Discuss all things Ghostbusters here, unless they would be better suited in one of the few forums below.
#4865540
I'm not just talking about the upcoming movie. First, it was Extreme Ghostbusters, then Sanctum of Slime. I haven't played the latest game, Slime City, but I believe those are new characters as well. And of course GB 16' isn't even set in the same universe. Why is there a pattern of trying to replace the original characters? I made a comparison to the Ninja Turtles in another thread regarding the gender swap, but it would be just as ridiculous if they made a series about four different male turtles carrying the title of the franchise; nevermind the fact that they're still teenagers after all these years. At least TMNT, more or less, stayed true to its roots. It's like, as long as it involves some sort of contraption that shoots something similar to a proton stream along with a ghost-trapping device of some kind, it earns the designation of Ghostbusters. The main characters are dispensable. Hell, you can even change the car, uniforms and equipment along with the characters. Whatever happened to maintaining a sense of integrity in respect to original property?
Ralf Castleknifer liked this
#4865543
Egon's Pompadour wrote:Whatever happened to maintaining a sense of integrity in respect to original property?
Fortunately, the IDW ongoing comics is already doing a good job of that, already; the other GB iterations? (RGB, EGB, GB2016, etc.) I pretty much think of them as alternate continuities, IMO.
Last edited by *NormalGamer* on May 29th, 2016, 10:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
#4865546
*NormalGamer* wrote:
Egon's Pompadour wrote:Whatever happened to maintaining a sense of integrity in respect to original property?
Fortunately, the IDW ongoing comics is already doing a good job of that, already; the other past iterations? (RGB, EGB, GB2016, etc.) I pretty much think of them as alternate continuities, IMO.
IDW and RGB kept the main characters though, even if they utilized creative license to go in different directions at times. The others are too much of a departure from the source material to be considered Ghostbusters, imo. I liked some elements of EGB, but they should've kept the original team and added the others as secondary characters.
Ralf Castleknifer liked this
#4865551
Egon's Pompadour wrote:IDW and RGB kept the main characters though, even if they utilized creative license to go in different directions at times. The others are too much of a departure from the source material to be considered Ghostbusters, imo.
@ *referring to bold*

Hence, which is why I said I consider them 'alternate continunites'.

Egon's Pompadour wrote: I liked some elements of EGB, but they should've kept the original team and added the others as secondary characters.
Sure, that would've been nice, but it's too late to change that now since the show only ran for 40 episodes years ago.

For the EGB characters as secondary characters, maybe the IDW comics will provide this 'if' it happens; especially if they're fleshed out as their own characters instead of tokenised versions of them. Since Kylie :kylie: is already a Ghostbuster in the IDW canon, we've already seen Eduardo :eduardo: who's an employee at Ray's Occult and Roland :roland: who has a cameo at the Winston/Tiyah wedding in the Mass Hysteria arc.
#4865552
I would guess the answer is politics.

I think it all stems to that agreement made during Ghostbusters II between Reitman, Murray, Aykroyd, and Ramis. We know for another movie, they all had to say "yes" or it wouldn't happen. Recently, in EMPIRE's recent feature, Reitman seemed to hint at the deal a little -- to which we still don't know all the details. The deal was a lot more complicated than just making another movie. But it sounds like it likely extended to character rights as well and for everything since, then, it's been a lot of tricky maneuvering with loopholes, ad hoc arrangements and the like and probably with the inception of Ghostcorps, the terms might finally be changed.

I would guess that there was some stipulation about the original characters that might have made using them in EGB from the start a pain so they opted with a new team. Kind of like how it was a monumental pain to get permission from DC Comics to use certain characters on an animated series like Justice League back in the day but with the formation of the DC Entertainment unit serving as a liaison of sorts between DC and the Warner Bros Animation studio and people like Geoff Johns stepping into officer positions, the flood gates were open and pretty much anyone could be used. Or they were piggy backing off of Aykroyd's idea for a new team in Hellbent and the idea was to always bring the originals for the season finale. Or behind the scenes, the actors weren't interested in reprising the roles for a whole season and opted for guest spots. Or the crew might have flirted with the idea of recasting briefly. Who knows.

