Bill Murray on "Ghostbuster 3"

Though I'm aware I stand in the minority, I'm one of those who hasn't enjoyed Bill Murray in a long time. He's so dead set on making these Oscar bait, "look at me I'm in an indie movie" flicks that are more of an insult to, ahem, real indie flicks than respectable work. That's right, I'll take "Groundhog Day" before I watch the over-hyped "Lost in Translation" or overwrought "Broken Flowers." The man plays the same character in every one of these movies and the fact he was nominated for doing one of them just shows how asinine the old farts at the Academy Awards really are. [/rant]

That said, it doesn't surprise me that he's the most apprehensive toward another Ghostbusters movie. On the other hand, I'm rather surprised to hear he's not opposed to it either:

“I think the wounds from Ghostbusters 2 have healed," said Murray. “And supposedly they have hired two guys from The Office to write a script. So that could work. I think that’s a good idea to get a fresh look at… I always liked the characters. The characters are fun. And we did have a lot of fun making the movie. The first one was really a lot of fun to make. And I think the first 45 minutes of Ghostbusters is about as fun as a movie gets. [But] We didn’t have a lot of special effects in it. There were just a couple. It was just the funny characters in that world, and I like that movie because of it. The first movie had like 60 plate shots. The second movie had like hundreds. Those guys got their hands on the script early, and it was GONE. It went away. It was hard to wrangle because it was tied all around the effects without the story or the characters coming first. So, they are hard movies to write, and Dan really caught it with that first one.”

He makes a good point about the special effects, but with fresh writers and a long absence in, you know, comedies that are actually funny, I think he should jump head first in to this. Time to have fun again Bill. It's what you were good at and it's what you should have stuck too!