Why Is Everybody Excited About ‘Ghostbusters 3′?

The Projector
Don't freak out. Sony Pictures
Don't freak out. Sony Pictures

For a couple years now, there has been much buzz about a possible "Ghostbusters 3," which would reunite the original cast and continue the old storyline, even though it's been a few decades since "Ghostbusters 2" came out over the summer of 1989. There's so much excitement about the fact that this sequel may be happening that no one attached to the franchise can get through a Q&A without being asked about it. But, really, do we need a "Ghostbusters 3"?

The latest person to be pestered about the sequel was director Ivan Reitman, who was out promoting "No Strings Attached." But in an interview with ComingSoon.net, the writer had to ask what was going on with "Ghostbusters 3." "We have a really good script, but Bill [Murray] has to read it," Reitman replied. "He

hasn't read it. There has been all kinds of chatter online about him

reading it and not liking it. He has not read a thing. He's never read

anything. And I just sent it to him. So we'll see. God knows how long

that will take. But we'll see."

Throughout the saga of "Ghostbusters 3," the person who always seemed to be the one who could gum up the works was Murray, which is understandable. In the 22 years since the last film, Murray's standing has only grown, grabbing an Oscar nomination for "Lost in Translation," becoming an unofficial muse for director Wes Anderson, and generally turning into one of those effortlessly cool film stars who doesn't need to return to a franchise from the 1980s to make us still care about him.

But if Murray is the biggest question mark, the other cast members present their own problems. Before voicing Yogi Bear for the new movie, Dan Aykroyd had basically fallen off the map, Harold Ramis is more focused on directing, and Ernie Hudson is down to bit parts and the occasional comic book convention appearance. If they're all coming back -- as is Sigourney Weaver -- it'll be good for nostalgia's sake, but why would people be looking forward to seeing them gallivant with ghosts at this late date? Reitman did say that there would be "a whole bunch of new characters" as well, which raises the disturbing specter that this sequel will be one in which the old characters essentially pass the franchise off to a crop of new, young characters so as to make more money for future films. That doesn't inspire a lot of excitement.

We get why people online keep talking about this potential sequel: The original "Ghostbusters" is a comedy juggernaut, one of the most quotable movies of the last 30 years. But while we don't know anything specific about this new film's story, we're thoroughly lukewarm about it ever happening. Remember how terrible "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" was? We don't need another beloved '80s franchise to be ruined in our adulthood.

Exclusive: Ivan Reitman on Ghostbusters 3 [ComingSoon.net]