All of this talk must have given the studio jitters again, because the Stupnitsky/Eisenberg script went back down the development hole. Meanwhile the chances of Murray appearing in the film at all continued to dwindle, despite Aykroyd claiming that the new script offered his co-star the “comic role of a lifetime.” Things got even more bitter as Aykroyd mused out loud about recasting the role of Venkman. Again, the idea was that the third film would introduce a new generation of paranormal troubleshooters, although the involvement of the originals was now changed to “could return” instead of “would return.”Īs a side note, the same Variety article stated that one of the reasons a third Ghostbusters film had been delayed for so long–it was now nearly 20 years since Ghostbusters II had been released–was that the financial participation of the originals (Murray, Ramis, Aykroyd, and director/producer Reitman) was so front-loaded that it was difficult for the studio to actually profit off the film itself.
Variety reported that Columbia Pictures had hired screenwriters Lee Eisenberg and Gene Stupnitsky–both executive producers on the hit TV comedy The Office –to pen an entirely new take on a third film.Įisenberg and Stupnitsky weren’t entirely an out-of-the-blue choice they had just written “Year One,” a film directed by Ramis, so the connection to at least one of the original Ghostbusters was there. Subscribe Ghostbusters Gets The Office TreatmentĪlthough the idea of Ghostbusters III was still floating out there like a blob of ectoplasm, it wasn’t until 2008 that there was some real news–and it wasn’t necessarily what fans wanted to hear.
The idea was that Murray’s character, Peter Venkman, would be retired when the movie starts, would be reported as dead, and would come back as a ghost himself in a final twist. Part of the reason for this, of course, was Bill Murray’s reluctance to strap on the proton pack again. Instead they’d serve as support to a new team (a theme that would hang around this franchise all the way to the present). This forces the Ghostbusters to spring into action and eventually confront Satan himself.Įxcept… the OG Ghostbusters were not going to be the main characters in this scenario. When this underworld version of the Big (Burning) Apple becomes too crowded, some of its denizens are starting to be shipped back to our world–a Romero-esque “when there’s no more room in Hell” scenario–and cause chaos. Although they reportedly worked on a script throughout the following decade, the first concrete news about a Ghostbusters IIIemerged in 1999 when word surfaced that a screenplay titled Ghostbusters III: Hellbent had been completed.Īccording to IGN, Hellbent was set to take place in “ManHellton,” an alternate version of New York City located in Hell itself. Here’s a timeline of the ghosts of Ghostbusters 3s past, the abandoned follow-ups that now haunt the winding, endless corridors of that dreaded place known as development hell.ĭan Aykroyd and co-star Harold Ramis–who had written the first two films–were interested in launching a third Ghostbusters film almost immediately after Ghostbusters II became a hit. Many of them were shot down due to budgetary concerns, the questionable involvement of star Bill Murray, or a combination of both (no Bill = no budget).
Yet all during that time, multiple attempts at a third official Ghostbusters movie–many of them spearheaded by self-styled keeper of the flame Dan Aykroyd–were scripted and in development at one point or another. And it was a further five years before Ghostbusters: Afterlife, billed as the first direct sequel to the original pair of films on a big screen, found its way to theaters.
While offshoots like the Ghostbusters video games, comic books and especially the animated series The Real Ghostbusters (1986-1991) kept the brand alive, and even thriving to some extent over the years, it was 27 years before a new theatrical film–Paul Feig’s much-maligned all-female reboot in 2016–arrived in theaters. So why didn’t happen for more than 30 years? Following the blockbuster success of 1984’s Ghostbusters and its less well-received yet still financially winning 1989 follow-up, Ghostbusters II, a third film in the franchise should’ve been inevitable. Who you gonna call? For decades, it didn’t seem like anyone.