Terry Gilliam’s next film, The Zero Theorem, has wrapped shooting and is working its way through post-production, but that doesn’t mean that the director is done casting actors for the film.

In an interview with Bill Murray for the British release of his latest film Hyde Park On Hudson, the Sunday Times mentioned that the actor has been approached to appear in the film -

He’s also being courted for a role in Terry Gilliam’s The Zero Theorem, but isn’t sure he will have the time (read: ­inclination) to do it. “Terry’s a fun guy to hang out with,” he says. “His stuff doesn’t always work for me, but it’s not for lack of trying. He really throws it out there.”

So what could Murray do for a film that is already done shooting? A portion of the film’s plot involves telephone calls being received by the chief protagonist Qohen Leth (being played by a head-shaven Christoph Waltz). It is possible that Gilliam is interested in Murray for some voice over work that would be done during the current post-production phase.

Of course, the reporter could have gotten the story a bit wrong. Murray could have been referring to something that Gilliam is trying to get set up. Certainly having Bill Murray attached to a project would be a good way to interest potential investors. If so, could it be another attempt to get The Man Who Killed Don Quixote going?

Via Bleeding Cool.

There’s a phrase in journalism known as “burying the lede” in which a writer takes what should be an important and highlighted piece of information and sticks it deep into a story where it might get overlooked. That happened today with a story from Deadline about director Ivan Reitman having his football film Draft Day which is to star Kevin Costner postponed in order for him to shoot the long awaited Ghostbusters 3 next summer.

Reitman and partner Tom Pollock developed the Moneyball-esque Draft Day, the fictional account of the events that take place on a draft day for the perennial also-ran Buffalo Bills. Costner would play the team’s GM, but timing is a major challenge for this film.
Paramount chose not to make it in the small window that Reitman has before he is expected to finally get the long-gestating Ghostbusters reboot in front of the cameras next summer for Sony Pictures (sans Bill Murray)…

It would be tough to find room to squeeze in the football film and finish before Reitman goes back to Ghostbusters duty.

Lots to decipher out of this small bit, the least of which is that it appears as if Sony is serious enough about making a new Ghostbusters film that they are willing to begin arranging their production schedule around the project. So that’s definitely a positive sign.

And a summer 2013 shoot would definitely position the film for a release in 2014, just in time for the original film’s 30th anniversary. What better time to release a new film, especially one that will purportedly pass on the franchise to a new, younger set of paranormal removal specialists?

We should note that the report does use the word “reboot.” But was it just a misused word for returning to the franchise or was Reitman more than just speculating last month when he stated “I think Ghostbusters probably should be remade”? I have a feeling that that is not happening and the writer just had a moment of bad word choice.

Finally, though, it does appear as if star Bill Murray will not be coming back for this third go-round. Aykroyd had stated before if Murray wasn’t interested in coming back that they would move forward without him. Murray has always been the main hold up on a third film due to a contract clause from the original that gave him a vote on moving forward with any sequel. His dissatisfaction with how Ghostbusters 2 turned out has been the major factor in his reluctance to come back for a third time.

And with Murray’s absence it looks as if we’re back to the same two questions about the film we had the last time it appeared as if he wasn’t going to be participating – Will they recast his role or will his character not appear at all and his absence be explained away with a few lines of dialogue.

Of course, there always remains the biggest question – Will people want to see a Murray-less Ghostbusters film?

Is the much talked about Ghostbusters sequel not quite what everyone is thinking it will be?

While doing the publicity rounds for the blu-ray release of his movie Dave, Ghostbusters director Ivan Reitman was of course asked about the ongoing struggle to get a third film for the franchise together. Here’s what he told Collider –

I think Ghostbusters probably should be remade, if we can get it all right. We’re working on it, so we’ll see.

There was no follow up from Collider on this statement, so all we are left is some speculation.

Have Reitman and Ghostbusters writer and co-star Dan Aykroyd given up on a third installment and are now looking at remaking the original film, presumably with a cast of young talent? It is not such a far-fetched idea, considering that one of the main sticking points to getting a third film going has been co-star Bill Murray’s reluctance to strap on his proton pack one more time. Remember that at one time Aykroyd himself once mooted the possibility of moving forward on a new film without Murray’s participation. A relaunch of the franchise would certainly be in line with that notion.

But I have to say that a flat out remake of Ghostbusters just sounds like a terrible idea. The film is a classic for several reasons, the least of which were an incredible screenplay and the incredible chemistry between the entire cast. There simply doesn’t seem to me to be a way in which one could improve on wither of those two aspects and trying to sounds like you would just be setting yourself up to disappoint people.

