- June 22nd, 2017, 2:48 pm#4894931
JurorNo.2 wrote:Yeah, whenever I say Ghostbusters, I'm tired to say the original, so I think I'll do what most do and refer to the reboot as ATCRichardLess wrote:I would've rather had a terrible GB3 than a good reboot.Huh, that's an interesting quandary there. I mean, of course, film is subjective, blah blah blah, so the whole "terrible/good" thing is kinda nebulous. But that aside, all things being equal, I'd certainly prefer to see the G1* Ghostbusters crew again in a sequel. Even if a sequel is "terrible," it's still fun seeing the familiar characters in another adventure; seeing what's happened to them over the years, etc. And you don't really lose anything. I mean Godfather 3 is pretty terrible, but it doesn't especially affect my enjoyment of the first two. I know a lot of fans have trouble getting past that, but that's their loss I suppose.
*Btw, yeah, I'm borrowing from the Transformers franchise and calling the first two movies "G1 Ghostbusters" (And RGB can be G2 if you like, etc.). For three reasons:
1. I'm tired of saying "the original." The word "original" is too often synonymous with words like "primitive" or "rudimentary," and those are the last words I'd use to describe Ghostbusters (1984).
2. I'm also tired of saying "the '80s" or "the 1984 version." It reminds me of the fallacy in geek culture that movies didn't exist before they personally were born (Star Wars being the lone, tired exception).
3. IMO, the Transformers franchise has been the model of how to juggle multiple continuities. Sure, some fans don't like Bayformers, other fans resent G1's revered status. But at the end of the day, it's understood that they're all separate continuity families and don't have to affect each other in any way, unless you want them to. It's not a perfect model, but it's by far the best one I've experienced.
"Why must the world of the paranormal ruin my entire childhood?"