Oh for sure he'll keep on trying. He may say different, but we all know how much he would like to finish his career with GB3.

Dan never said he was going to give up and I do hope that the film does eventually go into production. Being original wouldn't hurt but adding new material wouldnt either, thats all I'm saying.

Actually Ecto-3, he did.

“It feels good to be moving on.”

Take a look in the news archives over at the HQ for more details.

Actually Ecto-3, he did.

“It feels good to be moving on.”

This makes you wonder, did he really mean it? Probably. But maybe not. In any case, there's like no chance of a third movie anyway, especially with Ackroyd's hopes being dashed

he probably meant that it felt good getting his ass out of the grass and away onto newer, more promising projects Ghostbusters was Ghostbusters, let it be.

Like I said, there IS hope. I just don't think it's big screen. Let CGI and the magic of syndication revive the franchise.

I'd love to see a third one. As long as the originals were in the film (not necessarily starring), it could be interesting. Of couse it'd have to have a Ramis/Aykroyd script, but otherwise I think it'd be decent.

It's over and should stay that way for several reasons:

1) murray doesnt want to do it, and no one else is very enthusiastic. lack of feeling will create a crappy movie guaranteed. no way around it.

2) script problems: the original ghostbusters as dan wrote it would have sucked something awful - in the least, it would be totally different from the GB we swa in 1984. The same goes for some of the original concepts for Ghostbusters 2. Dan seems to be good for ideas, but his ideas need significant refining. I am always terrified when reading the final script at how bad the movie would be if it followed the script to a T.

3) Ghostbusters should have been its own movie. It appealed to everyone because we were all starting on the same level. we know about as much about ghostbusting as our three leads, and it becomes a going-into-business movie (in addition to being a buddy movie). The ghostbusting takes almost a second role to the love story that is going on and the overall plot; we only actually see one bust. And in the end, it appeals to everyone. The second film was like an episode of the cartoon, and only appealed to fans and sci-fi buffs. It had a definite repellent for people who arent into the genre. The first film works on a number of different levels. The second film appeals to a specific genre, and is harmed by that.

GB3 should stay dead; sequels are always inferior to their predecessors (with VERY few specific films, like The Godfather).

nick

Aykroyd is a great writer!

Uh, have you read the original script for Ghostbusters? Ghostbusters could have very easily been a totally different movie from what we got. Thank god for improvisation from the actors and Reitman. Listen to the commentary on the DVD, Ramis talks about how Aykroyd is very good as an idea man, but his ideas had to be reworked into the film. I look at Ghostbusters as the end result of a lot of different minds coming together, more so than in an average movie. Aykroyd is a funny guy, dont get me wrong, but I dont think the Ghostbusters script is his best, dialog-wise.
nick