ROTTEN TOMATOES: Aykroyd's "Ghostbusters 3" Pushing May Soon Pay Off

Aykroyd's "Ghostbusters 3" Pushing May Soon Pay Off

by Scott Weinberg | February 06, 2007

Canadian comedian Dan Aykroyd recently went on the air with a country music radio station, and that's where he chose to break some stunningly, well, kinda interesting news: There will be a third "Ghostbusters" movie (and it will feature Bill Murray) -- but it will also be a movie of the CGI persuasion. I'll believe it when I see it.

Check out the audio clips of Aykroyd's interview right here, or visit Cinematical to get the most salient points, like this quote here: "Now, it won't happen as a live-action, because Billy will not come on in the live-action stage anymore for it, but he will voice his part and we're looking to do it as a CGI-animated project."

"Billy" being Bill Murray, of course. Seems he won't do silly live-action anymore, but that sure won't stop him from lending his voice to, say, "Ghostbusters 3" ... or "Garfield 2."

So, like most of you, I am an ardent supporter of the original "Ghostbusters," and, unlike many of you, I really freaking hate "Ghostbusters 2." So I ask you this: Does the idea of an all CGI "Ghostbusters 3" sound like a good idea? I say no, no it does not.

With all due respect, maybe Danny Aykroyd should start sniffing around for easier sequels. Weren't we promised a follow-up to "Doctor Detroit" waaaay back in 1983?

Related Items

Movie:	Doctor Detroit
	Ghostbusters
	Garfield: A Tail of Two Kitties
Celeb:	Dan Aykroyd
	Bill Murray

(1-20 of 37 posts) | Reply

bigcfk writes:
on Feb 06 2007 02:49 AM

why has Murray swore of live-action?

(Reply to this)

Kudos Mooney writes:
on Feb 06 2007 03:37 AM

for as long as i live, i will never understand why someone like Bill Murray, who became famous because of the original Ghostbusters (at least in partial), would not do a live-action Ghostbusters 3, yet has no trouble sticking his nose into shitbags like the Garfield movies.

(Reply to this)

Thundaar writes:
on Feb 06 2007 04:54 AM

My thought is that he can voice Garfield in an afternoon - whereas Ghostbusters will take longer (and more effort). Plus, the second 'Busters stunk so bad.

Sans Garfield, I like most Murray projects and would like to see it get done - even in CG.

(Reply to this)

SmegFirk writes:
on Feb 06 2007 05:33 AM

He has not gone off live action... he just does not "appear" in the 3rd of anything. Apparently it is one of his movie rules

(Reply to this)

lrm8 writes:
on Feb 06 2007 07:09 AM

make a new ghostbusters with steve carrell, vince vaughn, luke and owen wilson. make it R rated. make sure ben stiller is as far away from the thing as possible. and dont make it like starsky and hutch. thats a 100 millioin dollar movie.

(Reply to this)

frogleg writes:
on Feb 06 2007 07:33 AM

I think it sounds kinda lame. I do understand Murray's stance on not doing live action, but this just sounds kind of weak as a CGI project. Too bad, a GB3 live action with all the original guys would be a blast.

(Reply to this)

bigbrother writes:
on Feb 06 2007 08:28 AM

In reply to this comment (#854925)
Come on, don't you think still would be perfect in the Rick Moranis role?

(Reply to this)

Noggy3230 writes:
on Feb 06 2007 08:45 AM

[b]Why not?[/b]
I just watched Ghostbusters the other and I loved to see another one. The CGI idea isn't bad at all. I grew up with the cartoons so an animated 'busters movie would be awesome. A live action with an old grey-haired Venkman, overweight Egon, aged Ray and wherever Ernie Hudson went to. That doesn't sound like it would work. Watching the Senior Ghostbusters? That would be worst than any CG movie.

And I liked Ghostbusters 2! How can you think it sucked? It was just like the first one.

(Reply to this)

dOiNk writes:
on Feb 06 2007 09:13 AM

[b]this blows[/b]
Ghostbuster 1 and 2 were amazing... I really wanted to see another one with the original cast and LIVE action, not this cgi bs. I really like Bill Murray but his actions towards this ghostbusters 3 piss me off. He's being a little bitch for no reason. Everyone else would be willing to do it but he doesn't want to... ok

CGI will probably ruin it. It was the cast and their humor/chemistry that made the previous 2 work so well. cgi isn't going to deliver that same feeling.

