MovieChat Forums > Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021) Discussion > Bill Murray

Bill Murray

posted 4 years ago by bozo_500 (12177)
27 replies | jump to latest

I'm still kind of surprised he finally agreed to do GB3 after so many 'no ways' over the past 25y

I wonder what finally got him on board?

I guess a big reason was he did the remake so he must've figured well I appeared in that POS (as he was open to giving the SNL girls an endorsement) I may as well slum it in the proper GB3 which can't be as bad. (him being in that kind of makes it abit like Arnold in Terminator Gensys/Dark Fate going from an almost remake to genuine sequel and as a result kind of takes away from the anticipation)

Also I guess there would've been the shame of not appearing (especially after Harold Ramis died) and everyone asking him in interviews to come for other stuff 'hey bill why didn't you do GB3?'- of course that applied to the remake too (I think thats a big reason Ford did Star Wars VII)

Talking of Ford and SW the old original actors coming back for the 'legacy sequels' is now very much the norm (which it wasn't a few years ago when Murray was being pestered to do GB3)

Also its not like he's besieged with movies offers now like before in the 90s when Aykroyd was sending him the GB3 scripts (which hed send back shredded lol). just the odd Wes Anderson movie (again similar to Ford being open to doing SW and Blade Runner again after his above the title leading man status had gone)

And of course lots and lots of money (same as all the old time actors revisiting their past roles for a nice little earner)

[–] MickyMac (2935) 4 years ago

GB3 couldn't be made years earlier because audiences didn't want to see another movie without Bill.

Guessing he finally agreed to do a third movie because Ramis is no longer around and like the other OG cast members he's too old to be the lead.

[–] bozo_500 (12177) 4 years ago

yes that also - the fact that he would just be cameoing/supporting not having to be the lead (like had GB3 been made in the 90s/00s)

[–] MickyMac (2935) 4 years ago

When you go over 50 or 60 and nearing 70 you can't be the lead anymore and don't get much offers as you use to, it's like they can smell 60 or 70.

A new instalment to the franchise needed young blood and the filmmakers knew it.

[–] MickyMac (2935) 3 years ago

They're now free to make Ghostbusters movies without him because he's an old man.

[–] Sidha108 (2350) 4 years ago

Maybe he should play the main villain ghost since he was the “villain” in real life who prevented Ghostbusters 3 for decades.

[–] MickyMac (2935) 4 years ago

Ghostbusters 3 couldn't be made without him because audiences' expectations were demanding that he and everyone else be in it.

[–] Ace_Spade (9336) 4 years ago

I think he really likes doing the Wes Anderson movies. From what I can tell, Bill Murray does Bill Murray. Who knows why he wanted to be in GB3? Maybe he actually liked the project idea and/or script? Maybe he's mellowing in his old age and that cantankerous side is beaten down. Maybe nostalgia. Or maybe it was the threat of a lawsuit, like with the attempted reboot.

[–] MickyMac (2935) 3 years ago

They could've made GB3 years earlier without Bill but the reason that didn't happen because fans were demanding that everybody including Bill Murray be in it, he's the face of the franchise we can't change who it is.

[–] Ace_Spade (9336) 3 years ago

Totally right. I don't think anybody would want to see a Ghostbusters movie without Murray - not a true sequel, anyway. I do think reboots stand a chance, even soft-reboots like Ghostbusters: Afterlife, because it allows the audience and the fans to set aside the original storylines and focus on the new stuff.

Murray made those movies what they were. Sanz is too earnest and Egon is too weird. Venkman views the whole thing with a paradoxical mixture of skepticism and interest, and that's where a lot of audience members are - observers. So we see the world through Venkman's eyes, and then we like the idea of being the wry, sardonic quip-master, so we relate to him more (even though he's super-sleazy) and voila! you've got a great lead character.

[–] MickyMac (2935) 3 years ago

Another problem is in doing a new film now is Bill Murray is now too old to be the lead, so you would do the passing of the torch thing otherwise you'll get some New Tricks thing going on.

They waited too long to make another movie to the point where Harold Ramis is dead, the other guys are too old, a new edition to the franchise needed young blood and new characters and the filmmakers knew it.

