featofstrength said:
Im sure you can google it, if you don't already know and are just goading me into a preplanned, interpretational shoot-down.
No, I'm actually asking what specifically were Feig's comments that you thought were out of line. I honestly don't know.
Frankly, I don't care about whiny folks on the internet who blow things out of proportion and get butthurt as a matter of course by anything that deviates even slightly from their precious preconceptions.
And I say this as someone who has probably gotten very steamed on occasion when movies or TV or whatever hasn't turned out the way I wanted it to.
Pale Horse said:
The 'Ghostbuster's' fan base. They're so small, you probably haven't heard of them yet. They're kind-of like hipsters.
I'm a proud member of the Ghostbusters fanbase (I have a shirt and everything), just one who is at least wise enough to realize that - though I'd vastly prefer NO sequel at all - that a reboot is really the only way to give this even a chance of success.
TheFedora said:
You could have done it (the all female cast) without making it a reboot. And his remark about not being able to find a plot after a 'world changing' event like Stay Puft is just lazy. A REAL writer would know how to work around something like that and show us how the world is impacted by it. Instead of rebooting things and the desire to get a 'marvel like universe' at all costs.
The marvel comments were made by Dan Aykroyd, who has had insane, wildly unrealistic ideas for the franchise since he literally came up with the year over 30 years ago. He isn't involved anymore and the new thinking has nothing to do with the so-called "marvel style universe".
As for "a REAL writer could find a way"......
That's ridiculous and pointless and not where writers should be spending their energies. Being needlessly shackled to continuity is an obstacle to telling a good story. I'd MUCH rather have a good movie that stood on its own than one that had to bend, twist and contort itself to fit 30 year old continuity for literally no reason.
Besides, why would you want to be a direct sequel to a movie that the original actors (well, except for a very desperate Dan Aykroyd) would be in?
It would be nothing but awkward and sad (not unlike Aykroyd's ill-conceived "Blues Brothers 2000.")