Promoting the release of the Fantastic Mr. Fox DVD (already?), Bill Murray sat down with the UK’s Mail On Sunday and talked a lot of topics, capping it off with a couple of comments about Ghostbusters.
I’ll come back in Ghostbusters III only if I get to be a ghost. I said to them, ‘I’ll do it if you kill me off in the first reel.’ So now they are going to have me as a ghost in the film.
The first 45 minutes of the original Ghostbusters is some of the funniest stuff ever made. The second one was disappointing, because the special-effects guys took over. I had something like two scenes – and they’re the only funny ones in the movie.
For the moment, it looks as if someone has told Murray he’ll get his old wish to be killed off in the film. It doesn’t seem the best idea, but if you’re handing the series off to a new team anyhow, keeping Murray around might not be a priority (especially at his salary level.)
Assuming then Murray isn’t just playing some sort of strategy, he certain makes it sound like he’ll be back as a ghost.
Thanks to Tyler, Steven, et al for the emails
Not logged in 
Well, part of the appeal has to be that if he plays a ghost, he would only need to do greenscreen. There’s no reason he couldn’t be in a significant portion of the movie as a ghost if he can shoot it in a couple of days.
Obviously, turning into a ghost seems like a limitation. Still, I don’t think it necessarily reduces his part by as much as one might be inclined to think.
I wonder if this whole “I’ll only do the movie if I’m a ghost part” has something to do with him and Harold Ramis still not getting along?
It’s probably going to be greenscreen so he won’t have to do much with Ramis.
I really hope it’s not the case, but who knows.
I hope he’ll at least look like himself only transparent and no cgi creature thing.
*FACEPALM*
Can’t wait to see the Ghostbusters bust Pete!
“Tell me what it’s like inside the grid.” – Egon
“It’s boring Egon. Would it kill you to put an air hockey table in there or something?” – Ghost Peter
What I don’t understand is that if he complains about the special effects guys taking over constantly, why on Earth would he want a part where ninety percent of it is special effects. It seems counter intuitive.
This seems like a huge plot spoiler to be letting out of the bag. To me this smells of a decoy. I could be wrong, but my guess is there’s something else up their sleeves and he wants to hide the real story as long as possible.
Im kinda sick of the whole “I’ll only do the movie if_____ ” takes. I want Bill back and to have a significant roll as much as anyone, but if hes going to be such an antagonist, let Dan & Harold, the real brains behind it all take over. Make Venkman a fat, washed up drunk who works at a strip club.
To hear it direct from Bill sounds worryingly true, perhaps they’ll go down the whole Zombieland route but this time he’s a ghost?
Great. Venkman Busters. This really sounds like a bad idea to me, but I’m not in the film making business, so I could be wrong. I’ll still go see it, and I’m going to be hopeful, but I see this becoming really cheesy..
Am I the only one who doesn’t care? Is Venkman the patron saint of Ghostbusting or something? If they do kill him off it will give the other actors a chance to get some funny lines.
there is no I in team, only bill murray.
Ugh.
If this is really what it has come down to…
PLEASE, DON’T MAKE GHOSTBUSTERS III!! This is not the movie I’ve wanted to see for the last 21 years. Not by a long shot. New recruits & a ghost Venkman?! What the hell is that?! And I’m believing this is probably what is in the script, since Signourney Weaver said the same thing. No way it’s just a coincidence. The only reason Proton Charging didn’t want to believe it was because Reitman didn’t verify it, and part of me thinks it was wishful thinking. Noone wants this, and if they did, they just want to see/love a new Ghostbusters movie no matter what the circumstances.
Don’t get me wrong, Murray is kind of an asshole for demanding this kind of thing. It’s like he’s so bitter and wanting to destroy the franchise so bad that he’s making outrageous demands just for the fun of it. That’s too bad, because I don’t think he realizes what an impact Ghostbusters was and how big of a fanbase it has. Having said that, if he won’t do the movie, then DON’T MAKE IT. We don’t need Ghostbusters III that bad to destory the franchise with outlandish plot devices!
