Karl Puschmann: Sequels conjure ghosts of the past

Ghostbusters. Photo / Supplied

The 80s called. They want their sequels back. And, quite possibly, that gag. But that was my first thought upon hearing that a third Ghostbusters movie had been given the green light.

Original Ghostbuster Dan Ackroyd had been kicking the idea around for years and was especially bullish in blabbing on about getting it made. Unfortunately for him his ghostbustin' partner Bill Murray seemed equally as determined to avoid getting slimed for a third time.

Murray never outright shot down the idea, he just did passive-aggressive things like refuse to read any scripts Ackroyd sent him. He wasn't in or out. He was indifferent.

The thing was, the more enthusiastic Ackroyd got the less it sounded like a good idea. And watching the ghostbustin' gang as oldies, all suited up and hobbling around after ghosts that - and let's be honest here - they will soon be joining, just didn't appeal at all.

But now Ghostbusters 3 is go. Either without the originals at all or with them in a greatly diminished role. It's being helmed by Bridesmaids director Paul Feig, which is great. There's been much ballyhoo about the fact that he's assembling an all-female ghostbusting team but I can't see the problem with that. It'll give the film a new spin and I'd rather see that than one of today's male stars failing miserably to be the new Peter Venkman.

However, I do reckon it's a missed opportunity that his Bridesmaids buddy Kristen Wiig, who wrote and starred in that smash comedy hit, isn't writing it. Though I do suspect she'll be the main buster this time round.

A few days later word trickled out that Jim Henson's dark fantasy masterpieces The Dark Crystal and Labyrinth would also be getting sequels. These films both offer rich, developed worlds for the creative team to play in so I really hope they're up to the task.

Especially with Labyrinth, which is just so damned good a new entry is a towering ask. It's also so of-its-time that a sequel now, almost 30 years later, seems somewhat foolhardy. But who knows what they've got planned? As long as the goblins don't sing and dance to a dubstep banger then I'll go see it and hope for the best.

Will it recapture the magic and wonder of the first film? For me, no. But I'm not 9 years old like I was when the family went to the cinema to watch it all those years ago. But it could still be entertaining so I'm willing to give it a shot.

But three films is hardly 80s excess. However, add in Beverly Hills Cop 4, Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure 3, Blade Runner 2 and Goonies 2 and you've got a lot of thoroughly unnecessary sequels going on.

Pop culture commentary is filled with people bleating that Hollywood is ruining their childhood by making sequels to these classic films. But that's not my take.

Instead I think it's worth taking a punt and revisiting the childhood classics. Yes, there's a risk some abomination like Transformers will be the result, justifying all the fan outrage, but why not at least try? Something good and fun and entertaining could be the result. And that's all you can ever ask for from a film.

A great movie can make you rediscover your sense of childhood wonder for a bit, but it's never going to take over your life the way they once did. I can't see anyone in the office wanting to jump on their bikes and play Goonies during lunchtime. Myself included.

These days I got adult shiz to take care off. But I can't think of anything greater than being able to take my kid to the cinema to see Labyrinth 2 the way my parents did for my sister and I back in the day and then watching her young eyes fill with the same wide-eyed wonder and excitement that ours did. Because even if these sequels are completely and utterly terrible, I can still go home afterwards, pop in the original on DVD and escape back to days when puppets seemed truly alive, treasure-hunting adventures were planned for the school holidays and Eddie Murphy was one of the funniest people on the planet.