Discuss the upcoming movie to be released in 2020 and directed by Jason Reitman.
By RichardLess
#4933453
I'm not the biggest Anderson fan, too, but his movies are art. They're not products.
And for the actual products Murray did, like Garfield and stuff, they are no sequels to a piece like Ghostbusters. They're allowed to be "just" fun.
The point isnt that he shouldn’t give an automatic “Yes” to Wes Anderson. Of course he should. The point is he strung along Dan, Ivan and Harold for decades. Not reading scripts, knowing that a Ghostbusters movie without him wouldn’t happen. Knowing that a great guy like Ernie Hudson could’ve used the career boost, possibly the paycheque. People were depending on him. He wouldn’t even read the damn script.

If your Bill Murray, when Dan Aykroyd(a lifelong friend and collaborator), Harold Ramis(Who is partly responsible for you being where you are today) and Ivan Reitman(the guy whose directed the biggest hits of you career) asks you to be involved in a Ghostbusters 3 YOU SAY “YES”. Just out of loyalty. Out of respect.

Imagine how hard it must be to be Ernie Hudson. Sure, you’re lucky to be involved in the franchise at all. But Ghostbusters 3 has been dangling in front of him like a carrot on a stick for years. All it would’ve taken to get made is a simple “Yes” from Bill. Did anyone read that article he wrote for EW around the time the reboot was announced? It broke my heart. I remember this part so well. He talked about how they always use to say Dan was the heart, Harold was the brains and Bill was the mouth. Well what about Winston(AKA Ernie)? Ernie said he always felt Winston was the soul.

Edit: and let’s not kid ourselves here. As much as I adore Ghostbusters, it’s a product. It’s not a “piece”. It’s meant to be blockbuster entertainment with toys and happy meals and all that jazz.
User avatar
By Timo
#4933455
I do think Ghostbusters 1 is a masterpiece. It's lightning in a bottle.
With Bill Murray, I don't know. It's just, you know, if I'm not interested in doing a job, I won't do it. You're doing a job for yourself, everybody should. So I can't blame him... and Ernie Hudson is a very busy actor even without a movie we fans want. I'm okay with Murray being involved now and I like the premise of this movie more than everything I've heard before.
deadderek liked this
User avatar
By droidguy1119
#4933456
It's some of column A and some of column B. Bill was never a commercial actor. He only did the original Ghostbusters because he could trade it for a passion project, no matter how much he obviously, evidently respects the original film (which was a genuine artistic venture, even if they thought it could also be a commercially successful one -- if they had made it to sell Happy Meals, you'd think they'd have had some merch ready).

I love Dan, I think many of us love Dan, but the wild, imaginative elements of Hellbent ("frame-jumping" out of sync with the normal universe into the alternate universe, a hellish version of Manhattan) were, in my opinion, more interesting than any of the jokes I heard ("Manhellton," the character named "Luke Siffler" as a reference to Lucifer, which is Angel Heart-level goofy). In Blues Brothers docs, they laugh about how Aykroyd turned in his first draft inside the covers of a phone book; it's not hard to guess (although I'm sure some of you have actually read it, I haven't) was big on ideas, extremely complicated, and not nearly as funny as we'd hope. Also hard to fault Bill on the idea that no matter how accomplished or funny Stupnitsky and Eisenberg were, Year One is a monumentally terrible audition tape.

I have a reasonable amount of fondness for Ghostbusters II, but it is objectively repetitive in many ways, and on a more subjective level, I understand why Bill doesn't think it's as good as the original. Major studio commercial filmmaking, like the kind of movie Ghostbusters 3 would've been in the 1990s or 2000s, and Ghostbusters (2016) ended up being, comes with a ton of obligations and responsibilities that Bill doesn't like, and then there's the question of the heavy, heavy odds that you're gonna be making The Godfather Part III rather than The Godfather Part II, odds which get worse when you are making a comedy, and that on top of the short list of big-budget visual effects comedies that work.

As was reported in Vulture, he agreed to show up in the 2016 movie because he didn't want anyone to say he didn't support it (a wise reason given the reaction -- always lovely to see some of the most unpleasant members of the fandom assigned their personal opinions to a dead guy instead), and of course he was only needed for one day. Four (well, five) years later, Ghostbusters: Afterlife still holds a significant amount of importance for Sony, but 2016's failure to catch on has taken some of the pressure off, allowing for a smaller movie that both still requires less of him than the '90s or '00s iterations would've, and probably represents something he has more artistic faith in.

But yes, Bill is also an extremely temperamental person who holds grudges and can be very unpleasant. I like Bill enough, but I have seen him behave coldly even in person, and there are legendary stories of his temper from all over, and worse. I simultaneously believe there is no universe in which he owed Dan or Harold or Ernie an appearance in a Ghostbusters 3 (it's arguably more disrespectful to those guys that Sony felt it was only worth doing with Bill in it when he clearly didn't want to do it at the time), and having read Violet's book, there's absolutely no question he treated Harold terribly, and it's a shame it took Harold's death for him to even try to come around.

re: which cut of Ghostbusters (2016) do you watch?