Likewise, SOS was a cash grab. Atari pushed it out on the heels of renewed GB3 talk and the passing the torch theme.

In the grand scheme of things, prime canon or alternate canons -- they're not immortal. They've figured out a good balance in the IDW comics, but time still passes -- and it's great for them to focus on expanding the support staff (Peter promised Janine he'd hire more help ;)) and not necessarily creating a new team and also to expand on TVG with Rookie's team in Chicago.
Egon's Pompadour wrote: I liked some elements of EGB, but they should've kept the original team and added the others as secondary characters.
I'm pretty sure season 2 could have been two teams. Peter, Ray and Winston decided to stay on. It would have been neat to see two teams continuing to operate together.
Normal Gamer wrote:For the EGB characters as secondary characters, maybe the IDW comics will provide this 'if' it happens; especially if they're fleshed out as their own characters instead of tokenised versions of them. We've already seen Eduardo :eduardo: who's an employee at Ray's Occult and Roland :roland: who has a cameo at the Winston/Tiyah wedding in the Mass Hysteria arc.[/color]
Don't hold your breath. Eduardo was just added for the fans for the 30th anniversary/Mass Hysteria arc. I think Roland was just one of Dan Schoening's easter eggs, not something scripted by Erik Burnham.
#4865557
mrmichaelt wrote:I would guess the answer is politics.

I think it all stems to that agreement made during Ghostbusters II between Reitman, Murray, Aykroyd, and Ramis. We know for another movie, they all had to say "yes" or it wouldn't happen. Recently, in EMPIRE's recent feature, Reitman seemed to hint at the deal a little -- to which we still don't know all the details. The deal was a lot more complicated than just making another movie. But it sounds like it likely extended to character rights as well and for everything since, then, it's been a lot of tricky maneuvering with loopholes, ad hoc arrangements and the like and probably with the inception of Ghostcorps, the terms might finally be changed.

I would guess that there was some stipulation about the original characters that might have made using them in EGB from the start a pain so they opted with a new team. Kind of like how it was a monumental pain to get permission from DC Comics to use certain characters on an animated series like Justice League back in the day but with the formation of the DC Entertainment unit serving as a liaison of sorts between DC and the Warner Bros Animation studio and people like Geoff Johns stepping into officer positions, the flood gates were open and pretty much anyone could be used. Or they were piggy backing off of Aykroyd's idea for a new team in Hellbent and the idea was to always bring the originals for the season finale. Or behind the scenes, the actors weren't interested in reprising the roles for a whole season and opted for guest spots. Or the crew might have flirted with the idea of recasting briefly. Who knows.
That's interesting. I wasn't aware of the politics involved, if that was indeed the case. Regardless, it's unfortunate for the fans who were essentially left in limbo for 20+ years while the characters we loved were cast aside.
#4865573
Whats sad is that in the story canon we never find out what happened to the Ghostbusters...

"The franchise rights alone will make us rich beyond our wildest dreams."

Did they? Didn't they? What did the Ghostbusters end up doing at the end of their lives?

I guess we'll never know.
Egon's Pompadour liked this
#4868142
The better, more interesting question here is why they shouldn't.
It's like, as long as it involves some sort of contraption that shoots something similar to a proton stream along with a ghost-trapping device of some kind, it earns the designation of Ghostbusters.
Yes. Exactly. That IS what Ghostbusters is about. It is about the idea of a hi-tech extermination service for ghosts, in a world where all kinds of weird ghosts and demons and spirits cause trouble for humans.

We know the original four Ghostbusters intimately well by now, if you also count the original animated series. Why must people obsess over the same characters over and over? The new team in Extreme Ghostbusters was lovable and offered a fresh perspective on the fascinating setup.

In fact, I'd be absolutely all for a TMNT series with entirely new turtles as well. Isn't anybody sick to death of the same team, after more than a dozen turtle reboots?

Purists are the worst of all fans. They are poison to imagination. Why do you dislike originality, experimentation, diversification and, well, FUN? What's fun about retreading the same territory all the time? Why the obsession with Egon, Ray, Peter and Winston specifically?

