Re: Ghostbusters 3 is a go!
If only Star Trek had that issue with William Shatner.
Anyways, here's another one. I love Bill Murray, but for a studio to put all their eggs in one basket just sends a bad message. If the big heads truly believe that only Bill Murray can make Ghostbusters work, what is that saying about the franchise itself? It's almost like they want a Bill Murray movie more than a Ghostbusters movie. What happens Bill Murray passes away? Should that kill any Ghostbuster "thing" from ever being made again?
There are several examples of studios, writers and directors moving on without the big talent. Sean Connery left the role of James Bond after he had help in making him an icon, but they still went on without him. What would the Nolan Batman movies be like if Heath Ledger didn't die? Still didn't stop them from making another one, or even replacing a major cast member. Remember how they brought back Kay for Men in Black II? That was an insult to a perfectly good send off that the first movie had. And why? Because the big heads believed you couldn't make a Men in Black sequel without Tommy Lee Jones, and that was a mistake.
One more. As a kid, I played as a Ghostbuster, not Peter Venkman.
Ok.
Um...are we having a debate here? My sense is we aren't. If you're just trying to get across your own personal opinion that it isn't necessary TO YOU that a GB3 film include Bill Murray, well, ok, I get that. Message received, loud and clear.
My point, however, is that while that's all well and good, as a business decision, I suspect the studio views Murray as intrinsic to the brand itself the same way the color "red" is intrinsic to the Coca Cola brand. You may not personally care what color a Coca Cola can is, and might simply say "Hey, I'm in it for what's IN the can, not the can itself."
But branding matters. Branding is the reason why all these remakes, reboots, prequels, sequels, optioned IP films, etc. are being made.
Familiarity with a product means consumers will be more likely to purchase the product. I'll bet you that the Coca Cola company knows (or thinks it knows) how much money it would LOSE if it suddenly changed its can design from the familiar white-script-on-red to, say, orange writing on a green can. I'm betting that the studio heads have done similar estimations on a future GB3 project without Bill Murray and, in their belief, the potential profit doesn't justify the expenditure of money.
So, while you may be fine with Coke in a green can and Ghostbusters without Bill Murray, I'm guessing the studio believes (rightly or wrongly) that Ghostbusters sans Bill Murray will not sell any better than Coke in a green can. And that is why we have no movie.
But yes, I get that you think that's a stupid decision.