(Reply to this)

taran72 writes:
on Feb 06 2007 09:46 AM

Huge Ghostbusters fan...I still consider it the most quotable comedy of all-time, even above Caddyshack. The key to its appeal was not only the cast chemistry (hell, even Annie Potts was a charm), but the improvisational nature of the script. I agree, if HAVE to make another keep Ben Stiller as far away from it as possible. The Wilsons would work, but my only other absolute cast requirement...Steve Zahn. He would be awesome.

(Reply to this)

Kid_Ikarus writes:
on Feb 06 2007 10:06 AM

Why does everyone hate the idea of Ben Stiller as a Ghostbuster? i think he would be great for the part.

(Reply to this)

SlyDante writes:
on Feb 06 2007 10:28 AM

Okay, while I don't know what the odds are of this happening, I think this site may have gotten it's wires crossed & confused a possible "Ghostbusters 3" with the rumored Ghostbusters video game (or for that matter, Aykroyd may have gotten confused as well). After all, Dan Aykroyd publicly stated that he would be doing voice work for it, & would naturally have to be a "CGI animated project". You can find out about it here:

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6165346.html

After all, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to see that game as a potential "Ghostbusters 3", & that Bill Murray would lend his voice to it.

Of course, if he was talking about a real CGI Ghostbusters movie, then please end it now. Don't ruin the legacy, dammit.

(Reply to this)

craig0ry writes:
on Feb 06 2007 10:35 AM

Honestly, I would love to see the original cast reunited. Harold Ramis all old and fat! I personally think with the right script it would be phenomenal. ORIGINAL CAST, LIVE ACTION! Let's start the campaigning now.

(Reply to this)

Mattmovies writes:
on Feb 06 2007 10:37 AM

I'm not into Bill Murray doing anything that undermines his indie cred. I like that he's changed steps and does not do mainstream work. Garfield is fine for a paycheck in the fact that he doesn't have to show his face in some money grab flick.

I've been thinking that making a Ghostbusters flick with the style of Reno 911! would be hilarious and very fitting. Does anyone else agree?

(Reply to this)

ck100 writes:
on Feb 06 2007 10:47 AM

They shouldn't bother making a third movie regardless if it's live action or CGI. The cast is too old, gray-haired, and out of shape for a live action movie. I also doubt that some of the actors want to sit in a recording booth to voice-over some CGI movie. Plus, it's possible some of the actors feel a third movie in unnecessary and don't want to bother with one. Hollywood should just leave the Ghostbuster movies alone and not make an unnecessary sequel.

(Reply to this)

Circe Prankster writes:
on Feb 06 2007 11:55 AM

In reply to this comment (#854925)
I think a new live-action Ghostbusters with a new cast, all the young guns of farce comedy these days, is a fabulous idea! Considering the improvements made in CGI since the original, they could do some really interesting things with the special effects. Irm8's casting suggestions sound great (although I don't have a problem with Stiller being involved as well).

And I also agree with taran72 about the original's quotability:

That's a BIG twinkie.

(Reply to this)

Wallcloud writes:
on Feb 06 2007 03:16 PM

nooooooooooooo! live action all the way, i'm tired of CG

(Reply to this)

TheIceGhost writes:
on Feb 06 2007 03:24 PM

RottenTomatoes needs to hire some reporters instead of having a dude sit in a chair checking out IGN's movie section every couple days.

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to making a new Ghostbusters with the likes of Will Ferrell, Steve Carrell, and Luke and Owen Wilson. No Ben Stiller and NO Vince Vaughn (god that guy became overrated overnight). Give Dan Aykroyd or the others a nice cameo. As long as it's a new story based in the same verse and not a remake, it could be interesting.

Actually, maybe toss out one of the dudes I said and throw in Nathan Fillion, he would kill in a movie like this.

(Reply to this)

Horstradamus writes:
on Feb 06 2007 07:33 PM

In reply to this comment (#854925)
That sounds like a perfect cast to me. I'd be willing to spend $2.95 to rent that.

(Reply to this)

steeminwbeamen writes:
on Feb 06 2007 08:06 PM

In reply to this comment (#854939)
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzing!!!

(Reply to this)