MovieChat Forums > Garfield: A Tale of Two Kitties (2006) Discussion > Bill Murray starring in this sequel offi...

Bill Murray starring in this sequel officially makes him a hypocrite.

posted 18 years ago by fridaythe31st
51 replies | jump to latest

While yes, I'm sure they offered him tons of cash and he agree'd to phone in his performance; this movie is officially making him out to be a complete and utter hypocrite.

Ghostbusters2 withstanding, Murray has said on numerous occasions that he'd never come back for sequels to his hit films simply because he wanted to continue on trying new things. This being one of the main reasons poor Ghobstbusters3 died in pre-production; I'm pretty pissed to see that he instead chooses a *beep* GARFIELD SEQUEL to break off his stance as an artist standing by his word.

It's a pretty big downer for me, personally. I've always loved going to the movies to see him in whatever role he's done, aside from these Garfield things I've given every movie he's done a chance. He has a fantastic lineup of work; everything from Ghostbusters to Groundhog Day, Ed Wood to Lost in Translation, Stripes to Life Aquatic. He's got an entire roster of fantastic films that could do well with sequels, and I'm just really disappointed of all the parts to play a second (or third) time, he sold out and chose this.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Ezzackly 18 years ago

You said hit film. How does this count?

[–] asmovies 18 years ago

Regardless of Bill Murray's policy on sequels, would you turn down $5 million to do some voice over work? I don't blame him for doing the sequel. He's literally phoning in his performance.

[–] Ezzackly 18 years ago

Definitely agree with you there, It's not like he's that high profile of an actor anymore. He should take what he can get.

[–] chains01 18 years ago

I think one of the points with Bill Murray is that he doesn't want to be that high profile of an actor. He's now at the point that he can do what he wants, he doesn't need the money, and he knows that. That's why he's sticking with indies, which he loves doing, and it would appear he's best at. Lost in Translation and Broken Flowers were two of his best performances ever. If he loves doing Garfield, he's going to do it despite what the amount is. (Although I'm sure, much like most actors of his caliber, it's in his contract that he goes so much whether the film gets made or not. And if their not offering it, the agent declines it before Murray even sees a script.)

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't exist.-Verbal Kint

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chains01 18 years ago

I love how people don't pay attention to what they read. I wasn't bashing Murray, cocaine-love-frenzy, I was saying that he doesn't want to be the big blockbuster one note actor, he wants to really show his chops in more serious roles, the reason he's doing things like Broken Flowers and Lost in Translation. It seems like he wants to really hit the indie circuit and kind of leave Hollywood behind. I wasn't bashing him. Next time pay attention to more of my posts and maybe you would notice that.

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't exist.-Verbal Kint

[–] Clockwork_OJ 18 years ago

Poor Bill. I hear he's gone through some rough patches recently (such as the suicide of his agent, which unfortunately, sounded like a joke to those he told in all seriousness), and I think he's an underused gem of an actor. His finest work is yet to come, but the Garfield film(s) aren't good examples of that. The first one sucked balls.

[–] ASUActress 18 years ago

Main Entry: hyp·o·crite
Pronunciation: 'hi-p&-"krit
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokritEs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai
: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion

That is from Merriam-Webster's website.
In a way all actors are hypocrites (check the etymology).

That aside, I believe that part of the reason might have to do with respect for Lorenzo Music, the original voice of Garfield AND the voice of Dr. Peter Venkman on "The Real Ghostbusters". Because as a die-hard Garfield fan, the 2004 movie was almost offensive. It was stupid, pointless, cutesy tripe. It lacked the charm, wit, and humor that allowed both adults and children to enjoy the earlier television specials and "Garfield and Friends". Not to mention major character changes and differences in the relationships. To put it lightly, I will be missing the sequel.

But my favorite was when Jennifer Love Hewitt went on "The Daily Show" to promote the first film and Jon Stewart said "So, is Bill Murray a cash whore now?"

"I am but mad north northwest. When the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw."

[–] Croc-O-Dyle 18 years ago

Since Murray is a repulsive slobby dolt almost half as funny, pleasant and amusing as colon bleeding, I'd much rather have him stay in Barfield, which I will never see, than to see him soil Ghostbusters once again.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] superpsaturn 18 years ago

Geez, the guy isn't entitled to change his mind about his own career?

[–] Garfunkul 18 years ago

Exactly. Besides, have you seen Harold Ramis lately? Not sure he'd fit into a proton pack anymore...