Does anyone else think Ghostbusters should have been forgotten a long time ago?
 

Ivan Reitman is attached to 'Ghostbusters 3'! | News at MovieTome.com

seriously. if you do, tell me how confusing that article is to you.

I don't know that it should have been forgotten but I can't think of a reason (other than profit) to make a third film this late in the game. All I can say is it had better be good or they risk tarnishing the memories of the first film (think Star Wars part one through three).

The first one is a classic, no doubt. Let's hope they take some sort of fresh creative approach and actually expand the franchise or the characters in some way.

I really hate it when serial sequels are so obviously the same movie with a different title, re-hashing all the same tired jokes, pranks, self-references, etc., à la Austin Powers.

I wish Hollywood would quit raping my childhood all together. Ghostbusters III is just another movie that crosses the "Do Not Tread" line.

No - because Ghostbusters II wasn't too bad. Of course it couldn't live up to the original.

However, I believe that everyone associated with Caddyshack II should have been rounded up and executed.

Dancing toaster!

yes.

I've seen and enjoyed the Star Wars prequels, Indiana Jones 4 and Clerks 2. I want this movie SO bad (but I also know that anyone going in and expecting the equal of the original is a fool, so low expectations always helps :p)

The new Ghostbusters game was massively disappointing, which doesn't give me high hopes for the film.

I'll still see it, though.

^^ Question is will you pay to see it?

That steaming pile of crap ruined the original for me.

As for Ghostbusters III, I won't be seeing it in the theaters. Maybe on TV if I'm ever home sick and the illness makes me delirious.

The Ghostbusters movies are overrated anyway. They're nostalgic and that's why people think they're classics and that they're so good. Watch them now and it's like ...........this sucks.

So yes, I think they should have been forgotten a long time ago. A good rule to follow is if you absolutely loved a movie when you were a kid, chances are it sucks, because it was made for kids. Ghostbusters was made for kids.

I liken Ghostbusters to Star Wars. If you don't take them too seriously and instead enjoy them for what they're do, they aren't that bad...and can even be viewed as rather good.

If you look at any of these films with any other kind of eye, they're going to really suck. Of course.

That said, I'm looking forward to the third Ghostbusters. If they modernize it while keeping much of the original spirit, then I'll be satisfied with it.

They need to stop making sequels to movies released decades ago. The first one was great, but its time has long gone past. The best the third one can hope for is to be watchable. I might rent it, but I won't go see it in theaters. Indiana Jones and Star Wars have ruined any excitement I have for sequels to classic movies.

This one better have Tracy The Gorilla, Ghost Buggy, and Belfrey dammit!

I really like when a movie uses its setting as one of the main characters and both Ghostbusters did that with NYC. For that reason, I'm looking forward to the sequel, albeit with checked expectations.

I don't tie my sense of wellbeing to the quality of movies anymore. So what if it sucks? My childhood remains intact.

I don't get it myself, I dont ever watch either of the old ones on tv. but whatever, if you grew up with the toys you might go see it. if they make a new one I spose I'll watch it once on tv, I wouldn't bother renting it or even searching a torrent though.