Oct 15 2009Bill Murray Still Not That Hot on 'Ghostbusters 3'

But even if he were to think its good, it still doesn't mean it will be good. Still, I'm glad there's at least another line of defense here that will at least try to make sure the movie is a classic and not just a movie designed to milk a franchise dry.

I believe he was making a reference to the game Snooker, which is the English pool-derivative using only red balls. I don't think he's mentioning Snood.

Just checked the wiki, and apparently Snooker uses a bunch of different colored balls, so my mistake.

It sounded like an actual reference to snooker to me. not an attempt at a reference to snood.

He said snooker, not snood.

This is bad news, anyone who thinks Murray can provide objective quality control on the subject is simply not particularly informed. Don't get me wrong, Ramis's recent disasters don't lend to having much faith, but there is a damn good chance given Murray's history that he would axe the project out of spite. The guy is nothing but ego, and his dealings with Ramis during and post Groundhog Day are legendary for an example of shear Hollywood idiocy.

What really gets to me is the way he completely phoned it in with the Ghostbusters game. Heralded by Akroyd and Ramis as "might as well be Ghostbusters 3", the Ghostbusters game was easily on par with any film they could put out(and just overall a good game as well), and the entire cast gave it their all and really showed their love of the franchise. ... Except for Murray. The developers were forced to repeatedly reuse the same one liners for him, outright omit scenes, and had the product genuinely injured by Murray's attitude.

It would be best for everyone if they could find a way to just write him out and be done with it, but unfortunately his character iss just so central to the franchise. Catch 22 if there ever was.

it's not just you..

The inclusion of Rogan is instant cancer.

@6

1st, there's no script. No actor signs onto anything without a script. 2nd, I'm glad someone is on GB3 quality control. I would rather it be an awesome movie then just to have some lame cash in. Look what happened to Starwars and Indiana Jones.

Is snooker actually such a foreign concept over there that no one knows what it is? That's fascinating!!! And ye play pool wrong (I mean different) too . . . weird.

I dunno, I've seen Bill Murray in Zombieland, and there didn't seem to be a trace of ego in there so until it's proven otherwise I'm on his side in the whole thing. I'm pretty sure any new Ghostbusters film is going to disappoint highly, no matter who wanted to be the quality control officer.

@9 No one said anything about how he should sign up with no script, but for a guy who was willing to do Garfield that was clearly a cop out. No one also said anything about lack of quality control, I even specifically mentioned Ramis's recent record being questionable(Year One was simply disgustingly bad). But Murray? NOT the one we won't providing said "quality control" or there is virtually no way his own bias won't get in the way.

For the better part of a decade Murray refused to even talk to Ramis because he wanted Groundhog Day to be a philosophical drama and Ramis wouldn't give into his tantrum. Yes. Groundhog Day. Philosophical drama. Is that really the mindset anyone wants for the standard for Ghostbusters? And yes, this is obviously many years later, but given most of his favored roles it is clear his priorities aren't all that different. Channeling Steve Zissou

And #10, how exactly is a zombieland cameo indicative of no ego. :| Even if playing "himself", it's a role like any other.

"Getting him to read the script for the [as yet unmade] second sequel to Ghostbusters--I don't think he's ever read it, actually," says Dan Aykroyd, one of Murray's fellow Ghostbusters and oldest friends. "He makes business so difficult that I just relate to him as a friend now. I have to."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1013228-4,00.html

Sure they dance around it a bit since it's a Pro-Murray piece... but yeah forcing people to do things his way? No ego there at all.

Oops, that was supposed to be "Channeling Steve Zissou as Peter Venkman would be an unmitigated disaster."

@9

Seriously, tell us, you're Ramis aren't you?

First of all, Zombieland is "indicitive of no ego" because it was bloody silly and bloody hilarious and coz I said so. Did you even see the end of credits bit? Hilarious. He doesn't seem like a man who takes himself too seriously. And yes it was acting and yes it was for five minutes and yes yes yes everything you could possibly say, but how bout no - it was brilliant.

Just because Ramis says Murray is an ass and is holding up Ghostbusters 3, which you clearly want to see, doesn't mean that that's the truth.

Ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, in light of all the remakes and relaunches we've seem in the last five years that Murray might be write about not wanting to do another one/wanting to make sure it's not just some hacky piece of shit? Coz personally I'd rather see nothing than see some crap for the sake of it.

Ok. What's so hard to understand about this? No one said he was an "ass"(quote the contrary, as while I didn't get it into it here that one article I linked to source the quote does mention repeatedly he's not a bad guy just exceedingly difficult to put it nicely). No one said the movie should be made just to make it. And I'm still baffled why you seem to think him showing up on screen for 5 minutes in a major motion picture release is in anyway indicative of anything. Last I checked Megan Fox doesn't actually fight giant robots. I mean come on, that's just plain naive.

I link an article specifically talking about how the guy is difficult to work with, Dan Akyroyd(NOT Ramis) saying Murray probably hasn't bothered to read the script(which apparently does exist), and you just ignore it? Hell, that was just an off hand quote I remembered, a quick google will dig up tons of Murray-centric stories.

Anyway, this was never meant to be about Murray in general. Let me restate this as simplistically as I can, as this is all I've been saying. MURRAY IS NOT THE PERSON YOU WANT DECIDING THE FATE OF THE MOVIE. That's all. If

I think Bill, like us, has seen all these "reboots" gone bad. I too would love to see the old gang Bustin' Ghosts. I just don't want to see the likes of Michael Cera dawning a proton pack just for the sake of "doing it".

Even if Murry is being "difficult" they need him. Otherwise it will end up like "Blues Brothers" lol.

ooops *Blues Brothers 2000"