Heh, for me it's:

No Murray = MORE interest. I thought his character took away from other more interesting characters.

What!?! All those large women you meet must be warping your mind.

I'm serious. Ramis' and Ayckroyd's characters were far more interesting to me.

I gotta say I'm with robo. Murray did not make either film. It was an ensemble. He is replaceable.

I'd be up for a 3.

Nothing would do "Ghostbusters" less justice than one of those lame past-the-expiration-date sequels where you have to start off by explaining the absence of major characters because most of the original cast wouldn't touch the project.

I know Aykroyd wants to put on that jumpsuit again really badly, but if they want to do another movie, the best move is to start from scratch and do a full-on remake of the first movie.

Now that they could stretch the film to two hours, I think there's a lot more that could be done with the idea of these wonky academics being forced into the public sector.

Best link of the week.

If Aykroyd wants to do a sequel, I would rather see a Spies Like Us sequel.

I was just about to say I read this interview this morning, and this is a TOTAL MISINTERPRETATION of what Ramis said. This isn't getting done.

I'd rather just have an anamorphic DVD release.

IGN & Cinescape are reporting this InFocus interview as something new. Almost word for word from the article posted above from back in Nov. Must be a slow news day.

I love the original. I used to know every line of dialogue by heart, sad isn't it?

The second one was terrible.

I would be up for a third, and Ben Stiller might actually be a good choice in my opinion. Will Smith would add to it also, but you have to get some of the original cast in for this. It wouldn't be worth it with out them. But being that I didn't see these movies 'til they were out for many years, I am not as attached to the all the original characters. I just think that there are so many different ways they can go with this story, that I think it would be a great time for # 3.

So let's see how many people reply this time without taking the time to read that the story is old (and false).

Y'know, I kinda thought the 'inter-dimensional hell' idea was interesting. I wouldn't have minded seeing a movie about that.

Maybe just not a movie with Rick Moranis and 2 old ghostbusters.

(True) Murray had a big falling out with Ramis back around 'Groundhog Day'. That's the main reason Murray doesnt want to do it.

(Joke) Seems like Ramis was stealing Murray's lunch and dinner on the set and Murray found out (Ramis must have blew up 150 pounds since Ghostbusters 2).

No more sequels please.

Unless it's a rated-R horror film with demons killing people.

That premise is absolutely terrible.

I'd still watch it on DVD out of morbid curiousity though.

How come Ernie Hudson never gets any love whenever Ghostbusters is mentioned?

Because Ernie Hudson plays the straight man role.

Ah, just like the original film.

I've only been with the company for a couple of weeks, but these things are real. Since I joined these men, I've seen shit that'll turn you white.

Sadly, he was cut from the film, when it was "reformatted to fit your screen..."

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=18723

A CGI Ghostbusters III?
Source: CISN Country February 2, 2007

Dan Aykroyd visited radio station CISN Country and revealed that a Ghostbusters III is in the works.

Aykroyd said that the film will be CGI and Bill Murray has agreed to do the voice of Dr. Peter Venkman. No word on whether Harold Ramis, Ernie Hudson or any other of the original actors will return to voice their characters.

^what a horrible idea

I think it is a good idea for an experiment and it could be influential. Think of all the franchises that could be revived via CGI that would fend off complaints about the actors being too old while still keeping ties to the original performers. And this is probably the only way Murray would agree to the project.