dunam said:
A ghostbusters movie could have worked. A reboot is just essentially less interesting than a movie that builds upon what there already is.
Comicbookgirl19 did a great video about this, where she essentially said: "where's the ghostbuster movie that takes place 20 years after the previous events, where ghostbusters has grown to a giant merchandise and kid's toys corporation, someone comes across the ghost capturing device in the basement, nobody knows what it does, so it is unplugged and all the ghosts come out and they have to figure out how to stop them with old riggedy equipment."
And sure, while you're at it, you could make it an all female team. Instead they made it an all female team and called it a day. Omg so progressive so 2016. They even rehashed the hearse joke and put itin the trailer.
I think that may be at work why the jurrassic park sequel works better than the robocop and total recall reboots. The artists aren't stimulated in the same way if it isn't new ground, some will refuse to work on it, those that do usually do it with less enthusiasm.
"you're going to be the thousandth on the moon" just doesn't hold the same appeal as being the first. It is just a creativity killer.
I don't necessarily disagree with any of that. At the end of the day, I'd have preferred a Ghostbusters sequel to a reboot/remake, but I can't get that upset about it, even if were that big a fan of the original.
Thing is, Ghostbusters has always had more than one continuity. The original movie kicks things off. The plot then branches into the two cartoon series on one side, and GB2 and the game on the other. That's not even including every other piece of spinoff media (e.g. comics) that's been done. So when you're starting a new continuity in the Ghostbusters franchise, there's long been a precedent for that. So it's why I've never been one to jump on the bandwagon in this case. Sure, it's another remake/reboot, but how Ghostbusters of all things gathered such vitriol has been a bit beyond me.
As for the other examples...well, I actually consider both Total Recall films to be better than JW, though in the case of the TR remake, I'm almost certainly in the minority there. In my mind, JW is actually slightly problematic as a sequel because it suffers from thematic dissonance when compared to the first film. True, each JP film has had a different theme and explored it with varying levels of success, but JP ends with the knowledge that Hammond's system can't work, JW's entire foundation is that it can, and things only go awry because of the I-Rex. JP1 has the theme of "the illusion of control," JW has the theme of "the want of more," but even so, it's a noticable divide. Like I said, I actually like JW, but if someone announced a remake of JP, I wouldn't be that upset. Miffed, perhaps, but for a film that was adapted from a book, a re-adaptation is fair game to me.
Both Total Recall films work IMO for the reasons I described above. I know Total Recall the original got a pseudo-sequel, but given how TR (original) ends, I don't see how you could do a satisfying sequel. The ending of the film is based on ambiguity, and even if a sequel doesn't even mention Quaid, I don't see how it could exist without mentioning that either a) Mars not has a breathable atmosphere and is independent, thus making Quaid's actions real, or b) Mars is still an arid, airless world, thus explaining that Quaid was dreaming. Alright, technically you could avoid all that, but then I'd feel you'd be getting into "in name only" territory. To contrast it, Blade Runner, while in no need of a sequel IMO (and there's always the Jeter books for those who wanted one), still has a rich enough world and a plenthora of concepts to work with.
So, yeah. At the end of the day, would I have preferred a Ghostbusters sequel rather than a remake? Yeah, pretty much. Do I think there needed to be this level of vitriol over the existence of said remake? No, not at all. There's always been a precedent for more than one Ghostbusters continuity.