Theatrical, but what I have always wanted to do (and now I have time, if I'm feeling ambitious...) is make a fan edit that combines the best stuff from the TC and EC, as well as some of the cut Abby/Erin stuff as well as other material from the deleted scenes, outtakes, and line-o-ramas.
groschopf, deadderek, Kingpin and 1 others liked this
User avatar
By groschopf
#4933459
For what it's worth, Ernie seemed to want to distance himself from Ghostbusters in the '90s. He appeared in The Hand That Rocks the Cradle, Congo, had a role in the Crow and landed himself six seasons on HBO's Oz. He was getting some good roles.

I recall an appearance on the Daily Show with Craig Kilbourne in which Kilbourne kept trying to ask Ernie questions about Ghostbusters, and you could tell he was tired of it. He wanted to plug with his other roles at the time, and undoubtedly wanted to be something more than the Ghostbuster that got sidelined for half of each film he appeared in.

Kilbourne kept coming back to Ghostbusters trivia, and you could tell it rankled Ernie. Perhaps he just found Kilbourne annoying in particular (said host left the Daily Show after one year and Jon Stewart took over), but it left the impression that he didn't want to be a one-note actor.

It could well be that he didn't find the idea of a Ghostbusters III attractive then either. His opinions on the franchise might have changed with age and a fanbase that recognizes how marginalized his character was in the films (why wasn't he more prominently used in the first half of Ghostbusters II?).

Side note: Ernie is a super nice guy and very accommodating. If I ever had a chance to talk to him again, I'd sooner ask him what it was like going from the Marine Corps to running his own ensemble theatre to the Yale School of Drama than about Ghostbusters.
robbritton liked this
By RichardLess
#4933460
It's some of column A and some of column B. Bill was never a commercial actor. He only did the original Ghostbusters because he could trade it for a passion project, no matter how much he obviously, evidently respects the original film (which was a genuine artistic venture, even if they thought it could also be a commercially successful one -- if they had made it to sell Happy Meals, you'd think they'd have had some merch ready).

I love Dan, I think many of us love Dan, but the wild, imaginative elements of Hellbent ("frame-jumping" out of sync with the normal universe into the alternate universe, a hellish version of Manhattan) were, in my opinion, more interesting than any of the jokes I heard ("Manhellton," the character named "Luke Siffler" as a reference to Lucifer, which is Angel Heart-level goofy). In Blues Brothers docs, they laugh about how Aykroyd turned in his first draft inside the covers of a phone book; it's not hard to guess (although I'm sure some of you have actually read it, I haven't) was big on ideas, extremely complicated, and not nearly as funny as we'd hope. Also hard to fault Bill on the idea that no matter how accomplished or funny Stupnitsky and Eisenberg were, Year One is a monumentally terrible audition tape.

I have a reasonable amount of fondness for Ghostbusters II, but it is objectively repetitive in many ways, and on a more subjective level, I understand why Bill doesn't think it's as good as the original. Major studio commercial filmmaking, like the kind of movie Ghostbusters 3 would've been in the 1990s or 2000s, and Ghostbusters (2016) ended up being, comes with a ton of obligations and responsibilities that Bill doesn't like, and then there's the question of the heavy, heavy odds that you're gonna be making The Godfather Part III rather than The Godfather Part II, odds which get worse when you are making a comedy, and that on top of the short list of big-budget visual effects comedies that work.

As was reported in Vulture, he agreed to show up in the 2016 movie because he didn't want anyone to say he didn't support it (a wise reason given the reaction -- always lovely to see some of the most unpleasant members of the fandom assigned their personal opinions to a dead guy instead), and of course he was only needed for one day. Four (well, five) years later, Ghostbusters: Afterlife still holds a significant amount of importance for Sony, but 2016's failure to catch on has taken some of the pressure off, allowing for a smaller movie that both still requires less of him than the '90s or '00s iterations would've, and probably represents something he has more artistic faith in.

But yes, Bill is also an extremely temperamental person who holds grudges and can be very unpleasant. I like Bill enough, but I have seen him behave coldly even in person, and there are legendary stories of his temper from all over, and worse. I simultaneously believe there is no universe in which he owed Dan or Harold or Ernie an appearance in a Ghostbusters 3 (it's arguably more disrespectful to those guys that Sony felt it was only worth doing with Bill in it when he clearly didn't want to do it at the time), and having read Violet's book, there's absolutely no question he treated Harold terribly, and it's a shame it took Harold's death for him to even try to come around.

re: which cut of Ghostbusters (2016) do you watch?

