Speaking to the Metro, the Crystal Head Vodka founder said of Murray, "No, I can tell you he won't be involved."
He then expanded (verbally, that is) by saying, "It's sad but we're passing it on to a new generation. Ghostbusters 3 can be a successful movie without Bill. My preference would be to have him involved but at this point he doesn't seem to be coming and we have to move on. It's time to make the third one."
Whether this "time" refers to a confluence of creative choices that made a third Ghostbusters both fresh and relevent, or just that Aykroyd had some bills to pay off, remains to be seen. One thing, however, is certain: This latest story changes very little.
Bill Murray could not save Ghostbusters 3 single-handed. He couldn't save Ghostbusters 2, so why would we expect him to do any different now that he's older and far less interested in overtly commercial projects than he was in the '80s? Besides, he has better things to do with his time, like gatecrash parties or exponentially improve all Wes Anderson films.
Bottom line: A Ghostbusters threequel losing Murray does not guarantee its failure. The fact Dan Aykroyd also thought the world needed a Blues Brothers 2000 guarantees its failure.
Source: Hitfix
Would you like to write about film? Would you like access to exclusive press screenings and review copies of movies weeks before they come out? Would you like your thoughts to be read by thousands of readers? If you would, we're looking for strong new writers. Drop us a line at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
