If a third Ghostbusters movie is made, but Bill Murray isn't in it, is it really a Ghostbusters movie? Not to get all philosophical, but now that Dan Akroyd has announced that there will be a third Ghostbusters movie and that Bill Murray has decided not to get involved, it's time to ask some hard questions about just what makes a sequel. You can't call it a peanut butter and jelly sandwich if it doesn't have peanut butter. You can't call them Simon and Garfunkel if you don't have Paul Simon. So how can you call a movie Ghostbusters 3 if it doesn't feature all the Ghostbusters? Sorry to sound legalistic, but there has to be a line somewhere, otherwise people will start thinking they can just make a sequel to any movie at all, whether it makes sense to make one or not ...