Theatrical, but what I have always wanted to do (and now I have time, if I'm feeling ambitious...) is make a fan edit that combines the best stuff from the TC and EC, as well as some of the cut Abby/Erin stuff as well as other material from the deleted scenes, outtakes, and line-o-ramas.
“Bill was never a commercial actor” What do you mean by that? That he didn’t choose projects based on their potential for success? I’d agree with that. That being said, he did *extremely* commercial movies. Whether he liked the script or just wanted to work with a director, whatever.

I think Bill owed Dan, Harold and Ivan to not string them along for years. Either say “Yes” or say “No”. But read the bloody script. Every interview it was “umm, I don’t know, maybe, who knows”. If Bill had a sliver of loyalty I think he should’ve said yes. Knowing what it meant for his “friends”, the fans. If Bill had done nothing but serious art projects and indie movies I think I could understand. But Osmosis Jones? Charlie’s Angels? Not 1 but 2 Garfield movies?? He said “Yes” to those movies. Which are incredibly commercial and TERRIBLE. Ghostbusters 3, again, unless the problem was purely Harold Ramis(which I think it might’ve been) & that stupid 1 sided feud, not so much as a script read. I think he eventually read 1 draft by “the office“ guys. There were many other scripts tho.

That part in Violet Ramis’s book was heartbreaking. Harold can barely speak anymore and Bill shows up with Donuts and a police escort like nothing had ever happened. You could tell how hurt she was by how hurt her father was by Bill’s decades long “feud”.
By Davideverona
#4933466
Bill DID read the GB3 scripts, there is an interview where he talks about them.

He defined one script "too crazy to comprehend" (I guess it was Hellbent) and the other "interesting but not well executed" (I guess the 2008-2014 drafts).

Now that Jason has come along I feel that we dodged a big one with not having GB3 in the past years. I mean, go search for the leaked Sony's emails and read the plot bits of Ghostbusters Alive Again and you'll understand what I mean.

Bill spoke highly about the Afterlife concept, so it must be a good script. Not Oscar worthy, maybe... But surely different from the old "the Ghostbusters are old and they train a new team" idea.

With that said, I'll bloody miss Harold.... But I suspect that his presence will be heavily felt by both the cast and the audience.
Sav C, Alphagaia, groschopf and 3 others liked this
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4933467
I also like to point out, Bill did GB84 AND GBII already as a 'favor' to the guys. Belusci was originally slated to be Venkman, but he passed away, which really hurt Dan. Bill took over, being allowed to film his pet project as a return favor and he was the biggest name attached to the project and they all knew it. Being obligated to do a third as well doesn't rhyme to me, especially after GBII being a huge disappointment for him.

And yeah, he did some questionable movies, but that's easy to say afterwards. They could also have been great comedies. On paper. Hard to say what and why some things didn't work out, even though some little things did get out to the public.

For instance, it's clear he had struggles with actors and a different artistic point of view in Charlie's Angels as they replaced him for the sequel. It didn't gel. And it showed.

For Garfield he thought he would be working with another director, and most probably signed on for two movies beforehand. He admits it wasn't his best move and jokes about it alot.

He is hard to work with, yet makes the time for fans, but he is also gifted actor who made mistakes in life. Some of them big.

Long story short, Bill doesn't owe us anything, and while he played a big part, he isn't the only one at fault for not having a GB3 for all these years.
User avatar
By timeware
#4933468
Honestly though I blame Sony for the hold up.

They knew the fanbase was there otherwise they wouldn't have been pushing out the merchandise. Ghostbusters popularity was coming back.

ATC shouldn't have been made before Afterlife

That's not how things played out. I don't blame Bill entirely, just shitty management.
User avatar
By VoyanceGlitch
#4933473
It's some of column A and some of column B. Bill was never a commercial actor. He only did the original Ghostbusters because he could trade it for a passion project, no matter how much he obviously, evidently respects the original film (which was a genuine artistic venture, even if they thought it could also be a commercially successful one -- if they had made it to sell Happy Meals, you'd think they'd have had some merch ready).

I love Dan, I think many of us love Dan, but the wild, imaginative elements of Hellbent ("frame-jumping" out of sync with the normal universe into the alternate universe, a hellish version of Manhattan) were, in my opinion, more interesting than any of the jokes I heard ("Manhellton," the character named "Luke Siffler" as a reference to Lucifer, which is Angel Heart-level goofy). In Blues Brothers docs, they laugh about how Aykroyd turned in his first draft inside the covers of a phone book; it's not hard to guess (although I'm sure some of you have actually read it, I haven't) was big on ideas, extremely complicated, and not nearly as funny as we'd hope. Also hard to fault Bill on the idea that no matter how accomplished or funny Stupnitsky and Eisenberg were, Year One is a monumentally terrible audition tape.

