We all know that Bill Murray and Sony are to belaim for GB3 not happening. If sony spun off Columbia to create more value for share holders this may change the probability for Ghostbusters 3. As an independent company I think Columbia would make GB3.

you have a point there Tex, but i think thats not to easy with Murray saying
“no” and Ramis half-convinced to say it too…

Its too much to spend extra millions just to get people to agree to even make the movie. Then you have to pay more for actors and equipment. Its shaky but if it would revive a long lost saga then its a shot but a risky one.

Honestly, it sounded more to me like Sony Pictures wanted this film made. They know it's marketable, they know that they'll see those dollar signs. Unfortunately though they weren't quite willing to negotiate the huge sums of money for the contracts, which a) is not logical considering the sum they paid Smith, Jones, and Sonnenfeld for MIB 2 and b) despite what you're hearing about Sony's financial problems they still have billions that they have to spend much like a record label. If things go awry they could just write it off at the end of the year.

I think this all rests on the legal hands of Mr. Murray, who just didn't want to release or sell his rights to the film, period. As much of a bad guy as it makes him seem, I'm sure that he has his reasons. Probably the same reasons that he wasn't willing to do the second Charlies Angel's flick (even though in my own opinion, he was the only thing that film had going for it).

If people just werent so greedy these days, but its understandable for the actors to be asking for large sums of dough. Honestly, I think they deserve a little bonus for bringing us Ghostbusters in the first place, even if they've already had one.

Yea, Bill is the real reason there is no GB3.

Okay, before I get off on another rant here…where is the documentation that Bill Murray has any rights or control over the Ghostbusters franchise other than his obvious box office draw and importance to the mythology of the series?

Who. Has. This. Wisdom. ???

Show it to me. Give me a web page, a document, SOMETHING that says Bill Murray has rights to the GB franchise. He's an actor. Harold Ramis, Ivan Reitman and Dan Aykroyd have more power than Murray right now in terms of what projects get made. If they wanted, they could have handed Bill a check for $15 million plus merchadising….THE MOON for showing up, but they haven't. Why is that?

Bill Murray is waiting for Sony and Aykroyd to prove to HIM that a good movie can be made. If you're hip to blaming Murray, check with Sigourney who went on to do FIVE ALIEN movies and is still holding off on GB3 for something worth pursuing. She wants to be part of a cast like that again. With as many heavyweights involved in this as we like to keep mentioning, it is HARDLY Murray who holds up the process.

I have YET to see a worthy treatment or script beyond “Dan says it's awesome” to prove its ready for the MILLIONS of fans who will see it. Who here has read this mythical story? Where can I find it?

Beware…we want it so bad we don't care. We want it so bad they'll hand us the GB version of Star Trek V and suck it up.

But perhaps then we'll blame Murray for letting it happen?

Zebra,

Ask and ye shall receive:
http://www.ghostbustershq.com/news/91200.html

So you're putting your faith in “Ain't It Cool News” rumors. How much of that article was an opinion?

Besides, if you believe this article, Bill, as an ACTOR, chose not to return which dispells those nasty rumors he's not giving up his rights to the production. Aykroyd, again according to this article CHOSE not to move forward anyway also citing “a combination of not getting the right story, and the business side of things.”

So it ain't Murray's fault.

Tex you are one of the most intellegent person that I've chated with and my I say in words of apperciation. Nice shooting tex.