Maybe Egon will blast Peter accidentally with one of his inventions and separate his soul from his body.
To me i think bill murray is joking a little bit, i dont think he would go as far as to say ghostbusters isnt funny without him without it being jokingly. Ive seen some old interviews of him when the first film came out and he said a lot of bullshit then too. As for sigourney weaver saying it, i think she just likes being in the spot light, i mean come on she did agree to be in alien 3 and ressurection which are both a pile of crap compared to the first two. Dan Aykroyd loves ghostbusters as much as the fans anyway, he probably reads what they say too, so if there if the bill murray ghost thing is true and there is a lot of bad feelings about it, im sure he would do something about it.
Booo!
I hope this isn’t the case.
I call BS. Something about this “interview” seems more like a collection of previous quotes. I say this because there are no questions posted and all of these “answers” are statements that Bill has made in the past.
I think its a joke there putting out to “Spook” the fans a bit and see just how we will react. Remember, Murray is a HUGE KIDDER so i deffently would not put this past him.
and if not, so what? To be honest with ya, i always liked Ray better then Peter anyway. Peter is funny, but even in the game, he kinda pissed me off a bit as the ball buster. I remember playing the game and in the levels where it was more the rookie, ray, egon or winston, i never really missed peter all that much. For him to be a ghost doesnt really bother me too greatly.
whats with Bill, seems like he hates ghostbusters so disapointing
I want a gb3! But if Bill doesnt wanna be in it or isnt feeling it then just dont have him in it, say he moved away with Dana or somthing. No ghost it will look so cheesey.
seems like for some reason Bill likes being killed off in movies recently….
GHOSTBUSTERS III YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!!!!!!!!
BUT… Peter Vankman is supposed to die? This sucks way too much!
I mean, what would be Spiderman without Spiderman??? Same like Ghostbusters without Peter. Of course Egon, Ray, Winston (Louis, Janine, Dana) are great but they are a team and I want them all together. I don’t find the idea of having him as a ghost funny. This is Ghostbusters and not Casper the friendly ghost. Sometimes I would love to kick Bill Murrays silly ass!!!
Johnny Lawerence-
That thought occured to me as well.
A lot of the things he said in that interview seemed extremely familiar to me. Almost as if they just cut and pasted a lot of different quotes from old interviews or something.
Somehow this reminds me of John Cleese as “Nearly Headless Nick” from the harry potter movies. That was rather well done, although it would be strange to have ghost Venkman and Slimer duking it out.
Don´t… like… the ghost… idea…
Exactly Santar. Glad to know I’m not the only one that sees this.
That’s just suck and mainly sad!! bring the whole team back or not at all!!!
“”"
This will work… Only if Ghostbusters 3 follows the plot of Ghost Dad
why would they even tell us that much about the film when the construction of new proton packs has yet to be done?
Murray as a Ghost. Certainly sounds shitty. I’m trying to picture it and it even looks shitty. …. .. They’re gonna do it. ..Oh yeah, they’ll do it.
i heard a plot rumor a few weeks ago that would make more sense of the venkman/ghost rumor.
it’s something about venkman dying or already being dead, and being held accountable for busting ghosts after crossing over into the “ghost world”… the new team has to go in and save him (and possibly the other GBs.?)
i have NO idea if it’s legit, but it sounds hokey enough to be true… don’t shoot the messenger.
Could be interesting. After all, it would be a major shakeup and not be a retread like GB2 was. And cool if they handled it like RGB did when egon died in ‘Egon’s Ghost’. A human PKE meter concept was rather interesting.
