When you really stop and think about it, “Ghostbusters” is a profoundly weird franchise. Conceived by comedian Dan Aykroyd as a vehicle for himself and John Belushi, the concept centered around three ghost hunters from 2012 (then the future) who would travel through time, space, and other dimensions to exterminate paranormal entities. Aykroyd’s absolutely bonkers idea was eventually toned down to the still-pretty-odd final version we have today. “Ghostbusters” has entered the realm of pop culture mythology so entirely that we don’t stop to question what it is. At its core, “Ghostbusters” is a laid-back buddy comedy about four parapsychologists and also a wildly ambitious Lovecraftian horror story about an extradimensional being who intends to destroy the universe as we know it. Simultaneously, it manages to be a light-hearted supernatural comedy in the vein of “The Ghost Breakers” with Bob Hope and a multi-million dollar special effects extravaganza with overly complicated mythology. “Lightning in a bottle” is an overused expression, but “Ghostbusters” truly was lightning in a bottle. The planets aligned and the heavens opened up, for this utterly wackadoo movie about comedians battling ancient evil resulted in a smash-blockbuster beloved by fans and critics alike. Nothing can ever replicate what “Ghostbusters” achieved, especially not the sequels.
The success of the 1984 “Ghostbusters” spawned “The Real Ghostbusters” cartoon, a pretty nifty toy line from Kenner, and a second “Ghostbusters” movie. Opinions vary on “Ghostbusters II.” Some people (we call them “maniacs”) actually prefer the sequel to its predecessor. Others think that it’s a weak follow-up that recycles elements from Part One in a less-than-stellar fashion. (I personally fall somewhere in the middle. “Ghostbusters II” is great fun for what it is, but it ain’t no “Ghostbusters.”) Still, with Part Two being a box office hit, I think everyone can agree that “Ghostbusters” was still a massively popular franchise. A third film seemed inevitable. Dan Aykroyd agreed and came up with an idea almost as nutty as his original pitch for Part One: The Ghostbusters would go to Hell.
Approximately between 1992 to 2007, development was underway on a third “Ghosbusters” film. I won’t bore you with the various false starts and dead-ends that occurred during this period. Suffice to say, no one could agree on what to do with “Ghostbusters III.” At different points, Chris Farley and Will Smith were considered as the next generation Ghostbusters. Bill Murray of the original two movies repeatedly refused to participate, but Aykroyd and Sony still expressed interest in the project. In 1997, a treatment was turned in that would be the story for the next several years. This story would eventually be called “Ghostbusters: Hellbent.”
Though there would be several changes throughout its development, the basic concept of “Ghostbusters: Hellbent” remained the same. Hell exists as a parallel universe. Dan Aykroyd described it this way:”The concept is that there’s a positive image of life and there’s a negative image of life. Hell is not some distant place, far away from this dimension or realm. Hell is right next door. It’s like those old tintype photos where you turn them one way and they look positive, then you just flick them slightly and they look negative. That’s our concept. Given the right technology, you could flip the switch, and all of a sudden, the positive that we see in this room suddenly becomes negative. It’s kind of neat.”
That alternate reality would be ManHellton, a version of Manhattan that is only slightly more ghoulish than the real thing. Aykroyd said, “We’re going to set it in New York and do a Hades version of New York, very close to life in the city as we perceive it now. You look down at the river and there’s a ferry of Wall Street commuters, except they’re being shoved off with pitchforks into the river, which is now boiling blood. Flick it back and it’s just the Brooklyn Bridge and just a normal traffic jam.” The Devil himself would have appeared as a smooth-talking businessman in the Gordon Gekko mold. Aykroyd was interested in Alec Baldwin for the part.
“When there’s no more room in Hell, the dead will walk the earth.” That was the tagline for the original “Dawn of the Dead,” and that’s exactly what would’ve happened in “Hellbent.” Hell would’ve become overpopulated, resulting in an outbreak of ghosts or “poltergeist plague” in Aykroyd’s words. The 1997 story treatment opens with a fun scene in which the corpses at a funeral parlor behave like spoiled children. It’s one of the many amusing visuals all versions of the script contain. Had “Ghostbusters: Hellbent” been made, we would’ve gotten a very lively vision of the afterlife.
All versions of the script introduce a team of younger Ghostbusters to pass the torch to. In the post-Two “Ghostbusters” movies that actually materialized, new teams were also formed. Harold Ramis sadly passed away in 2014, and the other actors behind the original Ghostbusters are in their 70s. If the franchise continues, establishing that anyone can be a Ghostbuster is essential. But from the treatments and scripts that I looked at, the new members in “Hellbent” aren’t all that interesting. Maybe talented comedic actors could make them come to life onscreen. But it does highlight how special the original team was/is. So much of the success of the original franchise can be attributed to that magical combination of personalities. Dan Aykroyd, Bill Murray, Harold Ramis, and Ernie Hudson’s performances are indelible, but it’s also just that group of characters we’ve come to love. Even “The Real Ghostbusters” cartoon, which does not feature those actors in those roles, shines bright.
“Hellbent” would’ve been… a lot. What do I mean by “a lot?” Well, you just need to take a look at Aykroyd’s “Nothing But Trouble” and the “Coneheads” movie to know what I mean. “A lot” could be very good indeed if you’re a weirdo like me and enjoy Aykroyd’s high-concept insanity. There would’ve been monsters, demons, and mind-melting pseudoscience in nearly every scene. And I would’ve enjoyed the hell (ha,) out of it, even if it wasn’t technically great. Others would probably find this whole thing exhausting, which is a valid reaction.
Bill Murray has been very clear about the fact that he had no interest in “Ghostbusters III.” Apocryphally, Murray sent back a draft of “Hellbent” with the note, “No one wants to pay money to see fat, old men chasing ghosts.” Aykroyd denies this happened, but this little legend does sum up Murray’s feelings on the project. To solve this, Venkman was written out of every version. In the 1997 treatment, there is a brief mention of Venkman having secured a gold mine in Indonesia. At one point, Aykroyd suggested that he planned to bring Venkman back as a ghost for a brief cameo. The strangest idea was that Bill Murray would return as God as Venkman. God would assume the form of the apparently deceased Venkman in order to talk to the Ghostbusters. Makes perfect sense.
Some have said we dodged a bullet with the cancellation of “Hellbent.” Personally, I’m a little bummed we never got this bugnutty installment. Would it have been a complete mess? Very likely. But I don’t think there would’ve been anything quite like it. The idea of phasing in and out of Hell is a fascinating one that could’ve carried “Hellbent” to cult status at the very least. It could’ve really bust some heads… in a spiritual sense, of course.
- The Phibes Philes: Wishmaster – Movie Review - June 12, 2026
- The Phibes Philes: The Eraser – Batman’s Forgotten Foe - May 27, 2026
- The Phibes Philes: The Ghost Galleon (1974) Film Review - May 17, 2026
