Did we watch the same Ghostbusters movies?
I don't think Adam Sandler has any 'franchises' aside from his friend Kevin James making a name for himself in 'Fat Mustachioed Man Falls Frequently 1 and 2'. In short, you're missing the point. Whether it's on purpose or on accident, I won't try to guess.
Every Adam Sandler movie is part of a franchise called "Adam Sandler does his funny voices" or "Adam Sandler's writing team tries to recapture the magic of Sandler's funny voices."
Furthermore, why should things about people's favorite movies change? Would you like a sequel to Wreck-It Ralph where Ralph and his friends are replaced with walking, talking browser windows displaying Twine 'games'? Why can't a filmmaker create a new property with new, identifiable characters without slapping a needless association to a popular film franchise on the cover? Honestly, having seen the new Ghostbusters trailer, I'd prefer it to be spoken of as an homage instead of a reboot. If they went whole-hog and basically made Airplane! for Ghosts, I might be on board.
If the sequel to Wreck-It Ralph is made a few decades from now? It won't be marketed primarily to me, so I don't really care. I'm glad that you're moving on to stating things in terms of what you'd prefer though, instead of what should be, or objective standards. That's progress.
And hey, while we're talking Ghostbusters, why see the movie when the trailer makes it quite clear that it won't be good at all?
Because I'm not a hyperjudgemental megaconsumer looking for an excuse to rage? I'll do what I always do, wait until the people who I know share my taste write their reviews, and make a judgement call. I really value my time, so I don't waste a ton of it anticipating what a movie that hasn't been released will be like. There is nothing to be gained, unless you enjoy getting in fights online.
Zoolander 2 gives every indication that it is what everyone has said it is. More Zoolander, more of the same, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The setting of the movie changed, the time period, things like that. In the end though, nothing drastic was done to make the designation as a sequel meaningless. Batman v. Superman's trailer lets me know it's going to be far too many minutes of Zack Snyder meticulously making every single superhero and villain on screen seem distraught with their morals and situation, gazing down at the floor and muttering profound trailer quotes between passable action sequences.
Your argument is the same argument leveled by people who have seen a gameplay trailer for an upcoming game, know the developers and how they operate, and make a judgement based off of that. To both arguments, I offer a counterpoint. I don't need to taste shit in order to be sure that what I'm looking at is shit.