If you're going to make a sequel, spinoff or reboot you should take full advantage to reinterpret as much as you want. If anything, nobody has strayed far ENOUGH from the original film, and I feel like that's only out of pandering for a minority of puritanical fanboys who can't handle change.
#4868162
Well, the original four Ghostbusters are great characters that work really well together. Ghostbusters was never solely about the tech, but more about the relations between the characters and a lot of re-imaginations don't seem to get that. The Extreme Ghostbusters did okay, but were missing a lot of the charme the original team had.

But if I had been given the choice between a reboot/remake where the original characters are portrayed by new actors and a completely new team/franchise with new guys and girls, I'd always choose the new guys, because I don't think anyone else could pull off Peter, Ray, Egon and Winston!
Sav C, seekandannoy liked this
#4868231
scythemantis wrote:
Yes. Exactly. That IS what Ghostbusters is about. It is about the idea of a hi-tech extermination service for ghosts, in a world where all kinds of weird ghosts and demons and spirits cause trouble for humans.
.
I think this is the problem behind most of the arguments here. Ghostbusters means different thing to different people. For some all you need to be considered Ghostbusters is that it contains ghosts and that they are busted. Pretty simple, but I've seen a couple people that would be very upset if the ghosts were destroyed/ dissipated (like IDW's ghostsmashers) instead of trapped and contained. For them it wouldn't be Ghostbusters.

Others care less about the tech side and more about the supernatural side. A lot of people like how seriously or at least researched the lore of GB is. Everybody likes the Keymaster & Gatekeeper jokes but others like the reference to ancient cults where sex magic is a serious part of their beliefs. In IDW's series a lot of their ghosts and plot lines involve "real" historical people and lore like the current Macguffin in GB International.

For still more people it's about the characters. For them GB is all about Peter Venkman and Egon Spengler (or Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd). There are still people out there who dislike or haven't seen Star Trek: The Next Generation because for them it's Kirk, Spock, McCoy or bust. Granted the quality and success of Next Generation make these people very few but they are out there.

And that is where you lost me a little.
In fact, I'd be absolutely all for a TMNT series with entirely new turtles as well. Isn't anybody sick to death of the same team, after more than a dozen turtle reboots?
I'm pretty sure you would be in the minority on that one. TMNT has always been about those specific characters and not really about the concept of normal turtles being mutated into superhuman vigilantes.

Star Wars doesn't seem to have this problem. For my experience there are 2 types of SW fans. You've got the Jedi fans, who are all about the lightsabers and space magic and the X-wing fans, who want space battles all the time and drool over all the tech, vehicles, and hardware. Star Wars is big enough to offer a lot to all of their fans and there is a lot of overlap between them. For example, I am decidedly on the X-wing side but loved the KOTOR series.

The SW fans don't seem to be fighting each other over the direction of the franchise or debating what it's meaning even is, though to be fair its not like I'm checking their fan sites or forums to check.

I don't know why GB fans aren't able to do the same.

For me Ghostbusters is the total package. Being born in '84 I've always seen the movies and RGB as one and it had it all. GB is about 4 best friends who live and work together, in a cool firehouse HQ, using science and cool technology to battle the supernatural and catch ghosts. GB is 4 ordinary guys who regularly save the world by the seat of their pants and are funny and have fun doing it. And their car is stupid awesome.

Because this is my view of what GB is about I have some problems with the reboot and the direction they want to take it in. Getting it back to the original topic I would rather have the guys in the universe. The concept and franchise is big enough that there is room to expand and the OGB's don't need to be in everything but for me they do need to exist.

That is my major problem with this movie but I understand why they are doing (some of) the things that they are. I just simple disagree with it. If only everybody could just leave it at that.

Sorry for the long post. If you made it this far you get a :crunch: . If only because your probably starving now.
#4868252
scythemantis wrote:Purists are the worst of all fans. They are poison to imagination. Why do you dislike originality, experimentation, diversification and, well, FUN? What's fun about retreading the same territory all the time? Why the obsession with Egon, Ray, Peter and Winston specifically?