[–] Ace_Spade (9336) 3 years ago

Yeah, they definitely knew that. They knew that with the last one, that's why they tried to reboot it. Unfortunately, they did so in a really off-putting way, including trailers which mislead people into thinking that it was within the Ghostbusters original universe (it opened with that, "30 years ago..." text and the plinky Ghostbusters theme), but then didn't follow through. Their trailer was poorly received and then they blamed fans for being misogynists because they didn't like the trailer. Then the final nail in the coffin (or foot on the ghost trap) was a mediocre-at-best film.

Yes, they waited too long.

My personal thinking is that Ghostbusters isn't necessarily a franchise picture idea. The first one is incredible, the second one is lackluster, but kinda fun, and then there's a thirty-year gap and now they're trying to revive it? Forget it.

If they want to revive Ghostbusters...they can't. Bill Murray was the glue, but the whole original team was magic, and they can't recreate it. The idea - exterminators that just happen to fight poltergeists instead of cockroaches - isn't the sort of thing that needs to be an epic saga.

Reboots will lack the magic of the original chemistry and that certain "something", continuations will be tired due to old guys and dearly missed Harold Ramis... it's DOA.

[–] MickyMac (2935) 3 years ago

2016 GB is one of those remakes/reboots to a film that can't really improved upon, it's like the Nightmare On Elm Street remake were people are like "Oh god no".

To continue the franchise properly you needed a sequel sometime in the 90's otherwise a new wouldn't be a straight sequel, there is Ghostbusters The Video Game which is the GB3 that fans wanted and showed the franchise still has momentum.

I don't expect Afterlife to be something like the Star Wars sequel trilogy or Terminator Dark Fate were fans are like "No no you fucked up".

[–] Ace_Spade (9336) 3 years ago

My prediction: GB:A will be heralded with love by the fans the instant it opens. It will be in that Disney/Marvel funny+action type of presentation. It will have a flicker or two of dissenting opinions. Lots of people will dig it for nostalgia ("Just enough shout-outs to the old while allowing the new cast room to shine"), and the film will acknowledge it's roots and maybe even kick at GB2016 a bit, if only by omitting the elements of that film in a deliberate way.

Within a couple weeks - a month tops - people will point out the flaws in the film and how it's just a nostalgia vehicle, but it's not the same and it borrows too much from the original to stand on its own legs.

A year passes and the Piranha Journalism that stands in for movie critique and review these days will eat it alive and everybody will make fun of it for a little bit and then forget it existed.

Then fans of the original will rip on it here and on other film message boards and the (few) fans who liked it will fight back a bit, but the mainstream won't even notice.

[–] bozo_500 (12177) 3 years ago

sounds like Superman Returns

[–] Ace_Spade (9336) 3 years ago

I don't remember people really liking Superman Returns when it first came out. Reviews and audience reaction was kinda "Mmm...that could have been better," right out of the gate.

[–] bozo_500 (12177) 3 years ago

i remember the big (uk) magazines like empire, total film gave it 5/5 so it seemed it was like abit of a film buffs film (obviously no RT% etc back then)..but then after a couple years i noticed those guides was getting meh about it.. but i think you're right about audiences were indifferent to it right from start and much preferred Pirates 2 (man it all seems so very long ago now like a completely different era)

[–] Ace_Spade (9336) 3 years ago

Yeah, the whole movie world alone was super-different, plus...I feel like there might be some sort of viral thing right now... whole different era.

Maybe I'm misremembering, but yeah, I thought the reviews were "that was okay," and mostly praised Routh's resemblance to Reeves.

For my own part, I kinda like Superman Returns. It's a bit of a hot mess, with the rehash land-grab plot, and the misfire with the child plot, but there was quite a bit I enjoyed about it. Routh was good, I didn't mind Bosworth as Lois, Spacey was good, and it has my single, favourite scene in a Superman film ("What do you hear?"). So, mixed bag, but mostly positive. Compared to Man of Steel, I loved it.

