought it sucked in 89 and for a sequel but of course it has grown on me since. I dont think this has to do with money. Murray is not working the same rates as he might have been in the 80's and does more independant films now, then blockbuster comedies. I think as you get older you have to redefine things and grow. de niro and pacino tried playing the same type of roles with righteous kill a couple of years ago and see what happened... Harrison ford and indiana anyone? need i say more.
and really? part 6 or 7 by now? you could say that about any 80's film franchise. beverly hills cop, back to the future, stakeout (kidding) my point is that what keeps those franchises alive and loved and remembered is that they dont have 6 or 7 sequels behind them. they are classic comedies or films for a reason, and hold that moment for many of us that saw them then... and for new audiences that see them now, and most of them hold up well over time.
Personally i think a GB 3 film is about 22 years too late... if only someone had said that to spielberg regarding a new indy film.
4 months agoby @incmobFlag
moviegeek
Of course that script thing was a rumor. I can't believe people bought into that.
4 months agoby @moviegeekFlag
RENO CONRINTHOS
I said it before I'll say it again this movie needs to be a reboot or if they do a part 3 Dan akroyd should have a smaller role where part 3 is a spin off where all four ghost busters had kids in there kids took there place
4 months agoby @RENO-CONRINTHOSFlag
Diaigma
@ejk1 - I kinda liked it ... :P
4 months agoby @diaigmaFlag
ejk1
I'm on Murray's side. He hasn't committed, and why should he? To placate Akroyd's need to regain relevancy? Ghostbusters 2 was complete drivel; Murray is well within his rights to see if it is worth jumping on or staying away from this project.
4 months agoby @ejk1Flag
gandoff2169
Why does so many hate on Murray? So he made allot of money early on, and did not do what most due, and waste it on mutli-million dollar homes and such. He did it so he could enjoy his later years and pick the movies he wants to do. So he has a kind of comedy that comes off as jerkish at times in his movies. So what? He is a HUGE part of this movie franchise. Yes there is no real reason they should not have done more. But unless you have major inside knowledge that he is the reason not, and wish to share, why hate? Really? Has some had a bad experience meeting him? If so, please share.
As for this movie, No Murray, no GB3... Please... I don't mind if he dies in it and turns into a ghost if done right. But rather see him really doing the full movie, non ghost, handing the franchise to a new cast. But no new actor in his character. Its like having Rocky being done as someone else.
4 months agoby @gandoff2169Flag
JasonKat
1st of all. Murray suxs, he may have been great during his early age, but now it seems like he doesnt give a chit about what any of us think or want. He figures, i have enough money, i'l do whatever movie i want, if i like ir or not.
Ghostbusters is 1 of those movies that should be on part 6 by now, maybe even part7. But they left it alone for yrs. So now that things are alot better they can all make a great Ghostbusters movie out of this. but instead.. 1 of them is always on the negative side.
So they are going with plan B..replace the actor. (normally i hate that, im against replacments) but in this case, i dont mind or care who gets replaced, as long as they make a freaken movie.
4 months agoby @jasonkatFlag
Luc Eccles Biron
No Murray no movie, when will they understand that?
4 months agoby @luc-eccles-bironFlag
Mutant
Great a cover up story... nice try Dan but I'm not sold. I'll still see this film when it comes out with or without Bill the snob.
4 months agoby @zenderFlag
thedude-abides
You couldn't pay me to see this, with or without Bill Murray.
4 months agoby @thedude-abidesFlag
dcrock
Bill Murray was the star of ghostbusters. Without him it'll be a big mistake. If the script isn't great it's already a mistake but without him it's pointless and might as well go straight to dvd and be shown on the syfy channel.
4 months agoby @dcrockFlag