Here’s hoping that Reitman actually misspoke and that they are still working on a straight-up third film and not some sort of remake/reboot fiasco.

Here we go again.

As Dan Aykroyd continues in his struggle to get a third Ghostbusters film to screens, he has gone back and forth as to whether franchise co-star Bill Murray would be back for a third go-round as wisecracking paranormal disposal expert Peter Vehnkman or not.

Most recently, Murray sounded as if he was still actively involved in the development by telling late night talk show host David Letterman that although the most recent draft of the script didn’t meet his expectations they were going to “try again.” But now Aykroyd seems to be squelching that assumption by stating that the sequel training is leaving the station and Murray is not aboard it.

The revelation came in an interview with the British Metro -

No, I can tell you he [Murray] won’t be involved… It’s sad but we’re passing it on to a new generation. Ghostbusters 3 can be a successful movie without Bill. My preference would be to have him involved but at this point he doesn’t seem to be coming and we have to move on. It’s time to make the third one.

Aykroyd did confirm that they were moving forward with a new writer, though he didn’t mention newly hired scribe Etan Cohen by name.

[W]e’ve got a brilliant new writer on it and we’ll be passing the torch on to a new generation. We’re working on it to make it just right to satisfy our fans. I’m confident we’ll be in production in the next year… [W]e’ve got the studio on side. We’ve tried a few concepts which weren’t right but now we’ve got a good structure and will make it happen.

Murray has always been the main hold up on a third film due to a contract clause from the original pair of films that gave him a vote on moving forward with any new film. His dissatisfaction with how Ghostbusters 2 turned out has been the major factor in his reluctance to approve a third film.

And with Murray’s absence it looks as if we’re back to the same two questions about the film we had the last time it appeared as if he wasn’t going to be participating – Will they recast his role or will his character not appear at all and his absence be explained away with a few lines of dialogue.

If course, there always remains the biggest question – Will people want to see a Murray-less Ghostbusters film?

Last week we let you know that Dan Aykroyd was still hard at work on getting a third Ghostbusters film off the ground. the most recent script that he ran by co-star Bill Murray apparently hadn’t past muster and Aykroyd had “a new writing staff working on it now.” Today, Variety has revealed that that writing team is actually the solo act that is Etan Cohen.

If Cohen’s name doesn’t jump right out at you, let me point you in the direction of films such as Tropic Thunder and Idiocracy. Additionally, Cohen has a few episodes of the animated series King Of The Hill. (We’ll forgive him for having Men In Black III as well considering what a complete unorganized mess that film’s history of rewrites was.)

Most encouraging, though, is that Cohen had a horror-comedy-action script on 2010′s Black List, Boy Scouts Vs Zombies. And having read it I can tell you that it is just as goofily fun as its title may suggest and honestly gives me a better feeling about the project than previous scripters Lee Eisenberg and Gene Stupnitsky did.

Currently, Cohen is supposedly preparing to direct Boy Scouts Vs Zombies, his directorial debut. It is unclear which project will take precedence or if he will be working from Eisenberg and Stupnitsky’s draft or starting fresh from page one.

Via Variety.

For time immemorial now it seems Dan Aykroyd has been trying to get a third Ghostbusters film project off the ground. And the biggest obstacle to that has been star Bill Murray’s oscillating interest in wanting to return to his role of wisecracking paranormal expert Peter Vankman. Just a few weeks ago, Murray stated that he had finally gotten around to read the script drafted by The Office writers Lee Eisenberg and Lee Stupnitsky and hinted to David Letterman that he found it wanting, but that “We’ll try again.”

Aykroyd has confirmed that there are indeed new writers working on the screenplay while he was making a public appearance this past weekend to promote his private label vodka.

We’ve got a new writing staff working on it now. It’s got to be prefect. That’s the whole thing. There’s no point in doing it unless it’s perfect. So that’s what we’re up to now.

(You can see the source of the quote in a local news clip, via SlashFilm, below.)

An interesting comment that could be read as hinting that Murray may be at least tentatively interested in moving forward. You may remember a while back when Aykroyd stated that they would move forward with Ghostbusters III whether or not Murray was interested in coming back. But if he has new writers going through the script than perhaps it is too address concerns that Murray may have about the script. I doubt that this is a page one rewrite if only because if Aykroyd thought the script was good enough to send to Murray to begin with then it would be good enough for him to use if they were moving forward without Murray.

Now if we could just find out who this “writing staff” actually is.

The big hold up on a Ghostbusters 3 film ever getting into production has always been Bill Murray. The comic actor’s attitude towards the idea has waffled back and forth over the last couple of years from “Why bother?” to “Well, maybe…” Recently, his attitude had seemed that he wasn’t much interested, even going as far as saying that he had not even read the latest iteration of the screenplay for the project written by The Office writers Gene Stupnitsky and Lee Eisenberg.

