I've got one thing that I'd like to point out to you: Ghostbusters: The Video Game proves that there's still a potential for the franchise.
First, I played and loved the game. I think the franchise does still have potential -- IN THAT FORMAT. I don't know about you, but I don't hold games to the same standard that I do films. Films need to go above and beyond (and sadly fail to do so these days...). Games, well, I accept that they may have clunky narratives or that the action in the story slows down (usually to allow for the player to blow stuff up or whathaveyou). Games are also interactive, in that they give the player a more personal connection to the material. YOU are the faceless rookiee in GB: The Game. You're not just watching him bumble around. That means, on an unconscious level, YOU are a Ghostbuster, which in turn I think makes people enjoy the experience more.
I'm not saying that any of this is bad, either. Actually, I thought they did a terrific job with the game and I'd love it if they continued such adventures in game format. The story was solid -- for a game -- and while it wasn't the kind of funny/cool that I get from GB1, it still made me feel happy playing it.
The story is better than
Ghostbusters II (which tried to play too close to the first film. In fact, a user on YouTube asked the question why
Ghostbusters II was getting a bad rap, and I explained not in
one, but two different video replies, the
second one being at the request of the user. Despite playing too close to the original, it had some pluses). The game took what was presented in the first film and expanded on it, gave us something new that differed from the first film, much like how
Aliens (which played more like a war movie) differed from
Alien (which was was like a sci-fi/horror version of
10 Little Indians). If the second film had the story that the game had, I bet the second film would have done better. Actually, Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert gave the film two thumbs down and were disappointed that the film didn't try anything new (where as the game actually presented something new, even by expanding what we were introduced to in the first film. To me, the second film was almost as good as the first one (and I like it), but it could have been better storywise (and the video game actually proves it), which makes me wonder if the reason why the film's story is the same is because of the studio forcing the filmmakers to use almost the same story instead of allowing them to take the film in the direction they wanted to.
I don't disagree, actually. But I also think this highlights a MAJOR potential problem with any future film entries: studio interference. With the game, it's a lower profile product. Probably with a MUCH lower budget than a film. With a film, you know it'd be a big budget thing, and that'd mean the studio would want to ensure (in its own hamfisted way) that the film returned on that investment. I would expect the studio to therefore probably botch the film, insist that it be a THIRD "Starting out in business" film (only with new franchisees), and then just cast whatever young comic actors were hot at that particular moment without regard for whether any of them were any good for the role.
Now, since Dan Aykroyd has stated that they're going to have new recruits in the film, it opens a big door for potentially good storylines (not to mention ongoing details from the first two films and the game). As a writer, the fact that Aykroyd is okay with bringing in some new blood opens the door wide for potential story ideas for what'd be like for the Ghostbusters of the 21st Century. For example, as a writer and if I were writing the story, I would have Oscar Barrett, Dana's son (who we last saw in Ghostbusters II), now all grown up has decided to join up with the Ghostbusters against his mother's wishes (which leads Dana back into Peter Venkman's life once again). Around this time, someone possessed by Tiamat, a primordial goddess of the ocean in Babylonian mythology, finds the Tablet of Destinies, a mythical Mesopotamian clay tablet that is said that whomever holds it rules the universe (which the table had once been hers). As a result, reality is fractured into multiple realms that lead to different periods of time of Earth's history and the only people not affected by present day being wiped out are the original Ghostbusters, Dana and the new recruits because of some new equipment that Egon and Ray were testing inside the firehouse (which remains unaffected while modern New York and every other city in the world being erased from existance). In order to restore reality back to the way it was, the new recruits and the original Ghostbusters have to work together to defeat Tiamat through different time periods and eventually restoring things back to the way they were. Is it a great idea for a story? Maybe not, but its one possibility that comes from the introduction of new recruits, while being able to have a lot more characters to relate to both for the young audience and the original fans of the Ghostbusters films.
Neat. Also probably nothing like what we'd get. Akroyd's an ok writer, who clearly has a deep love of the arcane and the occult. That's cool. I dig that, and it comes through in his performances as Ray. But regardless, I think the studio would play it safe. Big budget, but safe. And while we can hypothesize about how cool it COULD be and what kind of potential it COULD have, I just have very little faith that that potential would actually be realized. I'm sorry, but I just don't trust Hollywood not to botch this. The dollar signs in their eyes are just too big for this project.
But to address the question of "Why have another one?" Well, it's primarily because there's a demand for it with the original audience. Much like why they did
TRON: Legacy, there was a big demand for it from the fans for over 20 years (despite the fact the first one didn't do well at the box office). So, instead of allowing fans to take over and do a
Ghostbusters film (which many have done as fan films, one of the better examples being the Denver Ghostbusters fan films, in particular
The Return of the Ghostbusters), the original filmmakers and the studio sees that there is more of a demand for it than the next, mindless Michael Baysplosion spectacular.
That's great, but the demand for the film, in my opinion, doesn't mean that another entry is worthwhile. I thought TRON Legacy was pretty good. Was it $10-in-the-theaters good? I dunno... I'm questioning whether much of anything meets that mark for me anymore.
Maybe if I had more faith that Hollywood wouldn't continue to defecate all over whatever it gets a hold of when it comes to reboots/remakes/franchise films I'd be a bit more optimistic...but the whole thing is just so crass and craven that even films -- like TRON: Legacy -- that clearly have people involved who really love the underlying property can go awry or, more likely, not go far enough. So, at this point, with enough disappointing sequels and trips back to the well, I've come to the conclusion that it's better to enjoy what you have and look to the horizon for new, unexpected, as-yet unexplored entertainment instead of being mired in the past hoping to find the secret of turning old franchises into gold.