I don’t know why but this just says BS to me. I think he might be pulling everyone’s chain a bit. He probably gets asked the question a lot of whether or not he’ll be a ghost in the thrid movie and he might just be going along with it. The whole thing just seems full of sarcasm, especially the comments about how he was only in two scenes in the last one and they were the only funny ones etc… Plus it just seems like when asked about GB3 prior to this and the rumors of a ghost Pete Venkman his answer was more along the lines of if the script is right, sure we could do another one, but only if the story warrants it. Not this “I’ll only do it if they make me a ghost” thing. And lastly, this just seems like a major element of the film for him to just go out there and blatantly leak. I call BS, and I hope to god I’m right.
Ok, my two cents. About a year ago there were rumors of a new Hannibal Lecter movie. However, it turned out to be plagiarized internet gossip from before Hannibal came out when Foster was supposed to still play Clarice. My point? UK tabloids tend to be full of wild rumors. I don’t know if The Mail is reputable or not. Also, those sound bytes seem incredibly familiar, like he has said them before. Is it possible they were said earlier almost exactly like that? I recognize that actors are repetitious when giving interviews, but I feel like he said this exact thing several years ago. I tried to google it, but have come up with nothing.
i agree with johnny lawrence, its nothing that hasn’t said before, they are probably recycling old quotes! The Mail on sunday is a rag anyway.
Yeah, that’s definitely what it looks like to me. I know for certain I’ve read some of these quotes elsewhere in the past, and the one about being killed off in the first reel has been around for years.
having read the entire article, it seems that EVERYTHING in it has been cut and pasted from other articles. i am a big follower of murray and have seen many of these ‘snippets’ before.
This would be terrible if he’s not in most of the movie. But if the movie revolves around trying to rescue Venkman from the Netherworld, or from the containment unit or something… Or even from Flip Side… it could be a fantastic movie. But those involve more special effects than GBII and it doesn’t sound like he wants any part of that… then it becomes a totally different kind of movie.
If it’s nothing more than an extended cameo because he doesn’t really want to do the movie, I say just cancel the whole project. We don’t NEED a Ghostbusters 3. It only makes sense to do it if it’s a good movie.
If they wanted to computer-animate something, using maybe a hybrid of the video game designs mixed with the RGB designs, and used the original cast as the voiceover artists… I would be 100% in support of that.
Ok, we all love Bill Murry. I think the scene in Zombieland where he got shot and made us cry (I can’t be the only one) makes that clear. But when he says the only funny scenes in the second film were his… I think he’s getting a little full of himself. Of course, knowing Murry, it could all just be a joke. Murry as a ghost or not, GB3 will be cool.
Xedge – I wondered the same thing, except that the article specifically says they sat down to interview him. If the snippets sound like repeats, it’s because he’s answering questions he’s been asked over and over again.
The more I read about Bill Murray and his take one the past movies and what he thinks the third movie should be, the more I see him as just another hollywood superego that needs to be taken down a notch. I mean yes, Peter Venkman is awesome, but Ghosbusters was not Bill Murray’s project, he was just in it, he was part of the team. In the end, if this is the road they are going down, and these are his demands, I’d rather not have him in the movie at all.
I think you guys are in denial about this. Being as big of a nerd as I am, I have followed most of the “rumors” following upcoming movies I was interested in, and 95% of the time those rumors ended up being true. Like Joker not being bleached but wearing make-up and being scarred in TDK, or Venom only being in the last few minutes of Spider-Man 3 and then killed, or Indiana Jones having a son in KotCS, etc and so on. The internet is not as unreliable as people would want you to believe. And since this “rumor” has come up multiple times in the past, seems more and more likely that it’s legit. Remember the rumor that Michael Myers was gonna look like a hobo and have his mask off for alot of RZ’s Halloween II? True. Or Harvey Dent was gonna turn into Two-Face at the end of TDK? True. Or Galactus in Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer wasn’t actually going to be a giant, but rather a tornado? True. Don’t lie to yourselves, guys, Venkman is gonna be a fucking ghost in GBIII.
Since when does anyone take anything that BM (lol! BM!) seriously?
