24

Watching the new (2016) Ghostbusters movie, it struck me that the scene with Bill Murray was shot in a very odd manner, with no scenes where he actually interacts directly with the cast, other than the initial shot where he walks into the room (which could very easily be a split-screen shot). It's always over his shoulder looking at them, with his hat blocking his face, or where the camera is looking directly at him. Occasionally you'll see one of the actresses enter the frame in the reaction shots, but you never actually quite see their faces, only their hands and arms.

The actresses made a big point in an interview about how proud they were to have been "in a room with Bill Murray", but were they really in the room with him during this scene?

  • 4
    Is there any actual evidence that they weren't in the room with him? Rumours that Mr Murray is some sort of recluse or he was liable to be difficult about being together with a new generation of Ghostbuster girls? Anything? Sure, I get that it's possible these scenes were all shot separately, but it's also possible they were shot together. It would be more effort and more time (and more billable hours for crew, stunt doubles, and post-production) to shoot Mr Murray apart from the new girls, so why would they have done this? – Steve-O Dec 3 '16 at 3:01
  • 3
    @Steve-O - Given his reluctance to do the cameo (they had to threaten to sue him), my personal guess is that he negotiated them down to a single day of filming against a greenscreen and that they edited it together afterwards. – Valorum Dec 3 '16 at 8:40
  • 3
    @Moo - we may never know. One of the leaked emails from Sony said that they were willing to go to "Aggressive litigation" if he refused to do a cameo and positively promote Ghostbusters (e.g. say nice things about it, regardless of his personal opinions). My understanding is that most Hollywood contracts contain clauses guaranteeing that actors will at least cameo in sequels and will say nice things about those films, even if they aren't the star – Valorum Dec 6 '16 at 20:34
  • 1
    The part from 0:43 to 0:49 in your clip, where Bill Murray uses his stick to push something they're holding, that doesn't do it for you? – AakashM Dec 20 '16 at 15:08
  • 1
    I find this question absolutely interesting and worthy, and got me very curious (though I haven't seen the new ghostbusters, and generally not into to conspiracy theories), but I don't think this is the right site for it. Wouldn't you get better answers on Movies or Skeptics? – SáT Dec 21 '16 at 12:02
15
+50

Unless you imagine that the entire cast is just lying, then yes.

AP: What was it like having Bill Murray there?

Jones: He brought beast mode.

McCarthy: It was a little surreal.

McKinnon: I didn't speak. I was like, 'I'm in a room with Bill Murray. What strange sequence of events has taken place that's brought me in the same room as Bill Murray?'

Jones: My favorite scene was when (McCarthy's character) was arguing with Bill, and I'm like, 'That's right! You tell him!' And then I realized, 'Oh, you're not watching a movie.'

Bill Murray was "there", and was "in the same room", and one actress was "watching" another actress "argue with Bill". I don't see any possible way to interpret this other than they were in the room with Bill Murray doing a scene.

  • Yeah, if that's the case though, then why aren't there any scenes in the film that show him and them in the same room, aside from a 2 second pan that appears to be a split-screen? Something doesn't add up. Note that if you read the interview carefully there areally two claims here, one that they met Bill Murray and the other that her favourite scene in the film is the scene with the argument. At no point does she claim that the filming happened at the same time. – Valorum Dec 20 '16 at 15:40
  • 2
    Also, you've quoted from the interview in my original question. I was hoping for some more proof than a PR puff-piece. – Valorum Dec 20 '16 at 15:42
  • 1
    I know this is SFF and not Skeptics, but still, this doesn't seem like "proof", as it relies in likely-biased witness testimony with plausible motive to lie even if it didn't happen. – DVK-on-Ahch-To Dec 20 '16 at 21:04
  • 1
    As a minimum, they could have been talking about a read-through rather than the actual filming. – Valorum Dec 21 '16 at 12:52

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.