Bustin’ used to make me feel good
Why the Ghostbusters franchise needs to come to an end
Film Features Ernie Hudson
The original Ghostbusters is a near-perfect film. It’s just the right blend of comedy and legitimate horror, with Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis, Bill Murray, and Ernie Hudson in their prime. When it came out, it was innovative from both a technological and storytelling standpoint, and my goodness, was it ballsy, depicting a giant marshmallow man terrorizing New York City. It was lightning in a bottle.
I’ve always thought the idea of a Ghostbusters franchise was weird; that there should be this ongoing sequel-spawning IP universe expanding the lore and mythos of the 1984 comedy. See how that sounds? Is there a mythos around Ghostbusters? Watch this 1984 ShoWest (now called CinemaCon) promo and tell me if you think this is the type of movie that should garner lore and mythos. Superman? Sure. Lord the Rings. Definitely. Ghostbusters? No. Yet, here we are with the fourth installment of the Reitman-verse Ghostbusters, Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire, which opened on March 22. And it’s just weird.
Hollywood’s insistence that we want more movies featuring our childhood heroes so they can peddle the “passing the torch to a new generation” trope rarely works. Look at how the Star Wars sequels and the last two Indiana Jones movies worked out.
I say no more. Enough is enough. The Ghostbusters franchise needs to stop.
I remember the first time I saw the ad for Ghostbusters in my local newspaper in 1984 (back when print newspapers listed all the showtimes for local theaters) and how intrigued I was. It was like nothing I had ever seen; three guys wearing tan uniforms with backpacks, holding what appeared to be laser guns. Behind them was a white ghost imprisoned behind a red null sign. When I finally saw it in theaters it took 12 minutes for the movie to scare the poo out of me. You know which scene I’m talking about: the New York Public Library scene. I was nine. But I also remember that in between the scares the theater would erupt in uproarious laughter. No movie I had seen previously made me cover my eyes in fright and laugh out loud the way Ghostbusters did. Of course, I wasn’t alone.
Ghostbusters earned $282.2 million during its initial run; the highest-grossing comedy ever at that point. It spawned a cultural phenomenon with Ghostbusters T-shirts, hats, and Halloween costumes. You couldn’t escape hearing Ray Parker, Jr.’s theme song on the radio or seeing the music video on MTV. “I ain’t afraid of no ghosts” was the catchphrase of the year. By the end of 1984, Ghostbusters was no longer a quirky little comedy movie; it was a money-making machine, a brand that must be squeezed for as long as possible.
Two years later, The Real Ghostbusters cartoon debuted, a watered-down G-rated version spinoff of the movie targeted to kids like me, complete with its own toy line and merchandising tie-ins. After the success of the first film and the 1986 cartoon, Columbia Pictures pressured Aykroyd, Ramis, and director Ivan Reitman to make a sequel to the 1984 film. They were reluctant, but what the studio demands, the studio receives. In an interview with Starlog Magazine during the sequel’s filming, Murray was quoted as saying, “We’ll burn in hell if we call it Ghostbusters II. I’ve suggested Last Of The Ghostbusters, to make sure there won’t be anything like a Ghostbusters III.” After a troubled production period, Ghostbusters II was released on June 16, 1989, the number-one movie of that weekend, earning $29.5 million. But by the following weekend, it was overshadowed by Tim Burton’s Batman and, ironically, Rick Moranis’ Honey, I Shrunk The Kids. While audiences generally liked it, critics mostly did not. Roger Ebert said there was no comedy in it and called it a “total disappointment.” While I do hold a special place in my heart for this lackluster sequel, Ghostbusters II was an attempt to take itself more seriously while spewing humor that just wasn’t as smart. I do have to say, though, I’ve always loved Bobby Brown’s theme song.
Over the next two decades, the Ghostbusters franchise limped on, with more cartoon iterations, along with comic books and video games. But by the 2000s, a peculiar thing happened. Fans who grew up with the original Ghostbusters films and cartoons began demanding another sequel. Ghostbusters: The Video Game, answered the call. Released in 2009, it was the closest thing fans got, with writing credits going to Aykroyd and Ramis, who also lent their voices, along with Ernie Hudson and Bill Murray. This, of course, added fuel to the online fire for another proper sequel; to end the franchise on a better note than Ghostbusters II.
The all-female reboot, 2016’s Ghostbusters: Answer The Call sparked a lot of controversy, which I won’t get into here. It also confused a lot of fans. Was it part of the 1980s Ghostbusters timeline, or some sort of alternate universe version? Does it matter? This is my point. There’s now a Ghostbusters universe and it doesn’t make sense. This isn’t the MCU, nor was it ever meant to be.
