I wonder if the Angry Video Game Nerd was as riled up when Total Recall and RoboCop were remade, also with the exact same fucking title as the original movie. Oh wait, he wasn't, and actually liked the new RoboCop.

Now, he can say that because Ghostbusters is important to him, and that it was "supposed to" have a sequel for the last 30 years, that he thinks the new movie shouldn't be called Ghostbusters. However, that's some pretty self centered reasoning.

This is true about GB being even more well known and beloved. Real Ghostbusters was awesome, and every kid I know was a fan, had the action figures, etc. But everything is going to become like that because of how merchandising is getting more and more crazy, and how pop-culture and nostalgia is constantly getting referenced with the advent of youtube and social media. I thought remaking the Karate Kid was blasphemy, with Jackie Chan beating up little kids, compared to the Yoda-sized Pat Morita taking on bullies three times his size. But the film did $$$ and a lot of people loved it.

As far as sequels using numbers go, many well known 80s franchises started with numerals, and ended up using subtitles.
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines
Terminator: Salvation
Terminator: Genisys

Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers
Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers
Halloween: H20

The Karate Kid III
The Next Karate Kid

I think it's pretty obvious that if a new film doesn't have a number or a subtitle, and it has the same name as a previous movie with a similar concept, usually it's a remake.

Nightmare On Elm Street, Halloween, and Friday the 13th, were remakes in the mid-to-late 2000s, and I don't remember too many people complaining about lack of a secondary sub title.

And I'm glad that we never got a Ghostbusters III. The first film was special, and I would rather not see elderly versions of the 'busters. Ernie Hudson didn't age too much though, besides some gray.

@bluetoast
Good point. There were some people upset about remaking Robocop, but overall, I don't remember the lead up to the film being released having nearly as much criticism compared to what's being mentioned here (numbers, subtitles, etc). Maybe it's because, despite Robocop and Total Recall being science-fiction, they were considered mainstream, action films that virtually everyone liked. The original Ghostbusters, despite being highly successful, is almost talked about as a cult classic in some ways. Maybe because the main characters are scientists and nerds, and it borrows heavily from Lovecraftian lore, it speaks more directly to geeks and nerds and we want it's fandom to remain exclusive.

Truthfully in spite of his name he's not always actually angry. The Angry Video Game Nerd is just the character most people associate him with. Most of his film reviews he doesn't tear movies apart but reviews them as fairly as they deserve. He mentions in the video that Ghostbusters is a franchise he loves so that's the reason for the video in this case. Also he doesn't exactly trash talk this film either. Essentially he just doesn't think it looks good and is saying he won't see it. My guess is that he's gotten questions from his fanbase on his thoughts too.

Yeah I was just referring to him as his well known name, I know he's in James Rolfe normal mode in the above clip. I've seen some of his movie reviews. Doesn't change the fact that his rationale for the title of the movie was off. I'm not talking about his reasons for not seeing the movie based on the trailer, etc.

I guess I understand what he means though and truthfully I agree with his stance that a lot of films are "name makes" in that they don't relate to the original films but are just using a name to capitalize on a pre-existing franchise. I get why it's done but it is irritating and especially like he mentions when you have some of the original cast still around and the fiasco it was to get a new film and after all this time they'll be showing up not as the parts they played but as random cameos is dumb. Also he makes good point I think in why the female cast has been such a focus of debate. The original film is so beloved that calling this new film the same thing but basically being entirely unrelated makes the fact that the cast members are female the only real thing to distinguish the two.

Yeah, but at this point he has to accept that there will never be a movie with the original guys in their original parts. If he thought that Ghostbusters as a franchise would be done with because Harold Ramis died, he's living in dreamland. The studio will move on, and those leaked emails showed the bad side of the negotiating process with respect to Ivan Reitman and Bill Murray.

He acknowledged the troubled road the sequel has had though and it sounds like he's doing a follow up video on just that. I think he knew it wasn't happening but like a lot of us wanted it to. I think also he probably feels like it's insulting to put the original cast in but not really utilize them meaningfully.

It's fucking insane that people are opposed to the title. Countless remakes do the exact same thing for a hundred years and all of a sudden it's fucked up that the Ghostbusters remake is called Ghostbusters. I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that it features lady Ghostbustresses with vaginas. 100% pure coincidence.

Hopefully he'll go in-depth and discuss the emails, since those actually go into pushing Reitman out and forcing Murray to act in it.

Awesomely fun movie. And that leading man had such exquisite hair. I could just put on some Scissor Sisters and run my fing--- wait, what?

We are all just pathetic misogynists. Thanks for reminding us, over and over and over and over and over.

A new trailer was just released. And it is equally as shitty.

Yeah, it's not looking good at all. Here:

I think I chuckled at the lady with the selfie stick? But man, McCarthy wasnt working for me and Wiig seemed flat as hell.

OK, back in to comment on the new trailer.

It is not equally shitty (to the first one). It is even shittier than the first. The movie itself looks like a joke - like it's not meant to be real, but a practical joke played on some die hard Ghostbusters fan.

I have never seen a pair of worse trailers than these two. If that's the best they've got, then this movie is going to be one of the worst in recent years.

I like this youtube comment

That trailer was even worse.

I can't even seem to put in words why this has zero interest for me....maybe it's Melissa M., whom I'm sick of.

I don't even care that it's women, Wiig is also annoying to me.

First thing you see in trailer is "SEWARD". Clever.

Yep.

There is nothing organic about this movie. Everything is forced, and forced into a gimmick. That whole Chris Hemsworth in Ghostbuster uniform showing off his less than manly Ghostbusters bike thing was embarrassing. It was just thrown into support the gimmick, but don't you dare question the gimmick!

And then there's everything else in the trailer - it's all schtick and cliche with nothing remotely clever or funny. The original Ghostbusters almost OD'd on clever. This Ghostbusters is going to die from cleverness deficiency. Cinematic malnutrition.

Pretty much everything I wanted to say.

This trailer is a substantial improvement over the earlier one. You can definitely tell who was just waiting to bash it regardless though. It pretty much cements the fact that the Internet hive mind's opinion was cemented long before a single second of footage was released.

Thank you, Paul Feig. You incredible genius.

Chris Hemsworth! Cap had nothing to do with this!

I'm sorry, but if you can watch that trailer and then post that without a hint of sarcasm then you clearly have an agenda of some kind.

That was a horrible trailer. Forget about the, "Controversy," over the gimmick, it was a horrible trailer. Not a single funny line, and the schtick (big black woman falls flat on her back because the crowd won't crowd surf her, Chris Hemsworth looking less than masculine in his reversed role) is just lowbrow, lame, and pathetically UNfunny.

Forget everything else, this movie looks bad on it's own merits - even if the original hadn't existed.