Anyone following the increasingly ridiculous Ghostbusters 3 saga will by now be fully accustomed to all the rumours, speculation, half-truths and gibberish that have accompanied its tortuous 13-year-and-counting gestation period. It was going to be a cartoon, we were told. Then it wasn't. Then Seth Rogen was going to be in it. Then he wasn't. Then Bill Murray was going to be in it, then wasn't. Then it seemed like he might be because he started showing up everywhere in his old Ghostbusters outfit, then wasn't to the extent that he apparently shredded his script.

But now we have something definitive to work with. According to Dan Aykroyd, Bill Murray will absolutely have nothing to do with Ghostbusters 3 whatsoever. In an interview with the Telegraph this week — ostensibly to promote some vodka that comes in a skull — Aykroyd said that "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. He doesn't want to be involved".

And yet, despite this, Aykroyd seems intent on pressing ahead regardless. Despite the fact that Bill Murray, to all intents, played the lead in the first two films. Despite the fact that Murray's easy charm was the main draw of the entire series. Despite the fact that last time Dan Aykroyd recast a lead role in a sequel to one of his hits, the result was the astonishingly malformed Blues Brothers 2000.

All the signs point to this being a terrible idea. In fact, there's quite a strong argument for strapping Aykroyd down and forcing him to watch the Blues Brothers 2000 trailer every single time he so much as thinks about making Ghostbusters 3. As great as the first movie was, it belongs in the past now.

Ghostbusters 2 proved that it should have been a one-off. And when Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was released, it should have been a harsh reminder of the indignity of trying to recapture one's youth.

Then again, though, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was preposterously successful for all involved. According to Box Office Mojo, it took $786m worldwide — making it the most successful film in the entire series. Given that Aykroyd can barely even mention his skull booze these days without somebody butting in with a question about the progress of Ghostbusters 3, surely this means that — with or without Bill Murray — a third instalment would make Aykroyd rich beyond his wildest dreams.

So what do you think? Does Ghostbusters 3 really need Bill Murray? Will the new generation of moviegoers who weren't even born when the original was released even notice that he isn't there? And, if he's recast, who should be the new Peter Venkman? Seth Rogen? Vince Vaughn? John Goodman (again)? Or maybe you think that Ghostbusters should be consigned to the past forever. Whatever your thoughts, let me know in the comment section below.