NONE of the drafts, nor the treatment, for GB3 are available online.

Yeah, for the film to be successful, the whole original cast would have to star in it. If BATMAN hadn't trampled GB II, GB II could've hit it as big as the first.

In my book, GB is a concept so fascinating, so fun, so action-packed, that no particular people were required. Just the same characters. I mean, they have high-tech, cool, kick-ass weapons to fight Ghosts with. Not nets or incantations. Whereas other “Ghost-catching” movies were rather lame, and the “ghost-hunters” in them were pretty damn lame, Ghostbusters' main characters could be heroes and just kick ass.

That's why EGB hit home with so many people. Because the concept of GB is what sells it to a lot of people.

Bill is not required to make me happy. As a matter of fact, NO GBIII at all would please me. Because they're all wayyyyy too old. I wouldn't be happy with it no matter who all was in it. I'd rather see them come back for a TV thing, or just give the rights for their images to be used on all merchandise.

(*rant) OK guys and girls, i'm gonna throw myself into this one with full force. Personally, GB3 has massive potential to take off. Look at the Incredible Hulk, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Spiderman - they're all coming back. GB3 HAS THE POTENTIAL! If Murray doesn't recognize this for whatever reason, and as it seems, he wants no part of GB3 - then sod him.

GB3 could still take off without Murray - although to replace him with another Venkman would personally (I think) be a bad move into cheap-ist movie continuations. I also think giving it a more “Politically correct” character la Extreme Ghostbusters would degrade the general standing the first two Ghostbusters films recieved. (Because let's face it, Extreme Ghostbusters was idea-wise the biggest pile of ass ever).

Personally they should just scrub him out of the script with a half-decent storyline involving Dana and Oscar, and not even give the guy a cameo appearance. Maybe re-hire during the film, similar to the original Ghostbusters… who knows?

Either way, Murray is not essential to Ghostbusters 3. His character's ‘attitude’ and brashfulness is a required element needed to be re-portrayed in a different, newer character, but i'm sure we can all live without Bill flipping Murray.

That said and done, i'll sit back and wait in my nuclear bunker for the opposing explosions and bombs to detonate… (*_*)

Graeme

apparently some of you people can't understand that without bill murray's okay… there CANNOT BE A GB3!!!! if he doesn't want it, it's not going to happen. PERIOD!

Yes, we know that…

… we know his confirmation is needed to get the Ghostbusters 3 film rolling. But I think the majority of users in this post, if you'd care to actually read, are arguing whether he's a necessity as a character, or cameo acting role…

Murray could still be in it. He will be training a new crew. And then he gets captured by a ghost and becomes one of them and the crew has to rescue him before he becomes entirely a ghost or something. At least it’s an Idea.

NRJ
Murray could still be in it. He will be training a new crew. And then he gets captured by a ghost and becomes one of them and the crew has to rescue him before he becomes entirely a ghost or something. At least it’s an Idea.

Erm…you can't really come back from becoming a ghost.

..or all of a sudden, the Ghostbusters can get caught up in the alternate universe like in RGB. With the PeopleBusters. (*peter)

To me, the premise is much more intersting than any of the actors involved. So I believe a GB3 could work without Murray.