Though this has been a rumor around Hollywood since 1989, it seems that there are finally reasons to believe this is happening. I am totally scared and excited at the same time. Ghostbusters is my favorite movie of all time.

I first heard about it over on AICN and again this morning on Cinematical. It was Variety which broke the story originally:

[spoil]


[hr]
[align=left]Columbia Pictures is getting serious about scaring up a new installment of its blockbuster "Ghostbusters" franchise.

The studio has set "The Office" co-exec producers Lee Eisenberg and Gene Stupnitsky to write a script for a film designed to bring back together the original cast of Harold Ramis, Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Ernie Hudson.

Studio would not comment on the development and has been mum on recent rumors that there was interest in making another installment of the franchise.

The scribes just wrote "Year One," a comedy that was directed by Ramis. Ramis with Aykroyd wrote the first two installments of the films. Ivan Reitman directed both the 1984 original and the sequel that was released in 1989. The close proximity between the writers and original Ghostbuster Ramis is evidence that the ghost chasers have sparked to the idea of returning.

"Ghostbusters" was Columbia's highest grossing film ever, until it was beaten by "Men in Black" and then "Spider-Man." An attempt to make a third installment of the franchise was stymied in the dealmaking stage. Sources said so much gross was pledged to the participants that it was next to impossible for the studio to make any money on a third installment.

No deals will be made with the original cast until the script is ready, but the gross percentage will certainly be an issue. Sony has a standing policy not to allow more than 25% of first dollar gross out the door.

The scribes, who are Emmy- nominated for their work on "The Office," just set up another picture at Columbia, selling their spec script "Bad Teacher" to the studio for Jimmy Miller to produce.[/align]

[/spoil]

The originals were just fine and those were what made the franchise. The remake won't nearly be as good as the originals. Fuck all these damn reboots. Hollywood has completely run out of ideas.

Wait I don't think this is right. I think that article is wrong this article here is saying it's gonna be a reboot not a sequel.

Yes because reboots certainly didn't work out for the Batman franchise. Look, I'm not saying reboots are the greatest thing in the world. But sometimes they turn out okay and there is no reason to be down on a project before footage has been seen. Lets wait a bit and see how it goes.

If history has taught me one thing, it's that people like the same shit over and over. Hence, why we're here in the first place...

Unless you're a self-hating nerd who can't kick the Hatorade 'diction.

On the subject of reboots, they can go one of three ways. We could get The Dark Knight, Batman & Robin or something like Superman Returns. One excellent, one god-awful, one simply "blah".

Now on the subject of Ghostbusters, here you have a franchise that's perpetually stuck in the 80's. Ghostbusters is a great flick, a relic of a bygone era for movies. The sequel was certainly nothing to write home about, and considering the whole team from the original movie was present for that one, I don't think it really bodes well for a third outing some 20 years later.

Fixed.

Raiders is pretty timeless to me. Ghostbusters, on the other hand. The cars, settings, hairstyles, special effects; everything screams "1980's". The sequel is much, much worse in that regard. Run DMC's version of "Ghostbusters", however, is awesome to this day. And here we GO:

[flash width=640 height=385]http://www.youtube.com/v/eLWOaAJtjgI?fs=1&hl=en_US[/flash]

Oh I agree the Ghostbusters franchise has been very 1980s in the first two movies. But since they were made in the 80's and the setting was 1980s New York, I wouldn't expect anything different. That's not to say that another Ghostbusters couldn't be based in a different time and work. The story and comedy is what will make or break any GB movie. And I don't think story and comedy only works in the 1980s.

That's true. I mean despite the visual effects the first movie actually has more in common with a 1940's screwball comedy than "Fast Times at Ridgment High" or "Weird Science."

Considering the first flick was basically a going into business story, as Reitman and Ramis described on the DVD special edition from '99, it makes sense to have the guys who honed their skills on a show about the workplace take over the reins on the next Ghostbusters.

[align=center]ON OUR OWN[/align]
[spoil][flash width=640 height=385]http://www.youtube.com/v/uHv9r28DTUE?fs=1&hl=en_US[/flash][/spoil]

The Chicago Tribune has heard from Harold Ramis on the script and players involved.



Harold Ramis:

QUOTE: "Yes, Columbia is developing a script for GB3 with my year one writing partners, Gene Stupnitsky and Lee Eisenberg. Judd Apatow is co-producing Year One and has made several other films for sony, so of course the studio is hoping to tap into some of the same acting talent.

Aykroyd, Ivan Reitman and I are consulting at this point, and according to Dan, Bill Murray is willing to be involved on some level. He did record his dialogue for the new Ghostbusters video game, as did Danny and I, and Ernie Hudson.

The concept is that the Old Ghostbusters would appear in the film in some mentor capacity. Not much else to say at this point. Everyone is confident a decent script can be written and i guess we'll take it from there.

it isn't that reboots can't be fine films that will entertain, it's just sad that there is such a lack of new ideas coming out of Hollywood. I want to be more than just fairly entertained when I spend $30 to take my wife to a movie. It is going to take more than a reboot in fact to get me to go to the theater and not wait for the DVD or PPV release.

With the quality of home theaters these days it is going to take much more to get people to not wait. There are always those films that must be seen on the big screen, but again HD projectors and a good speaker set up is a fairly close 2nd to the theater experience even for a star wars type movie.

• Murray's March 2010 appearance on Letterman.
• GQ Article about Akroyd's involvement.
• Peter Venkman 2010!

[align=center]BILL MURRAY - DAVID LETTERMAN SHOW MARCH 2010 VIDEO[/align]
[spoil]
[flash width=640 height=385]http://www.youtube.com/v/lcJPBVW-iiM?fs=1&hl=en_US&rel=0[/flash]
[/spoil]
[align=center]DAN AKROYD VANITY FAIR OCTOBER 2010 INTERVIEW[/align]
[spoil]
[align=left]GQ:

Speaking of your film career, last month in GQ Bill Murray said something that wasn’t so nice about Ghostbusters 3.

Dan Akroyd:

He was talking about the writers from Year One, and I think he was reacting to the box-office success and the general public view of the film, which in my view was a very serviceable comedy, and in the end I think they’ll make their money back.

I think he was concerned that the writing on Ghostbusters 3 by these guys would not be up to standard, but I can tell you firsthand, I’m working on the script now and those two - Stupnitsky and Eisenberg, [writer-producers The Office] - wrote Bill the comic role of a lifetime, and the new Ghostbusters and the old are all well represented in it …

we have a strong first draft that Harold [Ramis] and I will take back, and I’m very excited about working on it.
[/align][/spoil]
[align=center]BILL MURRAY SCREAM AWARDS OCTOBER 2010 GALLERY[/align]
[spoil]










[/spoil]
[align=left][/align]
BILL MURRAY OCTOBER 2010

We had part of a slinky. But I straightened it.