Ghostbusters 2016 (And its Controversy)

[Kriven]

I don't know why the Robocop remake gets so much hate--I thought it was just as good as the original. The biggest problem with it is that it's a remake, and it covers basically all of the same ground that the original film did and most of the time in much the same way (with some added black instead of the characteristic Robocop platinum in the name of being new). So in the end it just felt like a shinier version of something we already have and that most people already love.

Had they, and many of these other remakes coming out, gone ahead and just made a Robocop 4, I think we would have had a much better film. Which is basically my stance on film remakes at all. There's no need to remake something which originated on film and is loved as a film. Sure, remake things which originated in animation, comic books, video games, literature--that's all fine. But for some reason remaking something in the medium it originally appeared seems weird (with the exception of video games, usually). I would rather see these franchises continue. Terminator Genisys maybe isn't the greatest Terminator movie we've ever seen, but I definitely prefer that to "Here's Terminator with New Graphics." It continues the story while giving us what we love.

Kind of losing my way. I was going to make that argument with Jurassic World before I remembered that Jurassic Park is a book (shame on me). Anyways, just... I would rather if instead of rebooting Robocop we got Robocop 4. If instead of rebooting Ghostbusters we got Ghostbusters 3. Instead of "wiping the slate clean" let's get some "reboots" that use the slate as a backdrop. How does the world of Ghostbusters look after thirty years of knowing that ghosts are real and we have the technology to combat and interact with them? That would be something much better than "Forget the Old Ones, here's the New One!"

And y'know, same thing with whatever remakes are or have come out.