[–] bozo_500 (12177) 3 years ago

it was probably literally just those 2 publications (Empire and TF) that gave it the 5 star 'instant classic' status - the rest were probably indifferent. i myself was looking foward to it in a big way as grew up on the reeve films and had been following the 5th film since the early days of surfing the net in the mid 90s and when it switched to Singer was making a sequel to those films incorporating the JW score, crystal fortress and even brando my interest was off the charts.. but watching it first time in cinema came out feeling 'that was it?'... With MoS i was only mildly interested in as was an all out reboot from the off but still fascinating as TDK team was behind it .. but again came out feeling 'that was it?'

[–] Ace_Spade (9336) 3 years ago

SR was anticlimactic, yes. It started so well with the concept of Superman having left and returned, the question of whether or not he was really needed, and a really great action scene with the plane rescue. Then it just meandered around (awesome upper-atmosphere flight with Lois scene notwithstanding). And the John Williams music was so good, so welcome. I remember after seeing Batman Begins that I thought it was an awesome Batman movie, but I really missed Elfman's score.

MoS I got bored. The Krypton stuff was kinda cool, but mostly just eye candy. They didn't really get into the culture enough for it to a) be fun to explore and b) make logical sense. I liked the scene where ghost/program-Jor-El helps Lois escape the ship. That was neat. But the final fights were just repetitive. "Oh, look, I guess they knocked down that building, too. Whoopitty-doo..."

[–] Martoto (4085) 3 years ago

In what logical way would GB Afterlife be including elements of GB 2016? They are in different universes.

And since when do divergent movie universes/timelines omit elements in order to "kick out" at each other?

My guess is that this movie will be completely inoffensive and predictable and therefore confirmed as a triumph (it's already happening with Zack Snyder's Justice League) and then quickly forgotten.

Too many people have made too much money from acting like GB 2016 raped their childhood when they were still in the womb for them to turn on GB Afterlife. Not this year. Not next year. It just won't get talked about. Unless the young female character makes fun of the young male characters. That might give them an in to be able to claim that they just care about good storytelling blah blah....

[–] Ace_Spade (9336) 3 years ago

By "kick at" I meant they might take one or two lines to take a shot at GB2016. For instance, they might have a nerd character who is always on internet chat rooms and make a point of not demonizing or stereotyping him because that's just mean - and that would be a (not so) subtle dig at the antagonist of GB2016. They might comment how you can't just turn proton pack tech into gloves to "punch ghosts" - that's stupid. Or something.

[–] Martoto (4085) 3 years ago

What about the part where you said the might omit an element of GB2016 in order to kick at it?

And those two examples wouldn't make sense. I don't even remember the nerd character in GB2016 always being on internet chat rooms. (I do know that a new scene was shot for GB2016 after the trailer was attacked in which they refer to online abuse).

A villain in a movie these days is likely to be on internet chat rooms because nearly everyone is.

Who says you can't punch ghosts with a proton pack? Who said you need to lasso them?

I imagine that fans who deal in that kind of schoolyard mentality will find something that's a kicking at GB2016 anyway even if it's not there.

[–] Ace_Spade (9336) 3 years ago

Oh, I see. Your point is well-taken, and I get what you mean now on the omission thing.

I'm just - I just mean that they would take the mick out of GB2016 by criticizing the villain. These are just quick-fire thoughts of highly speculative things just to give examples as to how GB:A might take a stab at GB2016.

[–] Kowalski (57353) 4 years ago

HE IS IN AND ITS GONNA ROCK...THATS WHAT IM GOING WITH.

[–] Otter (24464) 3 years ago

Well I HOPE the reason is that they came up with a script that's so good that he can't wait to be a part of it!

Of course it's far more likely that they just offered him a shit-ton of money at a time when he felt like he could use a good infusion of cash, but I can dream.

[–] bozo_500 (12177) 3 years ago

BM talks being duped into GB2 and abit about GB3
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-9443009/Bill-Murray-reveals-outfoxed-joining-Ghostbusters-II-sequel.html

[–] bozo_500 (12177) 2 years ago

looks like Bill used his GB3 connections to score a role in Rudds AntMan 3
https://cosmicbook.news/bill-murray-marvel-ant-man-quantumania