How They Should Have Made Ghostbusters III

As a brand, Ghostbusters has been threatening complete exhaustion since the beginning of the decade. From the constant talks of a possible third movie, to its abrupt cancellation, controversial reboot and touted expanded universe, we just cannot seem to get away from this one simple but great idea from over 30 years ago.

And just when you thought the idea of a third movie was long dead, director Ivan Reitman recently hinted at SD Comic Con that we might see the original team back together again in some form. Following that, Harold Ramis' daughter, Violet Ramis Stiel, spoke out about a possible CG recreation of her father in future GB movies.

Almost out of nowhere, the rumours regarding Ghostbusters III have fired up once again.

While interesting, it all seems too little too late. The loss of Ramis, as well as the divisive reaction to the 2016 reboot has probably soured the idea of continuing the series in any form. Ghostbusters III is something that would have been joyously welcomed ten or even five years ago, but now, the idea just seems tired and problematic.

Among various other issues, there's no respectful way to make it without the ever-reluctant Bill Murray or (a flesh-and-blood) Ramis. But had it happened when the time was right several years ago, how should it have all gone?

The Ghostbusters III fans initially envisioned now has zero chance of being made, so much of this list is obviously wishful thinking. It's nonetheless fun however to speculate on what could have been...

The original film primarily works because of the funny and charming performances from its principle actors, anchored by an enlightened and concentrated director. The Ghostbusters framework alone isn’t enough to make a great movie; it requires the essential creative players to give it familiar tone and spirit.

At its best, the chemistry between Murray, Aykroyd and Ramis is something that simply cannot be replicated, and is ultimately the signature mark of the series. Supplemented by the stable Ernie Hudson and Sigourney Weaver, as well as the madcap Rick Moranis, the film amounts to an offbeat but very well balanced comedy.

But yes, there was the issue of Bill Murray. In various interviews, he seemed fairly back and forth on the idea of returning, but he never outright said never. It's fair to assume he would have committed if the script was unique and good enough, and not just derivative of the first two movies. Whatever the case, the film would have had a very hard time without him.

In fact it would have been depressingly empty if any of the cast were limited to cameo roles or disregarded completely. Each of them were a cornerstone in crafting an ultimately very special franchise, and their absence would have only rendered the film disrespectful and probably kind of pointless.