I’ve seen too many interviews where he’s asked a serious question and gives the MOST ridiculous answer just for laughs. I would take everything he says with a shaker of salt.
He has also claimed to never have seen the script, when Dan Aykroyd clearly stated that “everyone has seen the script”, and “every-one’s on board”. So I think that being the comedian that he is, most (if not all) of Bill’s comments are totally tongue in cheek, and are not at all meant to be taken seriously..
Chaps, the Mail is utter low brow trash. It’s perfectly reasonable to assume they just cobbled it together from other (old) sources.
Never take the Mail as gospel. That’s like an English law!
First of all, these are old quotes.
Secondly, you can’t take anything Bill says seriously.
Lastly, I doubt that he has even seen the script, meaning the newest, most up to date, still being revised script.
Taken out of context much?!
Certainly this was a joke. If it even slightly reflects the current script, forget it.
My two cents:
1) Bill Murray does not want to do a Ghostbusters 3. His lack of enthusiasm was pretty damn evident in the GB video game voice over, and I even believe GB is pretty heavily referenced in Lost In Translation as the “big film” Murray’s character is annoyed to have made his career. He hates it, he despises Ramis for pigeon-holing his film persona, and GBII didn’t leave a good taste in his mouth either.
2) To make it as clear as possible he’s not into doing it, he sets up a situation that simply doesn’t work no matter how you imagine it. It’s one thing to kill off Bill Murray in a dark comedy like Zombieland. It’s another to have one of the most beloved film characters die in the very movie you want to see him own. It doesn’t work, and unless you factor in Dosborne’s idea that he’ll ultimately be saved in the end of the film, I don’t see it happening. It’s a calculated statement to tell the powers that be that he’s really, really not interested.
3) Every single comment he has ever made has been phrased as speculation, this one included, suggesting heavily that he hasn’t read the latest script.
4) I believe that the creative forces that be know they get one shot at Bill Murray reading and approving of a script, and they’re working very, very hard to get that draft in order.
5) Until Bill reads that script, we’re going to keep getting stuff like this.
Well, that’s disappointing. I guess his high from the video game probably dropped. Probably because he played it. You know, the game is awesome, but you have to admit that it wasn’t like the movies. There was some great comedy present but it mostly got a back seat to the action and horror elements (which is as it should be in a video game since you want to play it) and the Venkman character was also given the backseat in that we didn’t get to see much of him and what we did see didn’t contain his more positive elements which would cause the player to feel for his character – in other words he wasn’t the star, the game didn’t have his new romance as the main focus, and in the end to me it feels like Venkman was presented differently. The only pay off is that since this isn’t Dana Barret then Venkman probably wouldn’t be nearly as excited and interested and neither should we. Of course, this is getting off topic, but you know what I mean. Murray complains about GB2, which honestly wasn’t that bad a movie, and if he was comparing the video game to the original movie’s comedy and etc, then he may not have been happy with the game either. Fortunately, the game was a different experience being that it was playable and didn’t need to be a carbon copy of either movie. If Murray’s fears that the special effects will over run the quality of the script and the comedy, then sadly with the emphasis on special effects in most movies these days, it’s probably a well-based fear.
I am at least comforted with the thought that our opening scene may show Peter Venkman valiantly dying in the line of duty only to later on in the movie appear as a spirit coming to the aid of his team and possibly the son he left behind who is trying to follow in his father’s footsteps. I think that may make a more interesting opening than “we went out of business but now we’re back … again” and an interesting plot device. GB2 was a little similar in plot structure to GB1, so I hope if GB3 is made it dares to make a movie with a solid and decent plot structure different from what’s already been done. Taking out Venkman probably won’t prevent the movie from it’s usual romance plot device however as his son will probably take up the reins, ha ha.
I read a couple of posts. I know this has been said before, but I’m partial to these preferences:
1.) Only make GB3 if it’s good.
