Since the old news has always been mentioned about GB3's budget was suppose to be $120,000,000 I do agree that is way too high. With CGI effects today you'd think that be a little less. But also if the old news was accurate, there might've been a “To Be Continued” at the end of GB3. As it was said that Columbia/Sony thought that GB3 would be too long for one sitting in a theater to be one film and would split it up into a GB4 a few months later. Whether that was going to happen, I don't know. Dan Ackroyd even trimmed down scenes or acts just too make the film shorter but it was still too long supposedly. But since that would've been two movies wouldn't the budget be split in half? So wouldn't GB3 only cost $60,000,000? Even if this would've been a simultaneous shoot (back to back films shot at once) I guess the budget still might've been that high.
But the budgets are so high these days it makes the two GB films look like saints. I have the Oprah Winfrey ep where the cast came on for GB2 and Harold Ramis mentioned the budget for GB2 was done in a manner where they had to let all they're demands go down to let the film be made while they'd collect on the gross end (GB2 was $30m cost, GB cost $28-$34m, I've read). As of 1998, the old GB3 news has Newsweek mag indicated the actors/director all were going to take 40% of the gross from GB3. Bill Murray collects and not even be in it! The actors lowered they're demand a little less where Sony accepted. It even said that Sony had alot easier time with the MIB cast for its sequel plans back then. But gee thats still alot of the gross. It seems the budget and actors are pretty much the problem for GB3. Which makes Sony scared I guess and why shouldn't they for something thats 13 yrs old since its last theater outing? But I'd still like to think we'll see one more movie and let GB enter this new millenium and end at a trilogy or quartet. Here's hoping for 2004.