Just when it's finally cultrually acceptable to not hate GHOSTBUSTERS II...

...along comes another new spin on GHOSTBUSTERS.  And the pissing and moaning about the choices the writers made and things that should've been included and shouldn't have been included...as if everyone EXCEPT Paul Feig knew how to make a good GHOSTBUSTERS movie.  The most mind boggling thing I hear is the line "It didn't need to be re-make".  My response is always like "It didn't need to be made in the first place."  I'm glad it did get made, it's a great movie, but what would the world have been missing if some other fun supernatural comedy got made in 1985 and 1984 and all the other years since just didn't see GHOSTBUSTERS?  Now that we know what GHOSTBUSTERS **is**, it's hard for some people to imagine a world without it, but I think it's a lame argument to say "The world needed to see this movie!"  If GHOSTBUSTERS were a fully realized movie to begin with, before it got pitched to Columbia Pictures in 1983, I might be able to see how that line of thinking makes sense.  The script by Dan Aykroyd was far from what we saw on the screen in 1984.  Harold Ramis and Ivan Rietman didn't finish revisions before Columbia Pictures granted $30,000,000 for production.  They weren't trying to give the world some Ultimate Movie or a Savior Of Cinema.  Their motives for making GHOSTBUSTERS were most likely just as much a combination of artistic expression and greed as Paul Feig's motives for re-making GHOSTBUSTERS.  Now, Sony -- who now owns Columbia Pictures & all its properties -- is most likely far more motivated by commerce than art.
I can more or less wrap my head around people thinking nothing good of the trailers that have been released.  I personally think the movie sounds entertaining.  But people have been rallying against this movie as if it's a threat to society.  It'd be one thing if the movie were advertised as being something x person wants to see and then x person went in the theater and ended up disappointed.  But people have been rallying against this movie with such concrete venom since well before any trailer was even released.
 A 3rd Ghostbusters movie was never guaranteed to be anything except a 3rd movie from Columbia Pictures/Sony about people busting ghosts.  The Ecto-1 was never promised, the original weaponry was never promised, the no ghost logo was never promised.  Yet the absence of the original Ecto-1, the re-designed weaponry, the added weaponry and the no-ghost logo itself have all been points of controversy and people say that the reason they're upset about this thing is because it's a re-make and not a sequel and that it's got nothing to do with sexism.  Maybe sexism isn't the reason, but being a nitpicky old fart is still not a virtue of any kind.  Unless your nitpickety old fartyness can accomplish something other than pissing and moaning about every fact, factoid and rumor pertaining to a movie nobody ever offered you the opportunity to (re-)make.