I have a reasonable amount of fondness for Ghostbusters II, but it is objectively repetitive in many ways, and on a more subjective level, I understand why Bill doesn't think it's as good as the original. Major studio commercial filmmaking, like the kind of movie Ghostbusters 3 would've been in the 1990s or 2000s, and Ghostbusters (2016) ended up being, comes with a ton of obligations and responsibilities that Bill doesn't like, and then there's the question of the heavy, heavy odds that you're gonna be making The Godfather Part III rather than The Godfather Part II, odds which get worse when you are making a comedy, and that on top of the short list of big-budget visual effects comedies that work.

As was reported in Vulture, he agreed to show up in the 2016 movie because he didn't want anyone to say he didn't support it (a wise reason given the reaction -- always lovely to see some of the most unpleasant members of the fandom assigned their personal opinions to a dead guy instead), and of course he was only needed for one day. Four (well, five) years later, Ghostbusters: Afterlife still holds a significant amount of importance for Sony, but 2016's failure to catch on has taken some of the pressure off, allowing for a smaller movie that both still requires less of him than the '90s or '00s iterations would've, and probably represents something he has more artistic faith in.

But yes, Bill is also an extremely temperamental person who holds grudges and can be very unpleasant. I like Bill enough, but I have seen him behave coldly even in person, and there are legendary stories of his temper from all over, and worse. I simultaneously believe there is no universe in which he owed Dan or Harold or Ernie an appearance in a Ghostbusters 3 (it's arguably more disrespectful to those guys that Sony felt it was only worth doing with Bill in it when he clearly didn't want to do it at the time), and having read Violet's book, there's absolutely no question he treated Harold terribly, and it's a shame it took Harold's death for him to even try to come around.

re: which cut of Ghostbusters (2016) do you watch?

Theatrical, but what I have always wanted to do (and now I have time, if I'm feeling ambitious...) is make a fan edit that combines the best stuff from the TC and EC, as well as some of the cut Abby/Erin stuff as well as other material from the deleted scenes, outtakes, and line-o-ramas.
“Bill was never a commercial actor” What do you mean by that? That he didn’t choose projects based on their potential for success? I’d agree with that. That being said, he did *extremely* commercial movies. Whether he liked the script or just wanted to work with a director, whatever.

I think Bill owed Dan, Harold and Ivan to not string them along for years. Either say “Yes” or say “No”. But read the bloody script. Every interview it was “umm, I don’t know, maybe, who knows”. If Bill had a sliver of loyalty I think he should’ve said yes. Knowing what it meant for his “friends”, the fans. If Bill had done nothing but serious art projects and indie movies I think I could understand. But Osmosis Jones? Charlie’s Angels? Not 1 but 2 Garfield movies?? He said “Yes” to those movies. Which are incredibly commercial and TERRIBLE. Ghostbusters 3, again, unless the problem was purely Harold Ramis(which I think it might’ve been) & that stupid 1 sided feud, not so much as a script read. I think he eventually read 1 draft by “the office“ guys. There were many other scripts tho.

That part in Violet Ramis’s book was heartbreaking. Harold can barely speak anymore and Bill shows up with Donuts and a police escort like nothing had ever happened. You could tell how hurt she was by how hurt her father was by Bill’s decades long “feud”.
I think why Bill did those Garfield movies because he got confused about who the screenwriters were.

I already knew about Harold and Bill's friendship ending but after reading Violet's book , it's bittersweet how Bill visited Harold, like you had all these years to speak with him but you're going to see him after he's sadly sick?
By RichardLess
#4933474
Bill DID read the GB3 scripts, there is an interview where he talks about them.

He defined one script "too crazy to comprehend" (I guess it was Hellbent) and the other "interesting but not well executed" (I guess the 2008-2014 drafts).

Now that Jason has come along I feel that we dodged a big one with not having GB3 in the past years. I mean, go search for the leaked Sony's emails and read the plot bits of Ghostbusters Alive Again and you'll understand what I mean.

Bill spoke highly about the Afterlife concept, so it must be a good script. Not Oscar worthy, maybe... But surely different from the old "the Ghostbusters are old and they train a new team" idea.

With that said, I'll bloody miss Harold.... But I suspect that his presence will be heavily felt by both the cast and the audience.
He *eventually* read them. There’s multiple interviews over a period of years with Ivan or Bill where Ivan says something to the point of “Bill hasn’t read the script” or “We sent him the script and heard nothing back” and then Bill says “I haven’t read the script yet”. But again there are multiple, multiple drafts(the one draft we know he read, eventually, is the one by The Office guys and he didn’t like it). There’s the Hellbent script by Aykroyd and Tom Davis. The 2nd draft rewrite by Harold. There’s the Office Writers script which had I don’t know how many drafts. It was a lot. Then there was the Etan Cohen draft, who apparently did a polish of the Office writers script before working on his own. Then there’s rumours of re-writes and polishes on various drafts by Michael Schur, Craig Mazin and Chris McKenna. So god only knows which version Bill read, or who else did uncredited rewrite work.