Well, Murray’s pendulum has apparently swung back since then, as on an appearance on The Late Show With David Letterman he stated that he would like to do a third film but “It’s got to be really funny.”

I think we may be able parse his statement “I think we’ll try again,” as an admission that he has read the script but found it wanting.

But does Murray really want to do the movie? It is hard to say. Reportedly he and co-star Dan Aykroyd are still good friends and if so, I can understand that he wouldn’t want to disappoint him even if he is reluctant to strap on an unlicensed proton accelerator one more time. Sadly, I don’t see us getting a resolution to this anytime soon.

Dan Aykroyd has confirmed what had only been hinted and guess at before – Bill Murray has no desire to strap on a proton pack for one last round of ghostbusting.

Aykroyd made the admission in an interview with the London Telegraph when asked about the status of the long in development Ghostbusters 3 sequel -

I honestly don’t know. At this point it’s in suspended animation. The studio, the director Ivan Reitman and Harold Ramis feel there must be a way to do it, but Bill Murray will not do the movie.

I have to say that I am saddened, but not surprised, by this news. Aykroyd has been trying to get this project moving for sometime, having overseen a script written by The Office and Bad Teacher scribes Lee Eisenberg and Gene Stupnitsky. With studio Columbia, director Ivan Reitman and co-stars Harold Ramis and Ernie Hudson all behind the project, Murray has become the lone hold out even though it looked for a time that he might consider doing it.

But Aykroyd isn’t upset with his former Saturday Night Live colleague. In fact he expresses empathy with his decision.

He doesn’t want to be involved. He’s got six kids, houses all over America. He golfs in these tournaments where they pay him to turn up and have a laugh. He’s into this life and living it. I know we’d have a lot of fun [but] I can’t be mad at him. He’s a friend first, a colleague second. We have a deep personal relationship that transcends business and he doesn’t want to know.

But Aykroyd also states that just because Murray won’t be a part f the film doesn’t mean that Ghostbusters 3 is officially a dead project just yet. He has hinted recently that they could recast Murray and suggests that there is some thought on how to continue without Murray.

We’re not going to do a movie that exploits the franchise. The script has to be perfect. I’m the cheerleader, but I’m only one voice in the matter. It’s a surety that Bill Murray will not do the movie, however there is still interest from the studio.

But the question remains, is there interest in the public for a non-Murray Ghostbusters film?

It has been a bit quiet as of late in the long, continuing saga of Ghostbusters 3‘s development. Everyone has been waiting since last year at this time for Bill Murray to get around to reading the proposed script, but he seems to be taking his time in doing so. But now franchise co-star and co-creator Dan Aykroyd has hinted that they might just move forward without Murray’s participation.

In an interview with the British genre magazine Empire, Aykroyd denied the recent rumor that Murray shredded a copy of the proposed script and sent the remains back to him with a note saying to the effect that no one wants to see a bunch of old men chasing ghosts.

Bill Murray is not capable of such behaviour. This is simply something that would not be in his nature. We have a deep, private personal relationship that transcends business. We communicate frequently and his position on the involvement in Ghostbusters 3 has been made clear and I respect that. But Bill has too much positive estimation of my writing skills to shred the work.

But the real takeaway from their interview was this comment-

Even more intriguingly, Aykroyd hinted that Bill Murray may not return as Peter Venkman, and that the character could be played by a different actor, a la Jack Ryan.

Now I’ll admit that I wish Empire had a direct quote here, but even without one this is still an interesting development. Aykroyd may be entertaining going ahead with a different actor in Murray’s part, but will folks find another an actor in the role as entertaining as Murray has been? Will studio executives even give us a chance to find out if a different actor in the role would be accepted by the public.

Murray has been such a key component of the two films that it would seem like suicide to continue without him. But the same thing was thought about Sean Connery leaving the James Bond franchise, but that seemed to continue on just fine. Who could takeover for Murray and still do a credible job in the role? Murray’s Caddyshack role was recast  for the sequel, but the actor who stepped in was Aykroyd, so he’s out. I am at a complete loss as to who the role could be given to. It would seem that the more prudent thing to do, if you recklessly want to go ahead without Murray, would be to write an explanation as to why Peter Venkman isn’t around and continue your story from there.

But let’s not forget that this would not be the first time that the role of Dr Peter Venkman has been recast. Originally, Aykroyd had written the film with his good friend John Belushi in mind for the part and it was only after Belushi’s death did Murray get the role. Additionally, for the Real Ghostbusters animated series veteran voice actor Lorenzo Music supplied the voice of the character for the first two seasons before being replaced, by the far inferior in my opinion, Dave Coulier.