2.) If Bill Murray doesn’t want to be in it… Make GB3 anyway. Don’t make it for the money, make it for the love. Why let Murray take that away?
3.) But ONLY if it’s good.
Quote: Josh Posted February 8, 2010 at 5:28 AM “I want Bill back and to have a significant roll”
…you may be on to something there kiddo. I’m sure he’d like a nice pay roll too.
Or did you mean ‘role’?? Either way it’s like cornflake without the milk. Get him involved…whatever it takes!!
Quote: Julia. Posted February 8, 2010 at 9:31 AM
“Sometimes I would love to kick Bill Murrays silly ass!!!”
Sounds like he could very well be the expiditer of your dreams…
…Women, you can’t live with them and you can’t kill ‘em huh Mad Dog?
I agree with Mills. Really ridiculous and obviously dumb rumors ALWAYS (ALWAYS!!!!!!!) end up to be True. They are always terribly executed and taste of studio tampering. Any logically thinking person could tell you in a second why Indiana Jones having a son is a bad idea. But people making these films don’t think past a bad idea. It’s like recognizing that chocolate and poop are the same color and then just not thinking about any other aspects of those substances… You end up with a mouth full of crap if you just live by random correlations. If you think about what makes something fun and great then you can eliminate things that don’t fit and would make it bad. But I suspect this movie will get made and be terrible. I am always right by the way. I called studio tampering in the wolfman recently. I called H2 being even gayer then halloween 1. I called spider-man 3 being a goofy camp fck fest that it was. Indy was easy, him having a son is just dumb, not to mention the aliens. I’m sure people will support this because of blind faith. But you are wrong if you do. There is no argument. If Murray is a ghost and there are new recruits this film will be a disaster.
What is it with everyone here? Are you all trapped in little containment units of your own. I mean Jayzus COME ON. Sounds like artistic integrity is at stake here. NOT!
it’s a damn comedy!!
…Do you really think that Dan, Harold and Ernie are squabbling over who has what screen time, who delivers which punch line, and who get’s to be covered in marshmallow the most?? I mean really!!??? Listen…do you smell something??
Are we really suggesting Murray has an ego the size of Manhattan? That only he can carry it off? -maybe he will carry it off… all the way to the spirit world! and good luck to him if he does.
Why does that idea suck? To catch a thief you have to be a thief right? So why wouldn’t that apply to bustin’ ghosts?
And as for all those bitter lemon munchers who want Ghostbusters III to be their own personal pet project, get a grip. If you ask for dessert and don’t like what’s being served up keep sucking on those lemons…otherwise take your sales pitch to the board room.
Hello Jell-O!
Re; Aliens. Having killed off Ripley in the third film…how else could they have reprised her for the fourth??
Too many analogies there.
Using Aliens 4 is not a good way to make a point. It was a pretty weak movie.
Venkman dying is a bad idea. We all know that he won’t be coming back to life at the end or anything like that. Ghostbusters already has a mascot, they don’t need another one.
Who’s to say Venkman dies? Astral projections are a paranormal phenommena too.
But regarding Murrays enthusiasm (or apparent lack of it) to haul his ass out of bed/oblivion, I guess that all that green screen and CGI is a little daunting. Especially as there is no real need to go to the studio and ‘physically’ act, by which token you may as well get a job in radio -and the realm of voice overs.
Either that or resort to drinking/promoting Suntory?
Still, I digress.
Alien 4 was a weak movie huh?
Ripley: Why do you care what happens to them?
Annalee Call: Because I’m programmed to.
Ripley: You’re programmed to be an asshole? You’re the new asshole model they’re putting out?
Ghostbusters already has a mascot…eh? Do tell? I don’t understand who/what you mean by that? Slimer? Mr. Stay Puft? Ecto 1? Statue of Liberty? The logo??
You still fail on your Aliens 4 remark.
Slimer is the mascot.
I know what Ripley would say…
” Okay, Which of you guys do I have to f*ck to get this movie made!?”