Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://io9.com/here-are-bill-murrays-choices-for-an-all-female-ghostbu-1632335051

Melissa [McCarthy, his St. Vincent co-star] would be a spectacular Ghostbuster. And Kristen Wiig is so funny — God, she's funny!

I like this girl Linda Cardellini a lot. And Emma Stone is funny. There are some funny girls out there.

Hmmm, I don't know who any of these people are, TO THE INTERNETS!

I'd see that movie.

I still wish Murray would don the jumpsuit again, but with Harold Ramis gone I suppose that ship has sailed.

Emma Stone = One ticket please.

I think Bill would be happy as long as it isn't him.

 Ahtman wrote:
I think Bill would be happy as long as it isn't him.

I have never been clear why he is so against it, especially when he does things like his cameo in Zombie Land. Too bad. Peter Venkman forever!

I haven't really seen a good reason why he should be excited to reprise the role, even more so now that his friend is dead. I like the movie as much as the next guy, but I can't imagine a new movie recapturing the moment/feel of the first. Sometimes it is best just to move on.

 Ahtman wrote:
I haven't really seen a good reason why he should be excited to reprise the role, even more so now that his friend is dead. I like the movie as much as the next guy, but I can't imagine a new movie recapturing the moment/feel of the first. Sometimes it is best just to move on.

I concur - The last decade is littered with franchise add-ons trying to recapture the glory days. At best they've been good popcorn fodder (Die Hard 4), at worst an embarrassment to all involved (Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull). I think Bill Murray is all too conscious of those in the latter group.

Sure, with Ramis gone the equation changed, but before that when the other cast members were eager to do a third film and Murray was the hold out it seemed odd. Certainly those four could have had fun on the set together even with them being 30 years older. Then add the Zombie Land cameo, which was an entire bit built around Ghostbusters and Murray's attitude struck me as odder still. Then he lent his voice to the 2009 video game. So, obviously he wasn't completely opposed to revisiting the role of Peter Venkmen.

Just personal opinion, but it almost seemed like he enjoyed toying with fans regarding the whole "will he or won't he" question that has circulated for years.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Sure, with Ramis gone the equation changed, but before that when the other cast members were eager to do a third film and Murray was the hold out it seemed odd. Certainly those four could have had fun on the set together even with them being 30 years older. Then add the Zombie Land cameo, which was an entire bit built around Ghostbusters and Murray's attitude struck me as odder still. Then he lent his voice to the 2009 video game. So, obviously he wasn't completely opposed to revisiting the role of Peter Venkmen.

Just personal opinion, but it almost seemed like he enjoyed toying with fans regarding the whole "will he or won't he" question that has circulated for years.

He read the script as written by the same guys who wrote Year One (14% on Rotten Tomatoes) and basically said it was rubbish. He simply didn't think it was going to be any good.

(Although that doesn't explain Garfield)

The Year One guys wrote the script? That does help explain things a bit.

 Ahtman wrote:
I haven't really seen a good reason why he should be excited to reprise the role, even more so now that his friend is dead. I like the movie as much as the next guy, but I can't imagine a new movie recapturing the moment/feel of the first. Sometimes it is best just to move on.

Yeah, the original never needed a sequel...it was perfect as a standalone story. GB2 was poor and the proof point. Good for him for saying no.

As I always say, I'd be super down for an Extreme Ghostbusters style movie - one of the originals leading a team of new kids. Maybe workshop the title a bit, though.

 Bromsy wrote:
As I always say, I'd be super down for an Extreme Ghostbusters style movie - one of the originals leading a team of new kids. Maybe workshop the title a bit, though.

Yeah, I think at this point any Ghostbusters movie would almost have to take the route of Dr. Venkman is now the "CEO" of Ghostbusters, and as such doesn't see much (any) field time. However, because it's a GB movie, they'd be "forced" to give fans what they want: Peter Venkman and crew hunting down some superbad ghost that the "newbs" can't handle, or is so bad, that it takes more of them to fight or something.

I would not see a ghostbusters movie with Melissa McCarthy in it. That sounds awful.

 Flashman wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Sure, with Ramis gone the equation changed, but before that when the other cast members were eager to do a third film and Murray was the hold out it seemed odd. Certainly those four could have had fun on the set together even with them being 30 years older. Then add the Zombie Land cameo, which was an entire bit built around Ghostbusters and Murray's attitude struck me as odder still. Then he lent his voice to the 2009 video game. So, obviously he wasn't completely opposed to revisiting the role of Peter Venkmen.

Just personal opinion, but it almost seemed like he enjoyed toying with fans regarding the whole "will he or won't he" question that has circulated for years.

He read the script as written by the same guys who wrote Year One (14% on Rotten Tomatoes) and basically said it was rubbish. He simply didn't think it was going to be any good.

(Although that doesn't explain Garfield)

Apparently he thought he was dealing with one the Coen brothers.

 cincydooley wrote:
I would not see a ghostbusters movie with Melissa McCarthy in it. That sounds awful.

Had to google her... and I completely 1000% agree with you.

I'm the opposite.. I'd love to see her in it, have really liked everything I have seen her in.. to be fair that's only four films but she's been great in all of them as far as I'm concerned.

Linda Cardellini is great and should be in many things.

Controversial Opinion Time: Ghostbusters is a fun movie, but it's not the absolute greatest thing of all time ever.

 toasteroven wrote:

Controversial Opinion Time: Ghostbusters is a fun movie, but it's not the absolute greatest thing of all time ever.

Lol, how is that controversial? I mean, Monty Python and the Holy Grail isn't a Scorcese film, but it's well liked/loved as well

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 toasteroven wrote:

Controversial Opinion Time: Ghostbusters is a fun movie, but it's not the absolute greatest thing of all time ever.

Lol, how is that controversial? I mean, Monty Python and the Holy Grail isn't a Scorcese film, but it's well liked/loved as well

That seems about as controversial as Peanut Butter.

Peanut butter is intensely controversial in some circles. Intensely.

 Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:
I'm the opposite.. I'd love to see her in it, have really liked everything I have seen her in.. to be fair that's only four films but she's been great in all of them as far as I'm concerned.

I personally don't think she's funny at all.

There are about 10 other female comics I'd much rather see.

I don't get how people think she's funny.

 cincydooley wrote:
I don't get how people think she's funny.

That might be why there are lots of entertainment choices. I don't see why Beyonce is as popular as she is, tbh but here we are.

 Ahtman wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
I don't get how people think she's funny.

That might be why there are lots of entertainment choices. I don't see why Beyonce is as popular as she is, tbh but here we are.

I'm not a Beyoncé fan either.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
As I always say, I'd be super down for an Extreme Ghostbusters style movie - one of the originals leading a team of new kids. Maybe workshop the title a bit, though.

Yeah, I think at this point any Ghostbusters movie would almost have to take the route of Dr. Venkman is now the "CEO" of Ghostbusters, and as such doesn't see much (any) field time. However, because it's a GB movie, they'd be "forced" to give fans what they want: Peter Venkman and crew hunting down some superbad ghost that the "newbs" can't handle, or is so bad, that it takes more of them to fight or something.

Except they are talking about a 'reboot' .... which I do not like the sound of.

 Bromsy wrote:

Except they are talking about a 'reboot' .... which I do not like the sound of.

Neither do I... However, appropriately aging the characters to the original actors, etc. would sort of allow a "reboot" or rather, I guess you could say a "reawakening" of the franchise; And I dont think they'd be "crossing the streams" by doing that.

I love Year One just because of the Leroy Jenkins skit, that wasn't in the move.