Live Weeknights at 7PM ET
Welcome to TV's only source for all the stuff you care about from the coolest viral videos to the hottest new gadgets, comics and movies. Attack of the Show gets it before it gets out.

Ghostbusters 3: Dan Aykroyd Reveals Details

Posted August 26, 2011 - By Joseph Baxter

Ghostbusters 3: Updates On A Weird Delay

Ghostbusters III is apparently still a go; at least according to the latest statements by Dan Aykroyd.

News about this would-sequel have often made it feel as if us fans are being trolled. The script by Gene Stupnitsky and Lee Eisenberg (The Office, Year One) has supposedly been floating around like a runaway apparition for quite some time. Yet, the narrative continued to be that star, Bill Murray had not yet read the script, an excuse that has continued for such a long amount of time, it starts to make one think.

However, Aykroyd states unambiguously that the proton packs will once more be wielded on the big screen. But, as far as Murray goes, it's still "yes," but with an asterisk.

As Aykroyd reveals on The Dennis Miller Show:

"Yes, we will be doing the movie and hopefully with Mr. Murray. That is our hope. We have an excellent script. What we have to remember is that 'Ghostbusters' is bigger than any one component, although Billy was absolutely the lead and contributive to it in a massive way, as was the director and Harold [Ramis], myself and Sigourney [Weaver]. The concept is much larger than any individual role and the promise of 'Ghostbusters 3' is that we get to hand the equipment and the franchise down to new blood."

It seems that the guys are at a point where they are seriously considering moving forward without Bill Murray's Peter Venkman on board. While Aykroyd is correct in that the Ghostbusters concept is larger than any one character, the crux of the film's charm did center on the dynamic between the characters, in which Murray was the central part.

Peter Venkman was the character through which the audiences could identify as he shot a sarcastic one-liner at Egon and Ray's techno-babble or reacted with the proper amount of horror and humor at the incoming supernatural threat. It's a very necessary component.

Aykroyd goes on to reveal some details about the long-in-development sequel:

"My character, Ray, is now blind in one eye and can't drive the cadillac," he says, "He's got a bad knee and can't carry the packs... Egon is too large to get into the harness. We need young blood and that's the promise. We're gonna hand it to a new generation."

Also, while an array of actors in the Saturday Night Live circle, like Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig have been rumored to take these "young blood" roles, Aykroyd actually names Criminal Minds star, Matthew Gray Gubler as someone he's interested in casting. He'd also make clear that the next-gen Ghostbuster team would be "three guys and a young woman."

What do you think about the current state of Ghostbusters III?


Tags: Movies

Comments are Closed

  • Zerosion

    There so going to "sex it up" like they did Start Trek aren't they. *Sigh* Nothing but bad remakes nowdays.

    Posted: August 28, 2011 3:52 PM
  • derryisgud4u

    no anna faris please

    Posted: August 27, 2011 3:49 AM
  • Graphicsgod

    I like the "new blood" idea, but please no teenagers!! Too many films go the "young" route to get kids into the theaters for maximum dollar. And as far as the original characters coming back, all they have to do is get into shape. Sadly all of them look horrible compared to those 80's films. Even Bill, looks much older than he should be. Heck the last script I heard had Bill's character being dead anyway!

    The movie should have them all start in the beginning fighting ghosts and getting rid of them. And then theres nothing to do, no more ghosts, just calls for fake ones. So the mayor closes up shop and everyone goes there separate ways, and the firehouse gets turned into a museum. And then 20 some odd years later something crazy happens to bring on the end of the earth again, and they are asked to come back to try and stop the menaces happening. But realize they are too old to handle it and Sigourney Weaver's son (who is now in his mid to late 20's) steps up to help, but can't do it alone so he recruits the help of his friends and they train with old and new equipment and the movie goes as normal. This is my idea of how it should go and be introduced for "younger" audiences!

    Posted: August 27, 2011 12:20 AM
  • deathkid38

    so far i get it and hope dosen`t suck in the future

    Posted: August 26, 2011 7:42 PM
  • MrTexas

    No Bill = No Ghostbusters. If he isnt on board they shouldnt bother doing it

    Posted: August 26, 2011 7:04 PM
  • MrTexas

    No Bill = No Ghostbusters. If he isnt on board they shouldnt bother doing it

    Posted: August 26, 2011 7:03 PM
  • NeoHumpty

    Of course I'll be going to see it. It sounds depressing, though. I just wonder what ever happened to the "Ghostbusters Go To Hell" script. That's the one I was wanting to see.

    Posted: August 26, 2011 6:43 PM
  • JWhite

    I would be pretty excited about this, the story seems to go in a good direction given the age of the actors, and could set up future ghost buster possibilities as well.

    I would be pretty bummed though if Murray isn't in it. While he isn't the sole chunk of Ghostbusters, like the article says, his character's dynamic is crucial to the overall interactions.

    Just have to wait and see I guess.

    Posted: August 26, 2011 5:38 PM
  • Jeremy3178

    Sounds horrible. Another Kingdom of the Crystal Skull piece of garbage.

    Posted: August 26, 2011 5:35 PM
  • Duraiken

    There's only two things I care about when it comes to Ghostbusters "coming back" after "being gone" for so long - that it actually does come back and if / when it does come back that it be good or better than that.

    I wouldn't mind if they decided to reinvent the GB Extreme characters for inclusion into the 3rd movie, though at this point I doubt they'll do that. And as for whether or not to include Bill Murray - I have to admit to being torn. On the one hand, he was one of the core characters and his interactions with the others helped make Ghostbusters what it was.

    On the other hand however, apparently none of the core characters are going to have complete center stage on this film if, as Akroyd has alluded to, the reins are being handed over to a new generation. Taking that into account, wouldn't be hard to remove the character Murray plays from the film or, if possible, convince him to make a small cameo that would allow them to make his role in the film smaller, whether stranding him in another dimension and making his rescue a driving piece of the film, or having him involved in an offscreen crises that would preclude Venkman from being able to partake in the film's events, or even if necessary killing him off, any of these could be possible and could conceivably not even need Murray to be filmed.

    Just so long as the film is worth watching and is actually worthy to be labelled a Ghostbuster film, does it really matter?

    Posted: August 26, 2011 5:35 PM
  • KingAlchemy13


    Posted: August 26, 2011 5:29 PM
  • TyDogg

    So if they're gonna go with the "three guys and one woman" way would they be going for the Extreme Ghostbusters cartoon route? I'm looking forward to it either way

    Posted: August 26, 2011 5:22 PM