Why haven’t they made Ghostbusters III?

Here’s why. Apparently no one can agree to do it. Fits and starts is probably the best way to describe all the conversation regarding this on-again, off-again project. Do a quick Google search and you’ll discover a couple pages of quotes from Dan Akroyd announcing pre-production on the alleged to-be-shot-in-CGI Ghostbusters III: Hellbent – with all the principals attached – to suggestions that the film may never get made. Akroyd is one of the co-creators of Ghostbusters and played heart-of-gold Ghostbuster Ray Stantz.

But there’s no reason NOT to make it. I mean, c’mon, the original made more than $230 million in the U.S. and $50 million overseas – in 1984! That’s got to be, like, $4 bazillion dollars today. And its 1989 sequel had the biggest three-day opening weekend in history (it lasted all of a week, before Tim Burton’s Batman clobbered that record).

Of course one might regard the soon-to-be-released Ghostbusters: The Video Game as a kind of sequel in absentia, but folks, you know it can’t hold a candle – or a proton wand – to a box of popcorn, a soda, and watching the dry wit of Bill Murray unspool onscreen.

No, this is a movie that has to be made.

Akroyd’s take, of which we’ve only heard bits and pieces, finds three of our four Ghostbusters – Ray Stantz, Egon Spengler and Winston Zeddemore – doing battle with demons from Man‘hell’ton, a kind of demon-plagued, interdimensional, parallel world, accessible to the Ghostbusters via a kind of traversable wormhole. Peter Venkman makes a cameo at the end, and there’s a slew of new, young Ghostbusters poised to take the reins.

Sounds visually wonderful. But where’s the story? (Okay, I haven’t read the script, so it might have a kick-a story – but I’m just not sure about that.) IGN trashed the script, saying it was all jargon and no jokes, and lacked substantial characterization.

At its heart, Ghostbusters is a character-driven comedy with special effects thrown in for good measure. The original works because its more Animal House than Poltergeist – but it combines those elements perfectly.

My Ghostbusters III would slough off the cartoonish colors and comedy of Ghostbusters II and recapture the New York grittiness and acerbic wit of the first. It would steer clear of walking Lady Liberties and emotional slime in favor of spooky ghosts and screwball comedy.

It would be transitional, because if the franchise is to survive, it needs freshened up a bit. Just look at James Bond. We’re on our, what, 80th iteration? And the films still rock.

And for god’s sake, man, it wouldn’t be shot in CGI.

If you’re interested in what I might do, check this out. But I’d be interested in what you’d do, too.

UPDATE: There’s supposed to be “big” news coming out of San Diego’s Comic-Con 2008. Could it be Ghostbusters III?