No funnier than your mind-reading of HBO executives.

Without proof you have no way of definitively saying that. I guess we’ll just have to wait for the books to end!

And then in interviews post-finale hemmed and hawed about and vaguely hinted at not being 1:1.

I find this take particularly odd because OF the two Benioff has done the most writing pre-GoT.

They were both novelists and screenwriters prior to adapting GoT. Benioff is the more accomplished writer of the two but they are both tested as writers of entirely new material. Not speaking to the quality either. I just think it’s dishonest to act as though GoT was either of their first go-rounds as writers.

JFC, it’s a credit. That’s how TV shows are credited. When you watch the BBC Sherlock it doesn’t say “created by Arthur Conan Doyle” it says “created by Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss”.

Granted this comes from a slightly biased place but could you please not keep saying “filmmaker” instead of “director”? Garland wants to stop being a director. Specifically. A screenwriter is still VERY MUCH A FILMMAKER. As is everyone else who makes a film. Directing is not the ONLY position on a film that makes you…

WTF are you on about? “This quintessential American TV show was so popular in America.” Well fucking DUH. Why are you acting like this is a 90s phenomenon, too? Sorry, did you watch Big Bang Theory? Not exactly the height of wit. Every decade has its dross.

How about YOU back away from the conversation YOU weren’t having? I responded to OP browza and YOU stuck YOUR nose in to argue about what is or isn’t canon, a subject about which I still don’t agree with you but which is also BESIDE THE FUCKING POINT.

Ugh. So first let’s quickly dismiss the X-Men parallel. The Singer films and the 90s series are both adaptations of the comic book series, which is an entirely different matter from the Ghostbusters film, which was the ONLY source material to speak of, and the animated series BASED DIRECTLY ON the Ghostbusters film.

FFS, this is why I found and find the whole thing tiresome.

Yes, *of course* I’m indignant at misogynist jagoffs. OF COURSE.

But I only *brought up* the cartoon as canon because the article brings up the cartoon while making a point that there’s no GB lore to expand on. The cartoon IS canon even if it goes off in a different direction from the second movie or the other spinoff properties. It’s not like anyone pretends that the animated…

Okay?

And was reminded more than once, but thanks for chipping in!

It’s.... weird. The tone of the recent entries is reverent towards the Ghostbusters, which makes sense in a narrative wherein the guys became famous and lauded. But the actual narrative tells us that once the paranormal activity of the original films significantly diminished everyone started to forget the events of…

Inconsistencies within the canon don’t make those productions NOT canon. Just inconsistent. Comic books are full of that shit. The point is that someone who loves the animated series should understand that the original film LEAD TO the animated series, which it couldn’t have done if the original film was bereft of…

That’s fair but it’s also fair to say that Crackle was half-assed. And they at least understood it wasn’t working for them and gave it up rather than holding on and sinking even more money into it like some of these other dummies.

True. And as a grey points out, Crackle was sort of a streaming effort. But it was half-hearted at best. They tried it briefly, it didn’t work, they gave up. I do think they deserve some credit for not holding on past the point of silliness.

Funnily enough a movie often favorably compared to Ghostbusters and considered a “spiritual sequel” is Evolution.