Bill Murray Shreds ‘Ghostbusters 3′ Script (Literally)

Published 3 years ago by , Updated February 10th, 2012 at 12:34 pm,

bill murray ghostbusters 3 Bill Murray Shreds Ghostbusters 3 Script (Literally)
Ghostbusters fans around the world can now rejoice, as Bill Murray has finally read the Ghostbusters 3 script. But before any celebrating, you should probably know that he didn’t really like the script… at all.

In fact, the National Enquirer is reporting that Murray disliked the script so much that he decided to shred the script and send it back to his fellow paranormal exterminators, Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis, with a note attached: No one wants to pay money to see fat, old men chasing ghosts!”

Before any of you jump to conclusions regarding the National Enquirer and start making references to “Bat Boy” headlines, be aware that the Pulitzer Prize Board has stated that the National Enquirer is eligible for consideration for their investigative journalism and national news reporting. Plus, Bat Boy is from the Weekly World News, which doesn’t have the Pulitzer Prize Board backing them up.

Additionally, this is not the first time that Murray has acted, well, quirky with scripts. In fact, it initially took Murray months to agree to read the script for the iconic Groundhog’s Day. When Murray finally agreed to read the script, he would only read 10 pages every two weeks. According to Murray, he didn’t want to read the entire thing if it was going to suck. To his credit, he did tell Ramis that the script didn’t suck after reading 30 pages, but he also noted that there’s a possibility that it still could in what’s left of it.

ghostbusters 3 bill murray Bill Murray Shreds Ghostbusters 3 Script (Literally)

Another Murray script story comes straight from Ghostbusters itself. When initially signing on to do Ghostbusters, Murray wanted to do it because he thought it would be fun to do a movie with Ramis, Aykroyd and Ivan Reitman. Murray didn’t actually read the script to Ghostbusters until his first day on set. Fortunately, Reitman only made Murray run around New York City in full gear on the first day, so he had time to learn his lines… and then change them to make them his own.

But now what happens with Ghostbusters 3? As we’ve stated numerous times in the past, Bill Murray is one of the five rights holders to Ghostbusters, so any movie would need his sign-off. And, from the looks of it, they don’t have it.

As it currently stands, Sigourney Weaver, Harold Ramis, Dan Aykroyd, Ivan Reitman, and Sony Pictures (they also hold rights, along with aforementioned folks) have all signed off on the threequel. Unfortunately, Murray’s most recent response to the film has thrown a wrench into things… even more than it already did.

According to those close to Ramis and Aykroyd, receiving the shredded script from Murray upset the two. In fact, it appears that they’re going to attempt to move forward without Murray involved in the movie. Considering it’s likely that they’ll still need some type of sign-off from Murray (even though he’s not in the film), it’ll be interesting to see what happens next.

if anything.

Sony says Ghostbusters 3 begins production in 2012; Murray says No one wants to pay money to see fat, old men chasing ghosts!”

Follow Anthony on Twitter @anthonyocasio

Source: National Enquirer

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. He was right to shred it. It should not be made.

  2. I thought it was a rumor. Is it confirmed by now?

    “No one wants to pay money to see fat, old men chasing ghosts!” Well, I would. Murray is a fool.

      • I know, right? Not only that… Murray should be a bit more greatful to the franchise that made him a superstar. Even if he´s in the movie for a couple of minutes.

  3. is that picture from the royal tennenbaums?

    • It was taken at the USPS, while Murray was waiting to ship off his Christmas gift to his feller busters.

      • Oh please, a man of his stature obviously goes fedex. This slap in the face was made possible by the purple promise

        “i will make every fedex experience outstanding”…i’m just speculating of course :/

  4. I’d go see if to be honest, hey, at least it’s not another damn remake

    • You can sort of argue it’s another damn unnecessary sequel to a series of films that are great and timeless and can do perfectly fine left in the years they were made.

      I’m not gonna assume the flick would be bad or good either way but it’s not like the world is chomping at the bit for a Ghostbusters 3. Which I think is Bill’s point. They made Ghostbusters a success, it’s hailed and celebrated and quoted regularly, why not just leave it alone? In the grand scheme of things nobody is asking for a sequel (save a select few) and it’s a timeless film that’s not really losing it’s charm anytime soon.

      • But if Akroyd and Ramis (who wrote the first two scripts) came up with another great script, who says it´s gonna suck? If they have a great script (I mean, those guys are as old as Murray) and it´d work, why the hell not? Because Murray thinks he´s better than that?

        • I’m not saying it’s gonna suck. In fact I’m explicitly making the point that I don’t think it’s gonna suck. I’m saying I think Bill just doesn’t think a sequel is necessary. Hell, I’m not even agreeing. I’m just playing Devil’s advocate.