Then in 2021, fans (and Columbia Pictures, which was bought by Sony) got their wish. More than 32 years after the 1984 film, Ghostbusters: Afterlife was released, a direct sequel to Ghostbusters II. Full of messages about legacy and “taking up the mantle,” the seriousness and nostalgia of this movie is the antithesis of what the original is all about. While there is humor in it, it’s subtle and cliche, operating as more of a coming-of-age drama. Sure, the OGs were in it (Egon as a ghost!), which pulled at my heartstrings, but the franchise has become something else entirely, nostalgic and sentimental. Plus, it made no sense. How do so few people in the film remember the cataclysmic ghostfest that took place in New York City, not once, but twice? The 1980s were not that long ago. And now, even with Afterlife’s less-than-stellar critical reception, we’re getting more nostalgia clickbait with Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire.
Look, I get it. I love nostalgia, too. I watched the cartoons, currently own the 2009 video game, watched Afterlife, and will see Frozen Empire. But Ghostbusters has become this thing it was never meant to be. It’s now a nostalgic franchise rooted in sentimentality with cliche storytelling, a far cry from the daringness and zaniness of the original. Ghostbusters is a film that never took itself too seriously. And neither should we.
153 Comments
I saw the OG Ghostbusters late, at the movies on Halloween 1984. Great movie, one of my all-time favorites. Great song and even better music video. Great game for my C64 with software speech synthesis!AFAIC, the only acceptable sequel was the ABC Saturday morning cartoon series. Well, at least the first two/three seasons before Slimer took over and the animation quality took a nose dive.I think you’re right Charles, the first one was lightning in a bottle. I have not seen any of the others. I’ve been interested slash excited for them but then I see the reviews.
Given how bad my memory is of when I was a kid, I remember seeing Ghostbusters very clearly. My Mom and my sisters had went on a girls trip vacation for the week so my dad was just looking for things to do with my older brother and me(I was 6 at the time). I wanted to see Gremlins so fucking bad and was pissed off that I got dragged to Ghostbusters instead. Honestly at the end of the day both are great 80s movies and we saw Gremlins a few weeks later. I thought I was going to hate Ghostbusters and instead I loved it so much I was a Ghostbuster for Halloween(the highest honor a 6 year old can give a franchise in my mind) and one best costume in my age range at my local Halloween parade
There was a more recent game that was pretty decent – voice acting from the main cast (less said about Murray’s the better), story by Aykroyd, Ramis and others etc.
That is the 2009 game. It came out on PS3, 360, and Wii. It was remastered a few years ago and plays on PS4/5, Xbone/Series, and PC. It’s just called “Ghostbusters the Video Game”
As discussed above.
The first one had Aykroyd dreaming about getting a hummer from a hot ghost. Nothing in the sequels has been remotely that out-there.
I remember playing a pretty enjoyable Ghostbusters arcade game in the late 80s as well, although I don’t know if they ever ported it adequately to any home consoles.
The fucking marshmellow man stomped me every time
Wait, you haven’t even seen Frozen Empire yet? I mean, I thought Afterlife was pretty boring, and I don’t plan on seeing Frozen Empire until it’s streaming on something I’m already paying for, but writing this article (admittedly well written) without even seeing the new one is weird.
Makes sense to me. As he points out, in the space between the second movie and the 2016 one, a lot of people, including himself, thought the franchise should be put to rest. The only way Frozen Empire would feel like required viewing for the purposes of this article is if they’d somehow managed to crank out something as good as Blade Runner 2049.
I’d totally watch Ghostbusters 2049
have them team up with Miner 2049’er and senior citizen Deckard. win-win-win
Good point, but I saw enough of the new movie to know that it wasn’t going to live up to the original.
Hey, fair enough. I saw enough of it to know I don’t really care about it, and I’m one of those kids who made a proton pack out of a cardboard box
If you gathered all the executives at Sony Pictures together and told them to boil a pot of water they’d end up burning down the house and then steal the insurance money.
They are a studio that is literally only surviving by licensing a character back to the people who own him and profiting off the success.
You should reconsider the use of that word.Sony has also wisely (maybe unintentionally) not gone down the rabbit-hole of creating their own streaming service and licensing their material instead.
Eh, they did try to do original streaming TV content on PSN with the adaptation of Powers, and they tried to have some sort of “pitch a TV show for PSN” contest, but all of that fizzled out in 2017, right before every other studio decided to have their own service. So they technically did tip a toe into that rabbit hole, but backed out very quickly and have not gone back since.
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.All that said, my point was mostly that Nilus was wrong about ONLY Spiderman propping up Sony. It’s obviously a big deal IP but let’s keep the hyperbole remotely reasonable. It just reeks to me of MCU fanboy derp shit. Which is likely unfair and a byproduct of some lingering loyalty to the company. I really LIKED working there. I just couldn’t keep living in L.A. on a lower end assistant’s wages with all my friends and family living back East. And opportunities for teaching were nil. rambleramble
In 2006 Sony bought the Web site operator Grouper Networks for $65 million, renamed it “Crackle” in 2007, and produced some original material, like Joe Dirt 2.They then renamed it “Sony Crackle” in 2018 and sold it off in 2019-2020.The name was changed back to “Crackle”.
