Sunday, February 03, 2013

A Disaster Of Biblical Proportions or Yes It's True, This Film Has No Peter

Have you heard?  Ghostbusters 3 is coming!  Exciting news for all those fans who treasure Ghostbusters 2.

Of course, it won't have Bill Murray, who's made it clear he wants no part of it. (He's too busy playing ghosts himself.) According to Dan Aykroyd, the main talent behind the new sequel, this means Murray's abrogated all rights to have any say in the film.  Great, so it's a go.  Except they still need funding--like every other movie that's never been produced.  But Aykroyd is optimistic.

How to deal with the missing--one would think essential--character?  The script, apparently, will let the old Ghostbusters hand things off to a new generation. Wait a second, didn't Aykroyd already destroy the Blues Brothers franchise--such as it was--the same way?

Are there any other old films of his he'd like another whack at?  Spies Like Us without Chevy Chase?  Driving Miss Daisy without Miss Daisy? 1941 without the war?  Have at it.


Anonymous Denver Guy said...

I wonder if Murray has any artistic control that would prevent them from creating a digital Bill Murray character. It needn't look like him or sound like him - it could be another Slimer, whom everyone knew was John Belushi.

7:48 AM, February 04, 2013  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It never even occurred to me that Slimer was John Belushi. Is that really how Aykroyd wanted to honor his dead friened?

10:56 AM, February 04, 2013  
Anonymous Denver Guy said...

That's what he says in the comentary to the film. Not that it was intentional, but as they wrote the "character," it sort of seemed like a tribute to Belushi.

3:35 PM, February 04, 2013  

Post a Comment

<< Home

web page hit counter