  5. This from the guy who made not one but TWO Garfield movies? Must have REALLY sucked!

    • He signed on to do Garfield cuz he thought it was directed by The Cohen Brothers, no joke. Big mistake

      • Joel Cohen wrote Garfield not Joel and Ethan Coen. I highly doubt he signed on cause he thought they were directing it. He would have to be utterly ignorant to think the Coen brothers would direct such a film.

      • A good excuse, but it doesn’t explain why he made Larger than Life.

    • Lol! Great point! How does he do Garfield but doesn’t want to reprise a classic role?

      • Better question: How does he reprise his role as Garfield, but won’t do Ghostbusters 3?

        • Probably because doing a few hours of voice over work for a CGI animated cartoon character pays well and doesn’t require much work.

          Why did Akroyd do the Blues Brothers 2000 ?

          • Most likely because 1) his career was fading and 2) Belushi wasn’t around to smack him in the head, saying, “No!”

          • But why did he make a film with a crap script like Garfield 2, but won’t Ghostbusters 3 b/c of the script?

            • Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Wait one second…Garfield 2 had a script? I thought it was just a drawing of a cat and a dollar sign on the back of a McDonalds napkin.

            • If you really consider voice-over work making a movie or even endorsing something as quality, then I can see you gripe. Fact is so many actors do voice over work because it is just easy money for a little bit of work. Hell major stars have done Uwe Boll movies; that statement just kind of stands on it’s own.

            • mister murray want to be a serious-character star,since this garbage ´lost in transsl..i dont understand him his comedy-classics were all good movies whith irony in it,but he dont wanna talk about his early carrer and acting. i think he´s brainwashed by sophia copp. and the director from royal tennb. forgot his name!

  6. Loved the first one. Was highly unimpressed with the second. I do not see how a third could be anything but awful. My humble opinion is, let the franchise rest in peace.

  7. Billy doesn’t have to be in the movie . He could easily be replaced if he wants .

    • It’s not a matter of him being in the movie. He owns what appears to be 20% of the rights to the movie, so as a partial owner it can’t get made unless he ok’s it.

      Have the other owners to the rights attempted to buy out Murray’s rights or at least pay him off just to get his signature?

  8. If they make it, Murray has to be in it! They can always pull a Rocky explaining why adrian wasn’t in the movie. Just explain that Venkman died in some kind of odd experiment but the movie still wouldnt be the same without Murray!

  9. As much as I don’t want a threequel, couldn’t the fellow right holders just buy his share out?

  10. Well I know alot of people would go see it I know I would I’ve been waiting for it Murray is just being a dumb ass that doesn’t want to make more money lol

    • Agreed. Murray should be greatful. It´s the franchise that made him a superstar…

  11. Even if it’s speculation this has the feel of the Blues Brothers all over it. If one of the originals isn’t around or not interested, maybe it is just a sign to leave it alone.

  12. they could use gis younger brother from Moving Violations

  13. The best part of Zombieland was him. Everyone loved the Ghostbusters bit. He’s a fool.

  14. 2 Things:

    1. Murray is wrong to say no one would pay to see these guys in action again.

    2. The script probably did suck and he was right in tearing it up.

    I also think moving ahead without Murray is a huge mistake.

  15. If, and I mean IF, all this is true, it tells me something about Murray, that he would hold his former friends’ ambitions hostage. As some have said here, why doesn’t he just sell his share to them and wish them well with it?

  16. He does have the rights to deny the film if it is bad, I don’t fault him for that….. But since the fan response is so high for a third, he’s wrong in his assumptions. The biggest issue may be what can they do with the movie that indeed does not suck as an idea? The 2 rumors for years has been the old Ghostbusters mentoring a group of new (young Hollywood) Busters….. That would pretty much such (when has a “passing the torch” film been any good?). The other involving Murray being killed, being a ghost in the film, and Sigourney Weaver’s son from the second film being a Buster…. Well that just sounds awful.

    Maybe he is right, maybe if the film is just the original 4 running around busting ghosts as old men with obvious stunt doubles in action sequences… Murray is correct in his thinking and saving the Ghostbuster fans from a fate that the Indiana Jones fans suffered through

  17. He didn’t want to do the movie even before he read the script, so him tearing it up isn’t that big of a surprise. It could’ve been the best script ever and he would have torn it up anyways, its just his biased opinion (that no one would watch old guys chasing ghosts) that is hurting the fans…

    Not to mention, Murray’s fans as well.

  18. I really think this should be made for the new generation. They did it with the Karate Kid and Footloose and it worked. Both hit movies. It’s generational. For example, the Goonies is classic to me but a 10 year old now might not get it. BUT, if you take the same formula and update it, make it relevant to today, you have another hit but for a whole new generation. I can just keep watching the one I grew up with.

