Dan Aykroyd Confirms Ghostbusters 3 Rumors

Ghostbusters225.jpgSpeaking to WGN Radio Chicago, Dan Aykroyd threw some fuel to the Ghostbusters 3 fires, confirming that not only is the new movie already casting, but there a lot of "strong possiblities" being considered. Along with the return of Sigourney Weaver and Bill Murray, Aykroyd revealed that they've also been looking at Bill Hader (great!), Anna Faris (yay!) and Eliza Dushku (must we?). While part of me is buoyed by a return to the Ghostbusters world, the part of me that saw the last Indiana Jones movie is wary of film franchises that return after a long, dormant period. [/Film]



Comments

  • Mary says:

    WHAT!?! Why are they making a third movie? The first two were amazing and are fine just the way they are, they don't need a third movie! That will just ruin the series! I apologize for not having an open-mind, but honestly how many sequels or remakes have I seen that are absolutley horrible and uneeded: alot.

  • casting couch says:

    The first one was amazing. The second one was just disappointing. Except for that creepy painting.

  • meme says:

    They do seem to have taken the time getting here. Even if it is just a passing of the tourch to the next gen film it might work. Reluctant Bill Murray getting involved must mean somethings working in the sequels favour.
    Bill and Ted 3 on the way too I hear, Reeves defo wouldn't be attached if it wasn't also a worthwhile script.

  • R4 says:

    I really hope this movie isn't a flop - I love Ghostbusters and want to see them do well!

  • William Dwyer says:

    The second one was a flop...why the high expectations? People, it's just milking the franchise...nothing more. It's why there were rumors (denied by Lucas) that another Indiana Jones movie was in development earlier this year. It all comes down to whether a product will make money. In this instance, the limited Ghostbusters exposure (i.e. - computer, video games, animated TV) has done commercially well. This is not Star Trek or Star Wars where every time we turn around there is a sequel or another dozen special editions being released. They haven't been over exposed. It's one of those franchises that hangs around, and if they release something every ten years...will still produce well. My kids knows what Ghostbusters is, and they haven't seen the movies. The next movie (if done well) has the potential of relaunching the franchise...and make it relevant again.

  • Jason Glugla says:

    Time to cash a paycheck and ruin another film idea.

  • Karen Helton says:

    I'm a little excited about the possibilities. Dan Aykroyd's family were spiritualists from way back. His father published a book on the subject of spiritualism and his family's role in the Spiritualist Movement of the late 19th and early 20th century. We'll see what happens but I think it could be fun.

  • Yawn. I suspect a big check will be heading Bill Murray's way soon. The comic potential of a Ghostbusters film is still there, but if it's done for all the wrong reasons why should be optimistic about it?

  • The Winchester says:

    At least it's this crop of SNL players, and we're spared the Farley/Spade pair up that would have been.

  • Dimo says:

    I'm pretty sure that I read in Tobin's Spirit Guide that a third movie means the return of Gozer...and a bunch of suckers going to see it.

  • Miller says:

    Just glad to hear that Weaver's back. It wouldn't have been quite the same without her. I also find it funny that people on here bitching about bringing back a twenty plus year old franchise are also probably the ones who are most excited about Tron: Legacy. A franchise that has no successful history behind it and is playing strictly off of nostalgia.

  • Marco says:

    Mark my words:
    Like all '80's rehashes of once glorious films, this will follow the same suit as Indiana Jones, Die Hard (4.0) and Wall Street - you'll have an old-timer with a virtual "guest role" appearing alongside a young energetic buck, some a*sewipe like Shyla Lebouffont or somesuch personalitiless cypher, purely so the moneymaking torch can be passed on (so as to rake in the teen-30's market).

  • ILDC says:

    Didn't they already make a Ghostbusters 3? Like, for the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360?

  • JC says:

    I wish all of you snobby "film connoisseur" a-holes would stfu about Ghosterbusters III (and Indy 4). Some of us are happy to spend $7 on a "good enough" flick without expecting Casablanca. Sheesh. I never thought I'd hear myself say this, but you geeks (I am one) suck!

  • JC says:

    You have no clue, so pipe down, piker. Go back to reading "Idiot's Guide to Screenwriting" and pretending to be Leonard Maltin's love chid with the Baseline database.

  • Cameron Williams says:

    Hollywood loves brands because brand recognition guarantees an audience i.e. money in the bank. Ghostbusters 3, like Indy IV before it, are nothing but soulless cash grabs. Kudos to Bill Murray for resisting what be enormous pressure from everyone who wants to get rich off this. Either that or Murray is just trying to negotiate a higher fee, in which case f*ck him and his agent.

  • Cameron says:

    Don't have any kids you dumb motherfucker.

  • Cameron says:

    Yes they did and I got bored 5 mins in. Ghostbusters, like so many others, should only ever have been one movie.

  • Sean says:

    It's not milking, they're making it because they want to. The group got together to do voiceovers for ghostbusters the game and once the whole process was done they realized how much fun they have working together. That's what got Ghostbusters 3 rolling. Not money.

Post a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s