Confirmed: Bill Murray NOT Returning for "Ghostbusters 3"

This will be a failure without bill

and

Who cares if Bill is turning it down

So, the guy who made the first two films worth a damn isn't returning? Hmmm. Smells like success to me.

Just reboot the goddamned franchise already.

"It's time to make time third one."

No, no its not Dan. No one wants this. Maybe 20 years ago, sure. But it safe to say that Ghostbusters fire cooled a long time ago. And I still think Murray will at least make a cameo.

I'm f*cking shocked! haha!

I think IF this movie makes it to greenlight status, murray will want in. But its a big if to start. So lets see the green light and studio handing them boatloads of money first

Honestly only Dan Akroyd cares what Bill Murray has to say. Just say he and Dana moved far away and have never been heard from again

No surprise here...Akroyd just couldn't crack the plot for a solid (f*ck epic, reminiscient, or even blockbuster) flick but I still say the greatest obstacle is who will fill the iconic GB shoes & to make 'em memorable enough money to continue said franchise for which Akroyd doesn't have a good track record...BLUES BROTHERS 2000, anyone?

Murray was right to stay away...I'm disappointed but I understand.

Good luck with the project, Dan, you'll need it.....

As long as they get Annie Potts to return, then I'm game. I mean, she really was the glue that held those films together.

i dont believe you.

Mink- agreed, as much as I hate to say it, reboot the f*cker.

^^Yep. And there's an easy way to do it if they decide to tie the reboot into the old. Just use Peter's baby from the second film. He'd be in his twenties now, perhaps failing in life, marriage/romance on the rocks. Write Peter out as dead/disappeared.

So the son maybe stumbles into the now condemned/dilapidated/abandoned firehouse. GB packs perhaps in a storage vault, Ecto 1 looking bad under a white tarp, Slimer haunting the place. Come up with a villain, and a reason for the villain to want to hurt the son. Maybe he's interested in Peter but settles for the son instead. College buddies or work colleagues recruited. Son has a new purpose, get's his life back et cetera.

Anyway, vague impressions for a story, but I can see a lot of it my head quite clearly, visually. Lots of room for improved VFX, and the introduction of a few new 'good' ghosts to pester the new gang and Slimer alike.

Make it a father/son film I guess, because the first two films had that aspect, so this one should too.

I meant the first two had a familial warmth, not a father/son thing.

just reboot it

don't do sequel

i even not born the first 2 so i don;t that old man comeback or not

It's gonna be sh*t movie. The last movie is 23 years old, it's way too late for a sequel.

I'm still trying to get over Tron: legacy, Indiana and the crystal skull, and wall street 2. f*ck this

I wanna reboot Donna Dixon

A complete failure without Peter, but at the same time nobody cares about this one. Too long has passed since the last one....

This is way overdue and has gotten too long in the tooth. I don't give a sh*t what happens to this.

I was obsessed with Murray in Ghostbusters as a kid. This will be extremely disappointing for me if he does not sign up.

Jesus f*cking Christ let it die already or what Mink said

"Yep. And there's an easy way to do it if they decide to tie the reboot into the old. Just use Peter's baby from the second film."

Mink, the baby wasn't Peter's son, idiot. It can't really be a father/son movie if a) the kid isn't even his and b) Bill Murray isn't going to be involved at all. Your idea sucks, genius.

I know a few years ago there were talks of a younger cast playing the same characters in a reboot. At this point, that seems like a better idea if Hollywood is hellbent on making a Ghostbusters movie.

Nothing will ever beat the original, but that's life I guess.

Ghostbusters was ok for its time, but honestly its very dated stuff. Prefer a reboot without the humour!!! Full on horror, make slimer a p*ssy eating celluloid ghoul that f*cks its victims to death. Now that would be cool

*sigh*

I was wondering who would pick up on the fact the kid wasn't Peter's child. And it of course had to be one of the hateful loser *ssholes, naturally, who has a serious case of envy with people obviously smarter than him or, more likely, her, which is why the pretentious loser calls himself 'master thought'. Whatever.

Anyway, I was talking to someone about the idea, and they said Weaver's character just showed up in the suburbs of Cybertron with a child in that flick, and it wasn't Peter's, even though the two would have been bumping, or so you'd think, after the first.

Well, color me confused. I haven't seen the movie in twenty years, and there's a reason. It's a piece of sh*t. And now knowing that the child wasn't his, and she was just running amok in that flick with a baby from some previous marriage, well, f*ck me, who the hell cares?

I any case, the idea stands, just doesn't have to be the baby from Ghostbusters 2.

bill murray has alreday said that he didnt even enjoy the second one as much as the first....so why would he think the 3rd would be better

good move bill....these "passing it on to a younger generation films" just sound sh*t and are just an excuse not to think of something new,except to remake a story without remaking the story....

at least i know what i mean....