If you're going to make a sequel, spinoff or reboot you should take full advantage to reinterpret as much as you want. If anything, nobody has strayed far ENOUGH from the original film, and I feel like that's only out of pandering for a minority of puritanical fanboys who can't handle change.
Agreed. Nostalgia, as good as it is, can sometimes hold back progress in a franchise; it's good to let the franchise grow as diverse as possible (without losing the formula of catching ghosts, of course) or otherwise it will get stale.
pmo1985 liked this
#4868359
I never minded new teams I enjoyed extreme ghostbusters and the new teams introduced in IDWs line up. I've never had problems with this as even the original movie suggested that the original team would be selling franchise rights (further backed by the GB Video Game) making new Ghostbuster teams inevitable and well within the established universe. However I still like the idea that the original Ghostbusters are the root of all teams which is my only issue with the reboot, I know Feig didn't want his team to be handed the tech but make being able to build and maintain the tech part of the franchise licence requirement or something.

The majority recognise Ghostbusters more on their uniforms and equipment not the individual characters, it's one of the great things about the fandom which enables anyone to be a Ghostbuster and be seen as such. As iconic as the original characters are it was the job they did which has become even more iconic and enables the flexibility to introduce new teams. Adam Savage said it best-

"Costuming is a chance for fans to put themselves into a story they love. There are some franchises where you put on the costume and become that character. But not with the Ghostbusters. Everybody who puts together a costume makes sure it's their name that's on the nametag." -Adam Savage, Ghostbusters The Ultimate Visual History
*NormalGamer* liked this
#4868442
scythemantis wrote:The better, more interesting question here is why they shouldn't.
It's like, as long as it involves some sort of contraption that shoots something similar to a proton stream along with a ghost-trapping device of some kind, it earns the designation of Ghostbusters.
Yes. Exactly. That IS what Ghostbusters is about. It is about the idea of a hi-tech extermination service for ghosts, in a world where all kinds of weird ghosts and demons and spirits cause trouble for humans.

We know the original four Ghostbusters intimately well by now, if you also count the original animated series. Why must people obsess over the same characters over and over? The new team in Extreme Ghostbusters was lovable and offered a fresh perspective on the fascinating setup.

In fact, I'd be absolutely all for a TMNT series with entirely new turtles as well. Isn't anybody sick to death of the same team, after more than a dozen turtle reboots?
Um...no, not as far as the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are concerned, because that's who they are. If you're sick of them then find some other fandom that interests you.
scythemantis wrote:Purists are the worst of all fans. They are poison to imagination. Why do you dislike originality, experimentation, diversification and, well, FUN? What's fun about retreading the same territory all the time? Why the obsession with Egon, Ray, Peter and Winston specifically?
I disagree. The taintists are the worst fans because they have no respect for their proclaimed fandom. They are poison to the creative integrity of the original property. You have a fallacious definition of the word "originality" if you think it means taking an original concept and changing everything about it. That's called FUBAR (f**ked up beyond all recognition). If something deviates that far from the source material, they need to change the name and call it something else.

This is not Superman. It's Underdog. You understand the difference?

Image
scythemantis wrote:If you're going to make a sequel, spinoff or reboot you should take full advantage to reinterpret as much as you want. If anything, nobody has strayed far ENOUGH from the original film, and I feel like that's only out of pandering for a minority of puritanical fanboys who can't handle change.
Yeah, I guess we should call Luigi's Mansion "Ghostbusters," as well. You're not making any sense, dude.

Image
#4868452
The semantics of it can be argued until ragnarok, but as the reboot team have Proton Packs, rather than a nondescript vacuum cleaner, Ghost Traps, rather than... again... the vacuum cleaner, a car called Ecto-1 rather than just a nondescript truck, and the familiar ghosts... they are Ghostbusters. They're not the Ghostbusters, and their legacy and impact on the future of the franchise are still yet to be seen, but they are a team of Ghostbusters, not just a bunch of paranormal investigators with fancy gear.