In a multi-part series, Comic Book Film Editor William Gatevackes will be tracing the history of comic book movies from the earliest days of the film serials to today’s big blockbusters and beyond. Along with the history lesson, Bill will be covering some of the most prominent comic book films over the years and why they were so special. This time, we discuss the strange journey of Heavy Metal from Europe to America to the Silver Screen.

National Lampoon has given us a lot over the years. It has given us writers such as Doug Kenney, Michael O’Donaghue, P.J. O’Rourke and John Hughes. It gave exposure to comic actors like John Belushi, Gilda Radner, Christopher Guest, Chevy Chase and Bill Murray. It has even “Presented” films like Animal House, Vacation, and Van Wilder.

It has also, in a roundabout way, given us the film Heavy Metal, too. Well, at least the magazine the movie was based on.

Heavy Metal magazine began as the French magazine Métal Hurlant, an anthology graphic magazine started in 1974 by legendary French artists Jean Giraud A.K.A. Mœbius and Philippe Druillet. It presented comics drawn and written from a distinctly European point of view, along with text articles on all areas of popular culture.

National Lampoon publisher Leonard Mogel was in Paris to try and get Lampoon published in France when he stumbled across Métal Hurlant (which stands for “Howling Metal”) and saw it as something that might work in the United States. He licensed the magazine, renamed it Heavy Metal to have it resonate with American audiences more and started publishing it on high-stock glossy paper as a monthly magazine.

The mag gave European artists such as Giraud, Milo Manara and Esteban Maroto exposure in the U.S. as their work in Métal Hurlant was translated and reprinted in Heavy Metal. It featured work from such luminaries as H.R. Giger, Stephen King, Harlan Ellison and William S. Burroughs in its pages. And it published serials by artists like Arthur Suydam, Bernie Wrightson  and Howard Cruse, among others.

It’s these serials that got adapted into the 1981 film, Heavy Metal, which like the magazine was an anthology of stories inspired and written by creators that worked for the periodical.

The film featured six installments with a framing sequence tied together by one mystical object, a glowing green sphere of unearthly power called the Loc-Nar. The individual installments feature the distinctive variety of styles that were at home in the magazine, ranging from futuristic noir to historical horror, from imaginative fantasy to satiric humor. The film was produced by Ivan Reitman, featured the voices of SCTVers John Candy, Joe Flaherty, Eugene Levy and Harold Ramis. And it had an eclectic soundtrack that featured Black Sabbath, Blue Oyster Cult, Stevie Nicks, Devo and Cheap Trick.  That line up of musicians was one of the reasons why the film took so long to be released on home video, as nailing down the rights to the music became an issue.

In 1992, longtime Heavy Metal fan and co-creator of the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Kevin Eastman bought the magazine and set himself up as publisher and editor. Heavy Metal 2000 was released early on in Eastman’sreign as publisher, but had more to do with the man then the magazine.

Heavy Metal 2000 was not adapted from a story that appeared in the pages of the magazine, but rather from a 1995 miniseries Eastman did with artist Simon Bisley called The Melting Pot which was published by Kitchen Sink Press. The original comic was not an anthology, so the film contains only one story, not six like the first Heavy Metal. It does feature a diverse soundtrack with many songs from popular alternative and metal acts of the day, like Queens of the Stone Age and System of a Down. And a glowing green rock does play a role in the proceedings, to sort of tie it in with the first film.

The plot focuses on Julie (voiced by, and most certainly inspired by, Eastman’s then-wife, B-movie actress and former Penthouse Pet of the Year Julie Strain) fighting an evil tyrant with the power of self-regeneration. She fights to free her sister from the tyrant’s captivity, all the while trying to end his reign of terror.

There is another film in the works, at the very least loosely connected to the Heavy Metal brand called War of the Worlds: Goliath.

The film is a sequel to H.G. Wells’ novel, War of the Words, and appears to be some kind of steampunk manga film. It is voiced by Adrian Paul and Adam Baldwin, among others. It is set for a 2012 release, however, footage was shown during the 2009 San Diego Comic Con with a promised 2010 DVD release. Since it was already delayed two years, I’d say that 2012 date should be taken with a grain of salt.

There has been a planned remake of the original in the works, first helmed by David Fincher and then by Robert Rodriguez. Considering Rodriguez’s track record of getting films he is attached to made is about one in four, it might be a while if there will be another Heavy Metal film in the future.

Next time, Swamp Thing gets revitalized in the comics and a film in theaters within years of one another. Did one have any effect on the other?