If Dana were to be in GB3,(she seems awfully prone to spiritual disasters of the worst kind)so she probably would be

Would everyone want her to be the damsel in distress again or would you rather have her kicking a$$ alongside the guys?

Zack

i don't see the Dana character as being really physical. but i would like to see it.

yeah I think I was really thinking more along the lines of Sigourney in “Aliens”
less of the actual character of Dana who's completely different and probably wouldn't see much busting action

Zack

I think the story should turn out that she is the ghost.. and was just using the ghostbusters to take over the world! No.. ok..

I think she shouldn't have been in GB2.

If she is in the third movie (if it's goona be made) than I would rather see her in action than the person in need. I mean like what are the chances that she is the target of some supernatural plan three times. Personally, I don't think there's any need for her character in a third one. Now that I think about it there was no need for her in the second one. But since she's already been in the first two she is likely to be in the third one. If she's in a third one then I recommend that the gbs find out something about Dana's ancestry. She could be the descendant of some sorcerer or somethin' and that would explain why she attracts beings from other dimensions. Like the girl from Poltergeist. That would be a good way to fit Dana into the plot and not just a usual client.

I think it was pretty safe to say that Dana wouldn't have been in GB3. All the old news never mentioned she was going to be in it. Sigourney Weaver never seemed like she was approached about it. If so it was speculated that she'd have a cameo to appear so that the film showed she was married to Peter and moving on with their lives. If Bill Murray had done only a cameo, it was supposedly Peter wishing his buddies the best of luck from a phone booth. So even again Dana may not have been in it at all.
No doubt Ackroyd and Ramis coming to their senses that it would have limited telling a new story if you completely stuck with the same characters (especially if Dana's problem was the focus again).
The same philosophy applies right now to Terminator 3. They recasted John Connor to have him as a man (maybe due to Eddie Furlong's drug/drinking habits and he don't look like a man) and Sarah Connor is dead by then in the story's present (the future). They wanted to not have been limited in storytelling if all the same characters were in it. The chance to break out and bring things with a fresh approach was decided. But I also wonder how good T3 will be without James Cameron. Can't be half bad if their: spending $170 mil, Arnold liked the story, most of the same producers are still there, Stan Winston on make-up and models, ILM on the SFX.
I agree Dana didn't need to be in GB2.

yeah, since i've always heard she wasn't going to be in another one, i've always just kinda written her and Bill M. out, in my mind anyway.