Ghostbusters 3 News

We’ve noted before that Michael Cera really wants to be a part of ‘Ghostbusters 3′. The Calgary Herald has noted the same thing, and speculates about whether Cera wouldn’t be a good choice to play Dr. Raymond Stantz, who was played by Dan Aykroyd in the two original Ghostbusters movies. The paper bases that on Cera’s nerdy type, as he is known for playing geeky but lovable types.

The nerdy Dr. Stantz might indeed be a good role for him, but isn’t Cera much too young to play him? Surely Dr. Stantz would be in his 60s or early 70s by now, and Cera is just 22. We say no deal, unless Ghostbusters 3 turn into some time-travelling spectacular.
We sincerely hope not.

According to digitalspy.co.uk, director Ivan Reitman is very aware that there is a demand for ‘Ghostbusters 3′. Apparently, both fansand the original members of the cast have expressed an interest in seeing the movie hit ths screen.

Also, it was the video game that got the interest going.

“Certainly, Sony has been all over us for about two decades now, trying to get this going,” Reitman told Sci Fi Wire at the Santa Barbara International Film Festival.

“We have this sort of very interesting deal in which we really control the forward progress of the movie. [Sony] did a very interesting thing. They actually hired these two writers on their own, without consulting us, and basically said, ‘We’re going to start.”

Reitman likes the script of writers Lee Eisenberg and Gene Stupnitsky: “[They are] very good writers, fortunately, and they wrote a first draft that was pretty good, considering that they didn’t really talk to us that much. And I’ve since then been working with them for the last four or five months, just trying to get more of the kind of spirit of the film into it.”

Reitman ended saying that there is no solid deal yet, and not even a finished script.

We’re not worried. Everyone wants this to happen.

So it seems we may have a clue about who will be the villain of Ghostbusters 3 when it comes to the screen in 2011. According to Cinematical.com, the story may have something to do with the ancient religion of Zoroastrianism.

Apparently, that religion is based on a struggle between good and evil, evil being personified by the entity Ahriman, who is a destructive spirit of sorts. So he’s a devil-like thing, we guess.

Supposedly, Ahriman may not appear that much in the movie, but might unleash evil spirits (or ‘ghosts’, perhaps? Aha! Now we get it) much like Gozer did in the first Ghostbusters movie.

It seems we’ll have to read up on our Zoroastrianism to be able to enjoy the movie. Good grief.