Heck hath no fury like a person hearing about GHOSTBUSTERS 3(R)

I found a companion to GhostbustersNews.com for people who don't find news regarding Ghostbusters 3 "vomit inducing":

http://ghostbustersiii.blogspot.com/

I don't know anything for a stone cold fact, but I cannot imagine that anyone with an open perspective can actually favor the British version of the GHOSTBUSTERS logo.  I can understand someone being philosophically opposed to the finalized logo that Columbia Pictures came up with, being British and not wanting to see their beloved creation modified for any reason whatsoever, especially by a U.S. citizen of all humanity!  But if you take National Pride and politics out of the equation, the Columbia Pictures design just looks better.  Find one U.S. citizen who wasn't raised in Britain and isn't dyslexic who disagrees and I'll shut up.
The logo seen on the banner of the above URL looks preposterous.  I don't know if that's intended as mockery, or if the website owner is British and resents the fact that Columbia Pictures didn't reverse the logo for the GB2 merchandise that was sold over there...

Ghostbusters III with an all female cast?  Um...I have nothing against that concept, but I do hope they're not doing this as some kind of male fantasy fulfillment, with bare legs and the obligatory lesbian kiss.  The idea of women carrying large amounts of weight isn't unrealistic, per se, but the majority of Hollywood actresses seem a little too lacking in skin, not to mention muscle, to realistically carry a proton pack.  But more than one person has admirably suggested casting unknowns, since there's no obvious choices for casting in the project.  But who exactly counts as "unknown"?  Ben Stiller was rejected by 20th Century Fox when the director proposed he star in THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY (1998) because he wasn't well known enough.  He had starred in FLIRTING WITH DISASTER in 1996, a very good movie, maybe not a movie **EVERYBODY** saw, but certainly enough people saw it to where a studio producer worth his salt would know to let Ben Stiller have his day in the sun.  Eh, idk...the idea of casting "big names" in movies is so stupid.  I don't know where people get the idea that an actor has anything to do with a movie's success.  Yes, you need talent.  Some movies DEMAND it.  But the actor doesn't make the movie what it is.  The heart and soul of a movie is almost always the ideas, the expression of those ideas...obviously, a good screenplay can be ruined by bad actors.  But the same can be said with bad cinematography, bad lighting, bad set design, bad costuming, you name it.  You can have 0MPH wind, a high end Sony camera resting firmly on a stand, on level ground, and film Meryl Streep reading lines with Dustin Hoffman from KRAMER VS. KRAMER (1979).  It's not the same as watching KRAMER VS. KRAMER.
  Anyway...totally derailed my train of thought by talking my ass off about Ben Stiller being or not being "unknown" circa 1997/early 1998...yeah...

I think I'm gonna forgo GHOSTBUSTERS I & II on blu.  I already have GHOSTBUSTERS on digital @ Amazon Instant Video.  I can buy GHOSTBUSTERS II for $9.99 @ same.  The BD set is $23.95 w/ S&H and nothing seems worth buying with it to make it eligible for free s&h.  I have nine mp3s in my AmazonMP3 shopping cart totaling $10.02  (Wow!).  Four of those 9 are from DAYDREAM FOREVER, which I was prepared to buy in full on CD for a little over $15.  And there's nothing from THROUGH ART WE ARE ALL EQUALS that stands out.  I guess I could buy that in its entirety on mp3, less waste.  So, with all this moving to digital, what ever will I receive in the mail from Amazon LLC?  Not much telling...I probably should order that Carhartt J140 thingy...not immediately though, I don't think I'll have enough in Sept....can't remember why off hand though...