Ghostbusters 3

 ARRG!
Still not wrapping my mind around people who lambast a sequel for being exactly what it claims itself to be -- A SEQUEL!
GBII was a perfectly fine sequal to the 1984 film.  It did exactly what it was supposed to do -- deliver up a 2nd helping of "Ghostbusters"
GBIII obviously is not able to simply just deliver up another supernatural episode involving the comedic talents of Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, etc....  The original cast are going to be appear in this new installment and they might even don the equipment they're known for, but the idea is to keep it coming and in order to do that, they need to introduce new characters.  So, that aside, GB3, in its' "placating of old fans", as some buthead on the interenet accuses the film of doing, is succeeding at being what it is -- a sequel. 
A sequel CAN of course be a completely new film independent of anything that came before it.  That is not an impossibility.  But that's not why SONY is funding a 2nd sequel to Ghostbusters.  The goal is not and never has been to start a new franchise or create an entirely new intellectual property.  Seriously, ppl!!!!