I can see you worked hard on this post, but you seem to forget that many of the new entries in these amazing new imaginings that you're so fond of were fucking terrible. Are you seriously going to bat for your argument with the latter entries in the Karate Kid, Ninja Turtle, Mission Impossible, and Fast franchises? Why not bring up CG Smurfs and Chipmunks, or The Invasion, or Vince Vaughn's totally unneeded Psycho remake, or that Guess Who's Coming To Dinner remake, or Tim Burton's shitty Planet of the Apes and Alice reboots, or any other number of complete failures of this idea?
If that's where you hope Ghostbusters is going with things, I can see why people are concerned. Those all did a lot to harm their franchises, I don't care what you say.
Karate Kid 2010 was fun reboot of the original premise. Every Mission Impossible film is completely different in tone, owing to different directors. Fast Five and Six are the best in the series, once they cast off trying to be serious at all. Dawn and Rise of the Planet of the Apes are great films. I'm unsure of what point you're trying to make; that adaptations can fail? Uh, yeah. Entertainment can always fail in execution. Many movies, adaptation or otherwise, can be very, very bad. I see no reason to stop making them.
And in order:
Karate Kid was a net positive according to critics, including
Ebert, who reviewed the original. The sequel has been in production for a while.
Ninja Turtles wasn't good, but even if it completely flopped (it didn't, a sequel is on the way), someone would've done another film in 5-10 years. (See the CG film.) The TMNT cartoon is awesome, probably the best of any of the animated series.
The
Mission: Impossible films have a wide variety, with MI5 coming this year.
Fast and Furious has never elevated itself above B-movie level. Five and Six are fun heist films, and since the fourth film, the franchise has made more money and actually been rated higher.
Smurfs, not good in my opinion, but kids like it and there's another film coming in 2016.
Chipmunks, also not good, but I never liked the Chipmunks in the first place. Complete wash personally. Regardless, film this year, CGI cartoon airing on Nickelodeon soon.
Rise/Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. Great films.
Critical consensus puts Dawn above the original, which is kind of a hokey film at times.
Psycho, bad, but it didn't erase the original. Bates Motel got a second season, but I can't comment on the quality of the show.
You get the idea. They've done no harm whatsoever. You state they have, but provide no proof of your claim. Did they burn the originals to the ground? Salt the earth? Nope. they still exist and these adaptations are going in their own directions. If i don't like any of them, like the Ninja Turtles film, it's amazingly easy to just ignore it.
It just where do you draw the line? People don't like white washing, like rumoured Akira movie. When is adapting good and when is it bad? Who determines it?
Generally, the problem I have with white-washing is the fact that there are few chances for actors of color to lead a film. Akira or Ghost in the Shell is similar to Edge of Tomorrow/All You Need is Kill: I don't have an ethical imperative, but these adaptations are great chance for Asian actors to get a shot at the spotlight, especially since in many cases, the white actors chosen for the final product (examples: Edge of Tomorrow, Airbender, Exodus) aren't particularly adding anything extra to the final product. The white actors have a much greater chance of being chosen to star in films, regardless of if minority actors possess equal talent.
Edge of Tomorrow would've been the same film with say, Takeshi Kaneshiro if they wanted to stay Japanese, or Steven Yeun, John Cho, Godfrey Gao, or Dennis Oh if they were going for Hollywood's normal style of "pick the random Asian, it'll work."
So I'll probably see Akira or Ghost in the Shell, but I would've preferred they remain starring vehicles for Asian actors. And if they bomb, whatever. The original Akira and GITS remain untouched and unsullied.
A Ghostbusters reboot is a bad idea in general because the best thing about the original was the characters and the chemistry between the actors. Not the story or the effects. There is no way you can have the classic main actors though so they should give it a rest. It would be a bad idea even if the new actors were male. But changing the gender of the main roles (it doesn't matter if the originals were male, even if they were female it would be the same thing) isn't just a bad idea, its a controversial one too. It rises eyebrows. That's a good way to make the movie a hot topic. Its free advertising.
How do you know the character and chemistry of the actresses is poor?