In a few years, the Ecto Force team will be the next cabal of Ghostbusters to step up to the block.
Scum liked this
#4868503
If the originals are the only Ghostbusters allowed, then I can't be a Ghostbuster, and nobody else on these boards can be one either... Why even build props and have franchises in each State, guys and gals? We apparently should be shunned from ever wearing the logo on our uniforms...
christphern liked this
#4868517
Egon's Pompadour wrote:
scythemantis wrote:

In fact, I'd be absolutely all for a TMNT series with entirely new turtles as well. Isn't anybody sick to death of the same team, after more than a dozen turtle reboots?
Um...no, not as far as the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are concerned, because that's who they are. If you're sick of them then find some other fandom that interests you.
I don't know about new turtles, but how many times do we need to see Raphael learning, yet again, to overcome his teenage angst? I was delighted with the way his arc played out in 1990, and had no interest in seeing it replayed in the sequels, or newer shows (especially when it became so annoyingly one note).
if you think it means taking an original concept and changing everything about it.
1964 Interviewer: Will you go along with any change in taste of popular music?

Paul McCartney: We probably will change a little. But we wouldn't do anything drastic, like with a big band or anything, because we don't enjoy that kind of music.
#4868550
JurorNo.2 wrote:
Egon's Pompadour wrote:
Um...no, not as far as the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are concerned, because that's who they are. If you're sick of them then find some other fandom that interests you.
I don't know about new turtles, but how many times do we need to see Raphael learning, yet again, to overcome his teenage angst? I was delighted with the way his arc played out in 1990, and had no interest in seeing it replayed in the sequels, or newer shows (especially when it became so annoyingly one note).
if you think it means taking an original concept and changing everything about it.
1964 Interviewer: Will you go along with any change in taste of popular music?

Paul McCartney: We probably will change a little. But we wouldn't do anything drastic, like with a big band or anything, because we don't enjoy that kind of music.
I haven't watched any of the new shows or movies. They're all teenage turtles so of course Raphael's angst is going to be a factor. Not sure if any of the iterations showed them evolve into adults, but that would be more interesting than swapping them out for new characters and pretending like it's "original."

I don't have a problem with new characters being introduced into the Ghostbusters universe. What I don't understand is why nearly every addition to the property, aside from the comics, is replacing the originals with a new team. Obviously, in a live action film, the OGB's have to be replaced because of their age, but that's not the case in other forms of media..
#4868552
Egon's Pompadour wrote:I don't have a problem with new characters being introduced into the Ghostbusters universe. What I don't understand is why nearly every addition to the property, aside from the comics, is replacing the originals with a new team. Obviously, in a live action film, the OGB's have to be replaced because of their age, but that's not the case in other forms of media..
Well look I mean they already continued the original team with RGB. It went for 7 seasons, people enjoyed it. But again, how many times can you find new ways to show the same character arcs? It's one thing to have live action sequels; we obviously don't see those actors in these roles very often so we look forward to it. I wish that could have happened, but obviously not all parties could come together on it. But beyond that, I don't think it's that much of a stretch to try a new team and new ideas.
#4868660
JurorNo.2 wrote:I don't know about new turtles, but how many times do we need to see Raphael learning, yet again, to overcome his teenage angst?
Unless the movie industry manages to break out of reboot hell, my guess would be "As many times as we had seen Batman's parents die!"
This Post Contains Spoilers
JurorNo.2, sting3037 liked this
#4868778
To me the Ghostbusters are Peter Venkman, Ray Stanzt, Egon Spengler, and Winston Zeddemore. I understand recasting would be a problem but I'd rather it be like Extreme Ghostbusters where Ray and Winston are trying to find new recruits (because Murray seems to be against being in a movie) and they hire a new group of women and men to take over. That's not what this movie is though. I frankly dislike it not for just having women but for making the women act in a stupid over the top stereotypical way. That's why I don't like it.
#4868795
Winston1986 wrote:To me the Ghostbusters are Peter Venkman, Ray Stanzt, Egon Spengler, and Winston Zeddemore. I understand recasting would be a problem but I'd rather it be like Extreme Ghostbusters where Ray and Winston are trying to find new recruits (because Murray seems to be against being in a movie) and they hire a new group of women and men to take over. That's not what this movie is though. I frankly dislike it not for just having women but for making the women act in a stupid over the top stereotypical way. That's why I don't like it.
Indeed. That's what a lot of bloggers don't seem to understand. The problem isn't female Ghostbusters. The problem is the dialogue and the way the women interact with each other like they're in a romcom...err....I mean "Paul Feig film."
GoldfishGroup liked this
#4868894
scythemantis wrote:


