Ghostbusters Franchise

[genocyber]

You realize the more and money is given to this, the closer we get to a Back to the Future remake.

[Magegg]

You realize the more and money is given to this, the closer we get to a Back to the Future remake.

And so what? Does it affect your life in some way that a movie exists?

[genocyber]

You realize the more and money is given to this, the closer we get to a Back to the Future remake.

And so what? Does it affect your life in some way that a movie exists?

Ignoring a growing tumor does not make it go away, Magegg.

[Magegg]

You realize the more and money is given to this, the closer we get to a Back to the Future remake.

And so what? Does it affect your life in some way that a movie exists?

Ignoring a growing tumor does not make it go away, Magegg.

A tumor is something that hurts, destroys and ruins something. In this case, it only destroys "imaginary things", so yes, if you ignore it it won't hurt you.

[Olde]

Lol. I hope they remake everything. Alien, Predator, Terminator, Jurassic Park, Jaws, Back to the Future, Indiana Jones, Star Wars (Eps. IV-VI), everything.

I hope they remake literally every good movie and I hope it's all literally shit so as to destroy your childhood. Bonus points if they're all-female remakes.

[genocyber]

You realize the more and money is given to this, the closer we get to a Back to the Future remake.

And so what? Does it affect your life in some way that a movie exists?

Ignoring a growing tumor does not make it go away, Magegg.

A tumor is something that hurts, destroys and ruins something. In this case, it only destroys "imaginary things", so yes, if you ignore it it won't hurt you.

There is nothing imaginary about works of cinematic art being ruined one after another in the name of creative laziness, and a quick buck and being expected to not care. Keeping quiet about bastardizations of great films only advocates more like it to be made down the road.

[Olde]

Works of art only have as much meaning as you're willing to give them. If you don't see works of art that offend you, they're powerless. Mediocrity isn't a status quo to be satisfied with, but I'm of the opinion that hardly anything in the cinematic world from the last decade is worth preserving. Why would a Back to the Future remake be any different, or matter? Just forget it exists and move on.

[Master]

You realize the more and money is given to this, the closer we get to a Back to the Future remake.

And so what? Does it affect your life in some way that a movie exists?

Ignoring a growing tumor does not make it go away, Magegg.

A tumor is something that hurts, destroys and ruins something. In this case, it only destroys "imaginary things", so yes, if you ignore it it won't hurt you.

On the contrary, it hurts the heritage of past times. It's insulting and lowers standards.

[Alien³]

You realize the more and money is given to this, the closer we get to a Back to the Future remake.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/film/back-to-the-future/remake-sequel-robert-zemeckis/

[genocyber]

Because almost all remakes of the past decade have been utter shit. Ignoring them isn't stopping Hollywood from making more. I'm sorry, but I cant help but feel slightly pissed when I see something I liked be badly handled by idiots who are just in it for the money and care nothing about the finished product. Sure the original will always be there, but the idea of a remake is to improve on an old idea and bring something new and interesting. It never needed to be made if you cant meet these requirements.

[Gazz]

There is nothing imaginary about works of cinematic art being ruined one after another in the name of creative laziness,

Was Alien ruined by Alien vs Predator or Requiem?
Was The Terminator and T2:JD ruined by T3, Salvation or Genisys?
Was Robocop ruined by it's remake?
Was Total Recall for that matter?
Was Poltergeist?
Was Die Hard ruined by A Good Day to Die Hard?
Was Jaws ruined by Jaws 3D or Jaws The Revenge?

The answer to all of these questions is a resounding 'No'. They're still there and highly regarded. If you don't like a remake/ reboot, take the advice of Lord Humungus and 'just walk away'. Even if others like what you do not, their success still does nothing to harm the originals unless you make them. Don't get me wrong, a bad film is a bad film and should rightly be criticised as such and with venom if warranted. But this 'you're destroying a legacy/ my childhood/ cinematic art' argument in regards to remakes or sequels is childish.

[ace3g]

https://twitter.com/Uptomyknees/status/752922178295730177

[genocyber]

So what I'm getting out of this is that as long as the original was good, its perfectly fine to make as many garbage sequels and reboots and drive the name into the f**king ground. There is a certain thing that exists called quality control, and its clearly not being implemented as much as it needs to. Do not apologize for mediocrity.

[Gazz]

So what I'm getting out of this is that as long as the original was good, its perfectly fine to make as many garbage sequels and reboots and drive the name into the f**king ground.

No one said that.

[whiterabbit]

People only pay ridiculous money for original art work; no one is clamoring to buy cheap knock offs. However I can see genocyber's point; how will film ever be able to escape the stigma of being second rate art, if it's so easy to mass produce lesser material. Film still isn't regarded as high art, no matter how many organizations claim it is. To me it is an art form. However to put it another way, no one cares who made the canvas or where it came from when a Picasso goes up to bid. Films of old took a few dozen people to make, today, it's thousands. Of course only a hand full ever get proper credit.

Although another way to look at it is like this, my ghostbusters will always be better than yours.