No it was a continuation. DeForrest Kelley as McCoy was even in the first episode to "hand over the torch". Every other series was set in the same continuity. Next Gen, Deep Space Nine and Voyager were all sequels/concurrent and Enterprise was pre TOS.

edit; Nevermind. Rex answered my followup question.

DaveyJoe's post is spot on and probably one of the most mature and sane one's I read in this thread (including posts I've made).

And Rex hit the nail right on the head. The reason so many people are truly upset is because Sony gave the middle finger to the fans that made this reboot possible to appeal to a completely different audience.

When you look at recent "reboots" such as Star Trek and Star Wars, the studio and filmmakers were able to make a film that would appease the original fan base while also broadening it to bring in new fans for the first time.

I agree that Star Trek seems to have been handled respectfully.

I can even agree that GB wasn't handled respectfully (to Aykroyd and Ramis) by the studio during those decades where they were trying to get it made, despite Murray's complete disinterest in the project.

But I don't see the connection that THIS reboot, helmed by Feig and his crew, is specifically disrespecting the fans at all. But we've been over this disagreement over and over, so no sense re-iterating it all again.


I watched this interview with Feig last night. It's 30 minutes, with no edits. I highly recommend it for anyone remotely interested.

If you don't think this guy is a fan, and that he's tried to make what he believes is the most respectful reboot he can, then
That's not to say it IS the best it could have been, by any means. No defense of the movie itself, just seeing that Feig's motivation appears as genuine as any his detractors.

edit: there's a small spoiler at the 27:00 mark. Skip ahead to 28:00 to avoid it if you want

Then he's just misguided and doesn't understand what the long time fans really care about.

It's the characters. Venkman, Ray, Winston, and (RIP) Egon. Even a passing of the torch from them to the new Ghostbusters would have been OK, but he refused to do that. That's on him. Had he done that there would have been virtually no controversy.

Well, and had he made a better movie...


(I still would have had an issue with the cast - I don't like any of them - but I wouldn't have been so irritated like I am that they completely got rid of the characters that I enjoyed so much in the first two movies and replaced them with characters that I can't stand. And I enjoyed the characters in the 2nd GB, even if it wasn't as good as the first.)

I'm still not understanding why they didn't go with the passing of the torch angle.

Because doing a cold reboot (that doesn't acknowledge the existence of the cherished original), putting out subpar, unfunny trailers to it, and then smearing all detractors of the film as misogynists and/or losers was obviously the way of building the goodwill of the fanbase.

We should do a Ghostbusters sheep game. It could be amazing.

People fighting over this movie likes its a remake of Citizen Kane. It ain't. The original was good, but not one of the greatest movies ever made.

I have no interest in this movie mainly because it comes off as a lazy cash grab. The fact the actresses in it have never done any movies previously that i have really enjoyed is a secondary factor. It could easily be four male actors such as Seth Rogan, Michael Cera etc. and i would have an equal lack of interest.

I think it was originally going to be the cast of The Watch when they were talking about doing a Ghostbusters 3.

the way the DCP is encoded and framed - 3D imagery pops out of framing into the black borders just outside the 2.35 aspect ratio.

So far RT giving this movie a 75% fresh rating. I will probably wind up seeing it.

And, if you see it in IMAX (minor spoiler)


At least according to that Feig interview I posted earlier.

Feig's addressed this. His reasoning is crystal-clear: he wanted his characters to create the tech and to start the business. This is a perfectly valid choice that has happened over and over again in reboots. I've never once seen someone suggest that Christopher Nolan should have made his Batman an ex-Robin or Batman's son so Michael Keaton could "pass the torch" nor have I ever seen anyone complain that John Carpenter didn't suggest that the events of "The Thing" happened in the same fictional reality as its predecessor.

There are plenty of reasons why a sequel wasn't viable during the time Feig has been associated with the property. I'll start with the big one: Harold Ramis died. Secondly, Murray didn't wanna do it. Third: when Ramis was alive and there was hope that Murray might do it there was a substantial backlash to the idea of a bunch of out-of-shape guys in their 60s passing the torch to a younger generation. There's a thread here if you've forgotten or you don't believe me. It was a regular, constant complaint.

On top of everything, Aykroyd and Reitman were in absolutely no position to be given a major tentpole movie, and it's doubtful that Ramis was either with his string of moderately-successful late-career comedies.

So to sum it up: the extremely-optimistic idea of all 4 elderly Ghostbusters returning and passing the torch was itself controversial, it certainly wasn't a sure-thing, and the reality (Aykroyd and Hudson passing the torch) is almost inherently disappointing. As far as I'm concerned Feig made the right choice.

^ Great Post

Max Landis Says Paul Feig’s Ghostbusters Is “Pretty Whatever”, Tells Story of His Ghostbusters 3 Pitch
http://www.slashfilm.com/max-landis-...sters-3-pitch/

Max Landis himself is "pretty whatever."

There is no need to "pass the torch" when you are playing the same character. Bruce Wayne is Batman, no mater who is playing the part, the character is the same.

Pretty much, his material is usually passable but never memorable or what I'd consider good.

Personally I've never been a fan of Feig (not even Spy) and already made my opinion on McCarthy clear which it was I'm not too keen on this.

^ Yeah, but your question was why they didn't do a "pass the torch" sort of sequel/reboot. Guru did a good job explaining why, based on the information we have.

As far as I'm concerned, 9 times out of 10 the "it shoulda been a sequel!" thing is the equivalent of "it's about ethics in journalism!" that the GamerGate nuts use as a go-to when people call them out on their hatred of women. It's also almost always thrown around with the unspoken understanding that the new recruits wouldn't be the 4 stars of this new movie.

I'm gonna give all you guys the benefit of the doubt and ask you flat-out: do you honestly think seeing Aykroyd and Hudson passing the torch to these 4 characters would truly be better?

Call me crazy but I gotta figure that would be substantially more damaging to the original film's legacy.

He's a bit of a loudmouth but I did enjoy Victor Frankenstein and American Ultra.

While I'm not a film writer, I think there are plenty of interesting ways you could still keep the setup for this movie and not completely disregard the original canon.

For example, it's been almost 30 years since we last saw the Ghostbusters. You're right, they're old. And in fact, they probably don't even live in New York City anymore and are out in retirement somewhere.

But some 30 years later, there are sightings and hints of paranormal activity. You now bring in the four new female Ghostbusters, and have them "start from scratch" much like they are doing now, but only with the knowledge that four New Yorkers had to do this 30 years ago.

And if you REALLY wanted to pander to the fans, let one of the original Ghostbusters show up at the end and help the new four out of some predicament. Doesn't need to be the game changing savior, but just something that gets them to the next story point. And yes, it would be Ray, Peter or Winston.

May not be the perfect scenario (I wrote this in three minutes), but if writers took some time and an approach like this, I think you would diminish the haters of this new movie drastically.

Again, I find it extremely insulting to the existing fans to say, "Don't worry, we put the original Ghostbusters in this movie. They just aren't playing the same characters you knew and loved." What's the point? If you really want to distinguish your own identity for this movie and have it stand out from the original, leave the original cast out. Let Slimer be the only cross over character.