    I’m also interested in a new adventure for the Ghostbusters. I’m interested in seeing them now. What has come about of the characters.

  19. LOL… Think i’ll just go catch some episodes of the eighties cartoon on youtube…The real slimmer

  20. Then GO ON A DIET you fat old man!

    • I was prefuring to i’ll take the slimmer in the cartoon then the slimmer in the movies smart ass

  21. Damn!

  22. Murray is right about nobody wanting to see fat old guys running around…I’d rather see them as the CEO’s of the Ghostbuster’s franchise with younger actors and actresses doing the running around and then turning to the original’s for wisdom. It’s been 20 years so hopefully, they learned how to run a successful business and have a few employees. I don’t think this franchise is done and fans want to see more…with or without Murray, but hopefully with. It’s time for a “requel” (remake/sequel), so bring on Dwayne “the Rock” Johnson (he saves failing franchises) and get to filming.

    I originally wrote a gigantic post but I cut it down…to see it in its entirety, click on my name.

    • You basically wrote the same thing I was thinking. They need to take direction from Start Trek. Having one of the original members in a minor roll was just right. But to move foreward Star Trek needed to do that prequel. Ghost Busters probably wouldn’t works as a prequel so it would basically need to just find another actor with a daynamic personality and good timing to lead the charge like Murray did, a hot woman, a goofy side kick, and a couple other busters who are little more than fixtures to the primary player like in the original.m With today’s improved CG, and some good writing on top of a good lead…it could work very well…

      • “But to move forward Star Trek needed to do that prequel.” WTF?! No. they didn´t! They could have gone with another Picard movie. I hated the Star Trek prequel/reboot crap movie.

    • Thing about this is that the concept of people chasing around crazy creatures with a comedy edge was done again for a new generation, it’s called Men In Black. And as well loved as the original is, the second one was just flat and felt like a cash grab (and that was on top of all the cartoons and other cross-merchandising they got out of those two films). At this point all Ghost Busters would be, even with the original cast, is a bunch of older guys and CGI effects. Unless they are bringing something really fresh to the table and the movie is on par with the first one, the same people who have been asking for this movie would be the first ones ripping it to shreds if it was not good to great.

  23. Good for you bill. Good for you. Damn the man, keep the legend in tact. There’s too many of these garbage sequels and remakes for something as beloved as ghostbusters be tainted by a third outdated film, regardless of the intentions of Ramis and akroyd are good.

  24. Bill Murray is acting like an immature brat about GB3 and after reading about how he acted towards other scripts in the past with a laissez-faire attitude is no surprise how childish hes being now.

    Personally I hope they move on without the jerk. Never thought I’d have such a low opinion of Murray but clearly he thinks very highly of himself.

  25. You know what? At this point, f$%k him. If Bill Murray wants to take his ball and go home, fine. Let him. The original Ghostbusters won’t even be the focal point of the film. I say they should move on without him. Sure, we’ll be disappointed… at first. But by the time the siren on Ecto-1 starts screaming and the Proton Pack fires up that first time, we’ll all forget all this BS ever happened.

  26. Why belive a False Story from The National Enquirer because they made up a story about Bill Murray about Ghostbusters 3 2 years ago and here they go again. Ghostbusters 3 will still be made with or without Bill Murray and Production and Filming will began in 2012 with or without Bill Murray. Dan Aykroyd Confirmed that many times. The GB3 Script is Awesome because Dan Aykroyd confirmed that they have an Excellent GB3 Script. The National Enquirer is making up a false lie again about Bill Murray shreading the GB3 Script and sending it back to Harold and Dan. Bill was on Howard Stern this February and Howard asked Bill about GB3 and Bill told Howard that He owes Ivan a favor and GB3 is it and that he knows that the Fans are waiting for him and he feels bad about that and he said that he will read the script. Now this crap lies from a False source. The National Enquirer are Always making up lies about people so that they can sell a false story and spread it online. I don’t belive this story onebit. It’s Gonna Happen with or without Bill Murray. GB3 is Alive!

    • Hopefully you´re right.



  28. Yeah well if garbage “Snakes on a Plane” and crap like “Epic Movie” made money than Ghostbusters 3 will still blow them out of the water. I work in a movie theatre and you should see some of the crap that people would pay and see.

  29. I think I have deciphered a message in Murray’s “supposed” response to the script: “JNo one wants to pay money to see fat, old men chasing ghosts!K”

    Now, maybe I’m mistaken here, but the letters “JK” are in there. What does “JK” mean? “Just Kidding?”

    It’s either that or somehow “JK” is used to make italics on screenrant.