Did we dodge a bullet with a bad GB3? Who knows. Bill doesn’t think GB2 works & I adore it. So who knows.

I ask myself sometimes, would I rather have had a mediocre Ghostbusters 3 but get the chance to see the four guys together again OR had things turn out the way they did. I don’t know the answer. The thrashing and response to GB16 and it’s box office failure was a hard pill to take. I didn’t enjoy GB16 but I hate seeing the franchise fail. Then again, I think Jason Reitman is such a perfect choice and everything I hear tells me he’s nails this movie in a way we fans can’t even understand yet.

March 2021 can’t get here fast enough.
moviemaker29 liked this
User avatar
By droidguy1119
#4933476
I think Bill owed Dan, Harold and Ivan to not string them along for years. Either say “Yes” or say “No”. But read the bloody script. Every interview it was “umm, I don’t know, maybe, who knows”. If Bill had a sliver of loyalty I think he should’ve said yes. Knowing what it meant for his “friends”, the fans. If Bill had done nothing but serious art projects and indie movies I think I could understand. But Osmosis Jones? Charlie’s Angels? Not 1 but 2 Garfield movies?? He said “Yes” to those movies.
This one's a little complicated. He does show up for his friends. The first two movies you named were both examples of that. Because he loved making Kingpin, he will do favors for the Farrellys, who produced and co-directed Osmosis Jones (he would later have a cameo that I bet many missed (because he never takes off the mask) in Dumb and Dumber To as a meth manufacturer who has taken up residence in Harry and Lloyd's apartment). Charlie's Angels was a favor to his old friend Mitch Glazer, who wrote the original draft of Scrooged and polished CA (a collaboration that lead to the legendary Road House story published in AV Club, where Kelly Lynch, Glazer's wife and Bill's CA co-star, says Murray and his brothers call her whenever the Road House sex scene is on television). As for Garfield, his "Coen Brothers" story could just as easily be BS as it could be the truth.

So, while these are not necessarily examples of Murray doing commercial work purely because it interested him, they are reinforcement that he held long grudges, and that he withheld this kind of friendship from Harold (although, on the other hand, I would point out that even if Murray didn't want to work with Harold, I don't think Harold would've been as invested in Ghostbusters 3 as Dan was, given the series is really Dan's baby).

I personally don't think actors should ever take on work "for the fans." They should endeavor as much as is reasonable to be friendly to fans in person (assuming those fans show them the same courtesy), but I hate the idea that fans were "owed" a Ghostbusters 3. I think Afterlife looks good, and I wasn't nearly as confident in any Ghostbusters 3 concept before this one. I always felt something was going to happen, whether that was a reboot (check) or a sequel (also check), and it seems as if I'm going to enjoy both of them, so I'm perfectly happy with how things turned out.
Bill DID read the GB3 scripts, there is an interview where he talks about them.

He defined one script "too crazy to comprehend" (I guess it was Hellbent) and the other "interesting but not well executed" (I guess the 2008-2014 drafts).

Now that Jason has come along I feel that we dodged a big one with not having GB3 in the past years. I mean, go search for the leaked Sony's emails and read the plot bits of Ghostbusters Alive Again and you'll understand what I mean.
While I'm not disputing that he read some of them, two came up that he claimed not to have read. In the same GQ profile where he says he took Garfield because he thought it was Joel and Ethan Coen, he said he never read the Stupnitsky/Eisenberg draft because he saw Year One. A few years later, before Harold's death, maybe 2012 or 2013, he appeared on Howard Stern's show and said that a draft (presumably an Etan Cohen Alive Again script) was on his desk but he was hemming and hawing about picking it up (in this story, he might've ended up reading it later).
Honestly though I blame Sony for the hold up.

They knew the fanbase was there otherwise they wouldn't have been pushing out the merchandise. Ghostbusters popularity was coming back.

ATC shouldn't have been made before Afterlife

That's not how things played out. I don't blame Bill entirely, just shitty management.
The main reason (as has been mentioned) that they didn't sequelize or reboot Ghostbusters sooner than 2016 was the deal put in place when they made Ghostbusters II, stating that Ivan had to be offered the chance to direct, and Ivan, Bill, Dan, and Harold all had to approve the production even if they weren't going to be involved. This was a pretty ironclad gridlock, because Murray never loved any of the scripts. Then, in 2014, Harold passed away, Reitman gave up his chance to direct, and Reitman also managed to convince Murray to give up his stake in this agreement. Reitman got Ghost Corps out of the deal, where he and Dan now guide the franchise alone, without needing Murray's stamp.

