No Ghostbusters without Bill Murray and why that's a good thing
I'll be honest - I'm really sick of writing about GHOSTBUSTERS 3. And I sympathize with you, because I'm really sick of reading about GHOSTBUSTERS 3 as well. But I wanted to post one last thing and I promise that'll be the last GHOSTBUSTERS 3 article I write about until there's a greenlight or official casting news.
Deadline is running a story that basically chalks up the challenge to making a third GHOSTBUSTERS movie to the reluctance of Bill Murray to commit. As they state in the article, "Without Murray, the studio absolutely will not make the film." This isn't exactly breaking news as it's been reported previously that Ivan Reitman, Harold Ramis, Dan Ackroyd and Murray have contracts that preclude any GHOSTBUSTERS feature film going through without their approval.
But Reitman, Ackroyd and Ramis all seem to have given their blessing as the report claims they worked on a rewrite from the original script by Lee Eisenberg and Gene Stupnitsky ("The Office"). Murray was just sent the revised script earlier this month and no one knows yet what he'll do. I don't have any insight as to what he'll do either, but I know what he should do: say NO.
Before you get your pitchforks and torches and march en masse to New Jersey to crucify my ass, hear me out. I know there are a lot of people theoretically excited for a third GHOSTBUSTERS film, but on what grounds? What previous franchise has proven that you can lie dormant for years and suddenly relaunch with great success? STAR WARS? INDIANA JONES? THE GODFATHER? In almost every instance Hollywood has tried, they've failed.
And let's not pretend that GHOSTBUSTERS II was any kind of success. They struck while the iron was hot, so to speak, and even that was a failure. Why now, in 2011, would they have success?
Let's be frank: GHOSTBUSTERS was like catching lightning in a bottle. It's one of the most iconic films of the last 25 years and trying to recapture that glory would be a Sisyphean task. They could work for years and years and years until all four members are six feet under and still not come up with anything as good as the original.
The plan is to turn GHOSTBUSTERS III into a film with a new, younger crop of Ghost Busters who could launch a new franchise. But does anyone really want a new, younger franchise? What are the odds of this working? 1%?
Bill Murray might be coming off as the quirky contrarian of the bunch who's holding up a potentially lucrative deal for his co-stars but frankly he's the only one here who's using his common sense. You may be pissed at him now but in 20 years you'll think to yourself, "Man, thank you Bill Murray." We can only hope Harrison Ford or George Lucas had the same restraint.