A Sequel…Why Did It Have to Be a Sequel?

g3

From the teaser/trailer to “Ghostbusters 3”

Oh, good grief. I mean “Ghostbusters 3?”

Okay, I’m a huge fan of the original 1984 Ghostbusters starring Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Sigourney Weaver, Harold Ramis, and directed by Ivan Reitman. Every Halloween, I close up all of the blinds on the front of my house, hide from trick or treaters, and watch this comedy classic. It’s a beautiful movie that never gets old.

I’ve watched the 1989 sequel exactly once, hated it, and have never viewed it since.

I read extensively about the gender-flipped 2016 Ghostbuster’s remake and decided to avoid it altogether. Yes, that probably leaves me vulnerable to being called “sexist” and “misogynistic” since a “woke” man would have not only watched the film but loved it for being pro-woman and progressive (however, as Paul Bois at The Daily Wire quipped, “Get woke, go broke”)…

…or maybe it was just a bad movie banking on using an established and beloved franchise to push an ideology in the most shallow and blatantly obvious way possible.

That would have been the end of it for me, and should have, but then I found out a third Ghostbuster’s movie is being planned, directed by Jason Reitman, the son of the original director, and (possibly) involving some of the original cast (sadly, Harold Ramis passed away in 2014).

ghostbusters

Promotional shot for the 1984 film “Ghostbusters”

Of course, Murray, Aykroyd, Signorney Weaver, Ernie Hudson, and the rest of the original cast aren’t getting any younger, so (surprise, surprise) they’ll probably appear just long enough to hand the torch to the next generation of kick ass Ghostbusters.

Sound familiar?

That’s pretty much what Disney is doing with the “Star Wars” franchise. So far Han and Luke have cashed in (and again, sadly Carrie Fisher passed away in 2016, making a return as General Leia Organia only possible within the realm of previously shot footage), and newer, fresher faces debuting.

cf

Screenshot of Carrie Fisher’s last “tweet”

And we’ve seen how well that’s worked out so far.

Why, just why can’t Hollywood ever let things be?

I know why. Money.

Scott Mendelson in his recent Forbes article, is complaining that the junior Reitman is being “rewarded” as a (mostly) failed movie director, because misogyny must be served by returning to an all-male Ghostbusters platform. Mendelson sums up his missive by stating:

Jason Reitman’s “Ghostbusters 3” (or whatever it ends up being called) will aim for a summer 2020 release date. I hate that this is happening. I hate that the misogynistic Ghostbusters trolls (and if that’s not you, then this isn’t about you) are getting what they want. I hate that audiences are punishing Hollywood for still trying to release movies like “Only the Brave” and “Tully” even as they complain that Hollywood is nothing but sequels and reboots. But I won’t pretend that Reitman isn’t a talented filmmaker who makes more good movies than bad ones and that Sony hasn’t shown an understanding of how to revive a property like this in the recent past. It worked with “Halloween,” it worked with “Star Wars,” and it may work with “Ghostbusters.”

I heard that the latest “Halloween” film was quite successful (I don’t like horror apart from the original Universal Studios movies –Dracula, Frankenstein, The Invisible Man, and such– and have never watched any film in that franchise), I highly dispute that the current series of “Star Wars” films has been successful, at least with me and those of us who appreciate George Lucas’s original vision, and as Mendelson says, who knows about “Ghostbusters?”

But here’s the thing. Why not just let the franchise die and try something new? After all, “Ghostbusters” was new in 1984 and it became great. However, you can’t always clone greatness infinitely and sometimes not at all.

Do what film studios should have done with “Indiana Jones,” and arguably “Star Wars” and “Star Trek”. Just let it go.

15 thoughts on “A Sequel…Why Did It Have to Be a Sequel?”

  1. Ghostbusters was terrific, especially the Marsh Mallow Man. Agree with you about the second, and I won’t entertain the third.
    Sometimes sequels don’t work, so they come up with prequels, which to me can be even worse.
    I have to admit though that when Rambo IV came out with a very old Stallone, we wondered where the story would go, and absolutely loved it (figure of speech, damn good movie).
    I read ages ago that they’re reworking the Terminator franchise with Sarah Connor leading women but with no Judgement Day. Plan to give that a miss I think.

    Like

    Reply

  3. I can honestly see where you are coming from. I have watched the Halloween, Alien (Aliens was much better), Ghostbusters, Star Wars,and many others in their original state. I saw Star Wars at the theater in the late 70s. The advertising was brilliant…about 5 five-second clip of fighting (showing Chubaka) and the comment “there was…Star Wars!). That was it…want anymore, go to the theater. I saw it at the theater 3 times.I believe it was twice the first weekend. Anyway, I enjoyed a lot of the sequels, because I could just go with whatever in a film…
    However, there are ones, like you said, that they should have let die and stay great.
    Scott

    Like

    Reply

    • Agreed. Of course, “Empire Strikes Back” and “Return of the Jedi” (in my opinion) were great sequels, so it’s not you can’t make more than one film in the series. However, so many are just filmed to cash in on the franchise’s popularity without any thought to quality or why people loved the original in the first place. I’m very careful on what films I spend my hard earned bucks to see in the theater.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.