There's absolutely no question whatsoever that Sony would've liked this contract dismantled during the long wait as much as you did. They had a very valuable IP that was generating merch money year after year and they couldn't capitalize because Murray made himself so unavailable -- this was what the leak email that many misinterpreted was about, saying Sony would have to take legal action against Murray if he didn't respond about Ghostbusters. They were trying to dissolve the contract.
Alphagaia, groschopf, robbritton and 1 others liked this
User avatar
By Alphagaia
#4933479
That is an awesome, in-depth reply. Thx for that!
droidguy1119 liked this
By DocLathropBrown
#4933480
I don't think Bill ever owed us anything--hey, if he didn't like any of the concepts, that's fine. But I'm sure there were a couple times throughout the years that a GB3 could have genuinely materialized without him--all he would have needed to do was let them. Yeah, a standard sequel with the other three and not Murray wouldn't have excited a studio, but the initial ideas where hotter talent (Chris Farley, Ben Stiller, etc) formed a new team would have smoothed over that marquee talent gap for Sony. It could have worked, in exchange Bill could have haggled his way down to a one-scene cameo or they could have written him out.

Now, we don't really know over the years if Dan/Ivan/Sony/etc were actually given that chance and passed on it, hoping to convince Bill. That's a real possibility--but if GB3 could have happened earlier by him simply relinquishing his veto, then it irks me. I mean, he couldn't even be professional enough to record ALL of the dialog he was paid for for the video game. Bill doesn't have to do things he doesn't want to, but he at least should have the decency not to stand in the way of something.

That being said, I've come around to appreciating the reboot and how things worked out exactly because I think it's going to give us something better than a generic GB3 would have been. The remake being another generic GB movie forced Afterlife to be something different--something that will be good for audiences, for the story, and for Bill. I don't think he would have ever been willing to do a GB3 the way it had been envisioned dozens of times--as another standard GB adventure. I love GB2, but I can't deny that it's petty by-the-numbers at times, and a GB3 being the same way would have only kept it in the shadow of the original.

Call it fate, luck or karma... I believe that everything happens for a reason.
By RichardLess
#4933484
I think Bill owed Dan, Harold and Ivan to not string them along for years. Either say “Yes” or say “No”. But read the bloody script. Every interview it was “umm, I don’t know, maybe, who knows”. If Bill had a sliver of loyalty I think he should’ve said yes. Knowing what it meant for his “friends”, the fans. If Bill had done nothing but serious art projects and indie movies I think I could understand. But Osmosis Jones? Charlie’s Angels? Not 1 but 2 Garfield movies?? He said “Yes” to those movies.
This one's a little complicated. He does show up for his friends. The first two movies you named were both examples of that. Because he loved making Kingpin, he will do favors for the Farrellys, who produced and co-directed Osmosis Jones (he would later have a cameo that I bet many missed (because he never takes off the mask) in Dumb and Dumber To as a meth manufacturer who has taken up residence in Harry and Lloyd's apartment). Charlie's Angels was a favor to his old friend Mitch Glazer, who wrote the original draft of Scrooged and polished CA (a collaboration that lead to the legendary Road House story published in AV Club, where Kelly Lynch, Glazer's wife and Bill's CA co-star, says Murray and his brothers call her whenever the Road House sex scene is on television). As for Garfield, his "Coen Brothers" story could just as easily be BS as it could be the truth.

So, while these are not necessarily examples of Murray doing commercial work purely because it interested him, they are reinforcement that he held long grudges, and that he withheld this kind of friendship from Harold (although, on the other hand, I would point out that even if Murray didn't want to work with Harold, I don't think Harold would've been as invested in Ghostbusters 3 as Dan was, given the series is really Dan's baby).

I personally don't think actors should ever take on work "for the fans." They should endeavor as much as is reasonable to be friendly to fans in person (assuming those fans show them the same courtesy), but I hate the idea that fans were "owed" a Ghostbusters 3. I think Afterlife looks good, and I wasn't nearly as confident in any Ghostbusters 3 concept before this one. I always felt something was going to happen, whether that was a reboot (check) or a sequel (also check), and it seems as if I'm going to enjoy both of them, so I'm perfectly happy with how things turned out.
Bill DID read the GB3 scripts, there is an interview where he talks about them.

He defined one script "too crazy to comprehend" (I guess it was Hellbent) and the other "interesting but not well executed" (I guess the 2008-2014 drafts).

Now that Jason has come along I feel that we dodged a big one with not having GB3 in the past years. I mean, go search for the leaked Sony's emails and read the plot bits of Ghostbusters Alive Again and you'll understand what I mean.
While I'm not disputing that he read some of them, two came up that he claimed not to have read. In the same GQ profile where he says he took Garfield because he thought it was Joel and Ethan Coen, he said he never read the Stupnitsky/Eisenberg draft because he saw Year One. A few years later, before Harold's death, maybe 2012 or 2013, he appeared on Howard Stern's show and said that a draft (presumably an Etan Cohen Alive Again script) was on his desk but he was hemming and hawing about picking it up (in this story, he might've ended up reading it later).
Honestly though I blame Sony for the hold up.

