The fact that Bill Murray says he will only appear GB3 if his character gets killed? Is it possible to have a GB movie without Peter Venkman? Would you care? Or do you just not give a d@mn if Bill was in the movie or not?

Personally I think that he should at least do a cameo. As for killing off Peter, well, that wouldn't bother me too much - not as long as can be fit in with the plot and they make the death believeable. I'm not sure that I'm too keen on the idea of the whole ghost of Peter Venkman comes back to save the others thing, though. I think that would be a tad silly.

What are everyone else's opinions on this?

I really don't care if Bill Murray is in it. I'd prefer it if he had a cameo to tie up loose ends but I woulnt mind if they left him out. I'm writing aa GB3 script of my own and I'm actually not including Bill Murray in it. So yeah, thats my two cents.

I would like to see a cameo. The fact is that GB3 will not be made without Murray. He holds rights and will not allow it to be produced.

I say start GB3 with Pete's funerul, if that means we get a GB3.

GB3 you need peter in it. But i will be happy to watch GB3 with out him.

I think it would be great to se Murray on GB3, hes a good actor, althogh I hated Osmosis Jones, but i dont give a F·ck if he wants to appear in the movie or not