Ghostbuster was a decently timeless film. We didn't see anything in the technology or the attire or hair styles that screamed, “It's the 80's!” so going totally from the first film alone, the idea of saying that the Ghostbusters beat up Gozer 6 months ago is plausible and even refreshing. I kinda like it.

(*rant) But, that doesn't excuse the fact that in film two, Peter, during his episode of “World of the Psychic” makes a reference to the year 1992 in a way that clarifies that it hasn't happened yet. If it weren't for this reference, I wouldn't be able to say anything against the updated timeline, but this is kinda bugging me. I mean, are they just going to pretend GB2 never happened or something? That wouldn't necessarily bug me too much, but I kinda feel like that's cheating. Am I the only person wrestling with this?

suppression
I mean, are they just going to pretend GB2 never happened or something?

That's pretty much the idea.

That wouldn't necessarily bug me too much, but I kinda feel like that's cheating. Am I the only person wrestling with this?

I don't really feel cheated, Ghostbusters II was of lesser quality then the first film, always has, always will be, it is hard to beat the success of the original, and such, I don't feel it is a huge loss that GBII ‘never happened’ in the comic timeline, it doesn't subject the GHOSTBUSTERS team to having to comply to a set storyline, with nothing historically ahead of it, Sebastien, Andrew, Blond, Serge and Steve are free to expand the universe without any boundaries.

According to the comics Ghostbusters 2 never happened and never will. I prefer it that way. I didn't like the second Ghostbusters very much, it was more fastpaced and easier to watch half awake on a couch, but that's all I really give it for high points.

We'll just say a wizard did it….

I would like to see the 88MPH crew redo GBII to fit with the current timeline; and GB; more. Not as a flashback; but an actual arc sometime in the future.

Erm, I don't think they can legally do that. Even if people wanted to, they can't redo or portray any version of Ghostbusters II in any way, shape or form.

Why not? They have the rights to the franchise? Or is GB:Legion illegal too?Do you hate GBII so much that you think it's not even a part of the same copyrights? I call this the “Archie Syndrome” since the first I've noticed this was between the Archie Sonic comics, the Sonic games, and other various Sonic universes. People hate things outside of their preferred portion of a franchise so much that they decided that it doesn't even exist as part of the copyrights and liscenses of their own portion.

There is no legal reason they couldn't do it. Sony would have the final say in whether they could or not, and that's it.

im pretty sure king is right.

88 has the rights to ghostbusters only, not ghostbusters 2. ibooks, on the other hand, received rights to both films, and could therefore set their book after the second film and refer to events from both.

Seb made a big deal out of it when people ask GB2 related questions.

such as “will we see slime blowers”, “will the GBs go out of business”.

he made it pretty clear that their contract only covers what is established in GB1, and as i understood it, taking on elements of GB2 could contitute a breach of contract.

besides that most of what seb has said leads me to believe they are staying away from GB2 continuity anyways, and are only interested in GB1 related stuff.

Thats my understanding of it anyways-its possible i could be wrong.

PS- im sure King's point wasnt rooted in a deep down hatred of GB2, or a malicious wish to get rid of GB2.

Thanks Rutherford

EvilMagi4h: While I don't hate GBII to the point of removing it's credibility, as you said, I don't enjoy it as much as the original.

My point was, and Rutherford stated to the effect, that Sebastien and 88MPH have the rights to the material and characters portrayed in Ghostbusters which entails the main cast, the familiar equipment, vehicles, buildings/non-standard locations etc. However, to be able to do Ghostbusters II they'd need to purchase the rights to that, it seems to be a common misconception that if you buy the rights for one film in a series, it automatically means you can use everything in the franchise, I don't think that's how it works.

Sebastien would then need to purchase the rights to the second movie, not only would that cost money, but it could also effectively restrict the potential future events of the comic, and I doubt he'd want to do that.

I'd love to see how Sebastien and co could put a spin on Ghostbusters II, but I know that it'll probably never happen.

It was my understanding that they got the rights to the franchise, not just one movie or another. I have never seen anything spun off a franchise before that did not get the rights to do something “based on that franchise” not just one particular point of it. This goes through TMNT; Sonic the Hedgehog, and more recently; Mega Man. While the specifics of each movie are copyrighted seperately; an entire franchise (like GB) tends to be copyrighted as a whole. Furthermore; typically the actual owner of the franchise has to give approval for everything that occurs in the spin off. I again refer to the mess known as Archie Comics' Sonic the hedgehog series. It has bounced between two (or three; I've lost track) shows it was supposed to mirror, before finally ending up where it is now: SEGA wanting Archie to somehow mesh the games' continuity into the AC's version. I may be wrong, but I don't think so.

EvilMagi4h
It was my understanding that they got the rights to the franchise, not just one movie or another. I have never seen anything spun off a franchise before that did not get the rights to do something “based on that franchise” not just one particular point of it. This goes through TMNT; Sonic the Hedgehog, and more recently; Mega Man. While the specifics of each movie are copyrighted seperately; an entire franchise (like GB) tends to be copyrighted as a whole. Furthermore; typically the actual owner of the franchise has to give approval for everything that occurs in the spin off. I again refer to the mess known as Archie Comics' Sonic the hedgehog series. It has bounced between two (or three; I've lost track) shows it was supposed to mirror, before finally ending up where it is now: SEGA wanting Archie to somehow mesh the games' continuity into the AC's version. I may be wrong, but I don't think so.

I have to agree, the argument that they only have rights to GB1 doesn't sound very realistic. Furthermore, since they've used designs from the cartoons, we know it's really not the case. I'm sure it's more of a creative decision not to use GB2's timeline.