They knew the fanbase was there otherwise they wouldn't have been pushing out the merchandise. Ghostbusters popularity was coming back.

ATC shouldn't have been made before Afterlife

That's not how things played out. I don't blame Bill entirely, just shitty management.
The main reason (as has been mentioned) that they didn't sequelize or reboot Ghostbusters sooner than 2016 was the deal put in place when they made Ghostbusters II, stating that Ivan had to be offered the chance to direct, and Ivan, Bill, Dan, and Harold all had to approve the production even if they weren't going to be involved. This was a pretty ironclad gridlock, because Murray never loved any of the scripts. Then, in 2014, Harold passed away, Reitman gave up his chance to direct, and Reitman also managed to convince Murray to give up his stake in this agreement. Reitman got Ghost Corps out of the deal, where he and Dan now guide the franchise alone, without needing Murray's stamp.

There's absolutely no question whatsoever that Sony would've liked this contract dismantled during the long wait as much as you did. They had a very valuable IP that was generating merch money year after year and they couldn't capitalize because Murray made himself so unavailable -- this was what the leak email that many misinterpreted was about, saying Sony would have to take legal action against Murray if he didn't respond about Ghostbusters. They were trying to dissolve the contract.
Oh yeah, I wasn’t saying he doesn’t show up for his friends. He did Space Jam as a favour to Ivan Reitman. Like I said he does movies purely out of “this is what I want to do or who I want to work with”. Which again, makes it seem like Harold was the issue here.

There was an interview with Harold Ramis a ways back where he talked about really wanting to cast Bill Murray in “Ice Harvest”. He was nervous about asking him due to the feud and hadn’t talked to him in years. If memory serves Harold couldn’t even get Bill on the phone but heard back thru the grapevine that he didn’t want to do it.

I think one of the issues in green lighting GB3 was they never got a firm “No” from Bill. So they kept holding out hope and waiting and waiting until they just ran out of time.

I remember Dan saying in a Stern interview that he still loved Bill as a friend but couldn’t see them ever working together again in a business sense. Luckily that seems to have changed. But Dan seems to be able to separate the friendship and business side of a relationship.

I don’t think Bill necessarily owed it to the fans to say yes to a GB3, but he owed an answer of some kind and needed to realize people were depending on that answer.

Remember when Bill showed up at the Scream Awards in full Ghostbusters gear?? Man I thought for sure when he walked out on stage he was going to announce his involvement. Also? He looked GREAT in that suit. Even with the grey hair. That was almost 11 years ago. Crazy. Where does the time go?
User avatar
By Kingpin
Moderator
#4933485
Remember when Bill showed up at the Scream Awards in full Ghostbusters gear?? Man I thought for sure when he walked out on stage he was going to announce his involvement. Also? He looked GREAT in that suit. Even with the grey hair. That was almost 11 years ago. Crazy. Where does the time go?
That's part of what rankles me, what will forever tarnish my view of Bill: he's willing to step on stage in full gear (including a Pack built by THE Sean Bishop), and reference it in not one, but both his Zombieland cameos... And then he ends up causing, or contributing to some of the worst hurt and ill feelings in the franchise's history prior to 2016...

He doesn't do it intentionally, I'm sure, but he's toyed with our emotions and a tender subject... Which was frankly a dick move. Between that and how he treated Harold, who didn't seem to have a bad bone in his body... Sometimes I can't help but feel: "f*** Bill Murray".
zeta otaku liked this
User avatar
By mrmichaelt
#4933491
Bill's breakout role after Afterlife.
https://www.counton2.com/news/local-new ... local-gym/
Ghostbusters II always gets associated with "bad sequels", but frankly it's one of the better ones out there in movie history.
Agreed! I loved so much of it - the Scoleri Brothers bust was awesome, they weaponized ectoplasm, Egon was a little sassy in the movie with Peter, lot's a great lines overall.
pizzarat, Sav C, robbritton liked this
User avatar
By pizzarat
#4933493
Bill's breakout role after Afterlife.
https://www.counton2.com/news/local-new ... local-gym/
Ghostbusters II always gets associated with "bad sequels", but frankly it's one of the better ones out there in movie history.
Agreed! I loved so much of it - the Scoleri Brothers bust was awesome, they weaponized ectoplasm, Egon was a little sassy in the movie with Peter, lot's a great lines overall.
There's so much I could say about II, but what I admire most is the over-arching theme about negative/positive spirits in the living and the dead. Afterlife seems like a spectacular story and will surely have many familiar notes and also new themes that will make it stand proudly next to the first two. Violet Ramis made a wonderful point about how II has a Marxist bent when the slime comeuppance rises for the wealthy socialites.

As far as Ramis and Murray are concerned... They were such good friends that Bill personally picked Harold to co-star in Stripes. It's really sad that twelve years later a potentially long-term successful duo was derailed during a career apex for both. My own opinion is that Bill became a bit resentful of Harold's writing/directing career, and that the animosity may have even began even during II. On the Groundhog Day set I ponder if Bill expected Harold to be his same buddy from twelve years ago, and maybe lacked the respect that you need to give the director of a Hollywood movie.