Purists are the worst of all fans. They are poison to imagination. Why do you dislike originality, experimentation, diversification and, well, FUN? What's fun about retreading the same territory all the time? Why the obsession with Egon, Ray, Peter and Winston specifically?
Yeah totally man. It's only Ghostbusters in name only, why bother bringing back much loved characters? Why bother mean having them catch ghosts or having the theme tune. You know it's people like you that are the cause for Hollywood pumping out constant crap remakes. Sucks to be you. :wink:
#4868938
pferreira1983 wrote:
scythemantis wrote:


Purists are the worst of all fans. They are poison to imagination. Why do you dislike originality, experimentation, diversification and, well, FUN? What's fun about retreading the same territory all the time? Why the obsession with Egon, Ray, Peter and Winston specifically?
Yeah totally man. It's only Ghostbusters in name only, why bother bringing back much loved characters? Why bother mean having them catch ghosts or having the theme tune. You know it's people like you that are the cause for Hollywood pumping out constant crap remakes. Sucks to be you. :wink:
Meanwhile, purists are the ones who beg and plead for a sequel...only to go on a merciless, overblown rampage when they're "disappointed" with the results. The last time I was that disappointed about anything was Christmas morning, 5th grade. It's an emotion best left in childhood. Fandoms aren't about celebration anymore, they're about sitting with arm crossed, waiting to pass judgement, as though they're entitled to something. Sure, you might say fans spent their money to help make Ghostbusters a success, therefore they are entitled to a sequel. Well let me tell you something, Ghostbusters would be a good movie, regardless of what audiences thought of it. Fans made it a financial success, not an artistic one. That credit goes to the creators. If they decide to do a sequel, that is a bonus for fans, not an entitlement. Art and entertainment is not a democracy, especially when audience reaction is so inconsistent and so aggressively fickle.
Kingpin, zeta otaku, Razorgeist and 1 others liked this
#4869192
You know, I personally think it's very foolish to think that we're not going to get closure on the OGB's. Could be a book, could be an animated film, could be a video game. If the folks over at Sony and/or ghostcorp didn't know then, you had better believe they know now. We all want that closure, and for whatever it's worth, the powers that be see that.

The ninja turtles thing is an interesting point, but are we forgetting the fact that it's four mutant turtles? I may be completely insane but it's a little easier to extend disbelief and replicate for non existent creatures than it is to replicate four human beings. Perhaps the laws of gravity and aging don't apply to mutant turtles?
Sav C, JurorNo.2 liked this
#4869709
JurorNo.2 wrote:
Meanwhile, purists are the ones who beg and plead for a sequel...only to go on a merciless, overblown rampage when they're "disappointed" with the results. The last time I was that disappointed about anything was Christmas morning, 5th grade. It's an emotion best left in childhood. Fandoms aren't about celebration anymore, they're about sitting with arm crossed, waiting to pass judgement, as though they're entitled to something. Sure, you might say fans spent their money to help make Ghostbusters a success, therefore they are entitled to a sequel. Well let me tell you something, Ghostbusters would be a good movie, regardless of what audiences thought of it. Fans made it a financial success, not an artistic one. That credit goes to the creators. If they decide to do a sequel, that is a bonus for fans, not an entitlement. Art and entertainment is not a democracy, especially when audience reaction is so inconsistent and so aggressively fickle.
And that doesn't excuse the fact Hollywood will keep remaking stuff but it doesn't mean they should right?
#4869765
pferreira1983 wrote:And that doesn't excuse the fact Hollywood will keep remaking stuff but it doesn't mean they should right?
They're a business, they "should" make money. And audiences haven't been giving the impression that originality makes them money.
#4870742
JurorNo.2 wrote:
pferreira1983 wrote:And that doesn't excuse the fact Hollywood will keep remaking stuff but it doesn't mean they should right?
They're a business, they "should" make money. And audiences haven't been giving the impression that originality makes them money.
Have you seen anyone express excitement towards a remake?

If you need any clarification at all, PM me or […]

Proton Props UK

Good decision to lift the ban! By the way: I think[…]

I'd use some putty. Yeah. I'm sorry, I'm not […]

Or if you bought the access pack you get them inst[…]