With that said, Harold never held a grudge against Bill. For a second. I personally think that Bill was so ashamed of his behavior that he couldn't even bring himself to see Harold again, because he had massive guilt. If I remember correctly Bill wouldn't even record the lines for the Video Game with the others because... Harold would've been there.
Sav C liked this
User avatar
By droidguy1119
#4933494
On the Groundhog Day set I ponder if Bill expected Harold to be his same buddy from twelve years ago, and maybe lacked the respect that you need to give the director of a Hollywood movie.
FWIW, Wild and Crazy Guys said Murray thought he was gonna reshape the script and even had a writer working on it, and that it started to go downhill when Ramis told him they already had a revised script. It also coincided with Murray's bitter divorce.
pizzarat liked this
By RichardLess
#4933495
On the Groundhog Day set I ponder if Bill expected Harold to be his same buddy from twelve years ago, and maybe lacked the respect that you need to give the director of a Hollywood movie.
FWIW, Wild and Crazy Guys said Murray thought he was gonna reshape the script and even had a writer working on it, and that it started to go downhill when Ramis told him they already had a revised script. It also coincided with Murray's bitter divorce.
You just know a biopic is going to be made one day of Harold Ramis or Bill Murray and that Groundhog Day shoot is where the good times end. It’ll be like Boogie Nights as soon as the 1980s are introduced. Or Goodfellas after the piano portion of Layla. Or The Aviator when Howard crashes his plane.

The film will end with Bill going over to Harolds place with a police escort, donuts in hand. Bill enters the Ramis Household. Close up on Bill’s face as he realizes this is the last moments he’ll spend with an old friend. “So much wasted time. So many things left unsaid” he’ll think to himself. For a moment he forgets where he is as all the memories come flooding back. Finally a voice breaks him free of his nostalgic time lapse & snaps him back to reality. “You can come in & take your shoes off. He’s waiting for you in bed upstairs. 3rd door on the right”. Bill hadn’t seen Violet since she was a small girl. Now a grown woman stands before him. There was something cold and distant in her voice. “I’ve waited too long” he thought. Just as soon as the sombreness had come, Bill shed it like a coat. He perked up, and searched for his only emotional tool: In an exaggerated German accent he bellowed: “Take me to zee Patient herr fraulien”. She doesn’t laugh. She doesn’t even acknowledge that he spoke. Bill steps forward, closes the door behind him and we fade to black.

The End.
ccv66 liked this
By Bison256
#4933499
What were his objections with regards to Groundhog Day?
He wanted the film to be more dramatic less comedy. Bill's so odds thought, look at Robin Williams, he was known as a comedian too but did several dramatic roles like good morning Vietnam, one hour photo etc and received several awards. If bill really wanted an Oscar he should have kept his agent and sought out those type of roles, instead he simi retiring in the 90s.
Kingpin liked this
User avatar
By timeware
#4933517
we've come full circle back to the Bill holding things up debate again.

Only difference this time is were being kept under lockdown. This is giving us time to write almost novel leangth responses.

Will you guys let me know if anyone starts seeing ghosts at the end of the hallway?

I'm gettng some fresh air before we all start writing on the walls.
User avatar
By droidguy1119
#4933526
Unrelated to this Bill debate, but I was looking for something on the Proton Charging Facebook page and I saw the score sheet music again. It's all academic at this point, but this would be one flaw in deadderek's reasoning that the film was in part delayed because editing couldn't be finished. If they have score then they must have completed scenes for the composer to set his score to.

Plus, if the editor just videochats with Reitman, then editing can still be done during social distancing. It seems totally possible they're passing scenes back and forth digitally until Reitman approves.
pizzarat, groschopf liked this
#4933551
I read that during the Groundhog Day shoot, Bill exasperated Harold at the point of Harold grabbing Bill by the neck and stomping him on the wall. That was the only time Harold loosed his temper and the breaking point of their relationship.
Bill is as legendary for his difficulty as he is for his comedy. So I pretty much believe about any story about his behavior pushing the buttons of others. They're all part of an ego driven industry and therefore I can see all celebrities having a hard time coexisting. What About Bob is one of my favorite movies ever but Richard Dreyfuss has EVISCERATED Bill in interviews and said it was a terrible experience working with him. Although I'm sure Dreyfuss is no saint himself. I personally feel like Bill has trolled us GB fans for years.
  • 1
  • 318
  • 319
  • 320
  • 321
  • 322
  • 338
amplified sound board?

It does. You can connect the GBFans light boards o[…]

Has anyone been using brickseek to find RGB figs l[…]

So basically cutting the tube makes it more scree[…]

Oh boy, my shopping cart here keeps getting bigger[…]