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.
Fair enough.
You forgot about Crackle, Sony failed at streaming before everyone else
And was reminded more than once, but thanks for chipping in!
I think Ghostbusters *could* have become a real franchise if they’d cranked out more sequels in the late 80s and early 90s. Like Jurassic Park and Jaws, this one has a structural problem in that it’s only possible to remake the original with minor variations on the formula — there’s a super-ghost from another dimension, and the Ghostbusters have to band together to blow it up. But they perhaps could have gotten more creative in developing different super-ghost threats and bringing the Ghostbusters to different locales. The franchise also has this odd thing where it barely explores the idea that the ghosts were once living humans who may have unfinished business on Earth, instead usually presenting the ghosts as alien monsters, which limits the storytelling possibilities.If they had struck while the iron was hot, maybe they could have come up with some more original ideas instead of doing so many literal callbacks to throwaway lines from the first movie — namely, the insistence of both the animated series and Afterlife on repeatedly showing Egon’s collection of spores, molds and fungus just because that’s the only thing we ever learned about his personal life in the first movie.The real strength of the franchise was the chemistry between the original leads, which became impossible to replicate because Bill Murray obviously didn’t want to be there, and after around 1995 there was this issue where three of the leads aged horribly while Ernie Hudson still looks better than a lot of 25-year-olds at age 78.Once Ramis died they really needed to leave this alone, although even a passing-the-torch reboot in 2014 with a healthy Ramis likely would have fallen flat like Afterlife.
Me being the history nerd, always kinda wished they leaned more into history. The Titanic briefly shows up in 2 and I think that’s awesome. New York has sooooooooo much history. Go fight Peter Stuyvesant or Robert Moses ghosts. The General Slocum Disaster? More Mafia figures then you know what to do with? Draft Riots? Triangle Shirtwaist Fire? Nazi spies?I feel some of this writes itself.
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter!You’re right, aside from the Titanic briefly showing up behind schedule, the only reference to actual NYC history is the mayor talking about how he was visited by LaGuardia’s ghost (which occurs offscreen). All the other references to NYC history in the franchise are fictional, like Ivo Shandor, the Gozer-worshipping architect of Dana’s building. But there was a lot to work with there given how many ghosts would have some kind of claim to NYC, between the Lenape and Dutch and British.Nazi U-boat ghost ships in the East River? Yes please.
Other cities, too… maybe a Ghostbusters in Los Angeles, where they actually have a ghost come to THEM for help. The ghost could be a 1940s-era private detective, who can’t find rest until he solves the Black Dahlia murder.
I like it!The first movie makes NYC the center of the universe because Dana’s building is the source of all the supernatural stuff, but they didn’t have to stick with that in the sequels. There should have been a Ghostbusters franchise in every major city, similar to how every city has fire departments and exterminators, and the OG Ghostbusters could have traveled around to mentor and assist younger teams. I like the Old Hollywood LA detective angle, and they also could have had fun with a Tokyo trip (it would be like Lost in Translation, but with WW2-era ghosts) and a Paris trip where the ghosts of Louis XVI and Napoleon are fighting each other, and so on and so on.
Ghostsbusters Gettysburg Adventure. Ghostbusters Waterloo Horrors. Ghostbusters D Day Madness. I would pay money to see Bill Murray zap nazi ghosts.
I can see it now: Bad Ghostbusters: Port of Call New Orleans.(Spoiler alert: The garbage barge, wandering the oceans unmanned like a small reeking Flying Dutchman, steals every scene it’s in.)
Bad Ghostbusters: Port of Call New Orleans.
this scene would’ve played out much differently:
I would like that. Could mean saving Oprah in Chicago from the ghosts of the Eastland Disaster, a real ghost story by the way.I think the really shitty 2017 Ghostbusters game had a throwaway joke about famous assassin ghosts want to kill the current US President. That would be awesome, gangs gotta bust John Wilks Booth, Charles Guiteau, and Lee Harvey Oswald.
Oh yeah the mayor says he was talking to old Little Flower. Missed opportunity to make that a gag. If I had to pick one, General Slocum. It WAS The Titanic of New York. 1904, over 900 people died when the ship caught fire in the East River, mostly German immigrants. Terribly unsafe, lifeboats and preservers broke and snapped. It basically wiped out German Town. Only real memorial is a tiny forgotten fountain in Tompkins Square Park. Owners never faced any justice. It was the worst day in New York history until 9/11.Maybe its a ghost ship on fire and like they want revenge on the owners who killed them indirectly?Ghost U-boats are pretty great ideas. Or a psychopath like Albert Anastasia the Lord High Executioner gangster comes back with a real chip on his shoulder. Or hell maybe a hotel inherits items from Titanic and ghosts come with them?The video game has a level in the history museum where Union and Confederate ghosts fight each other every night for eternity. Could do that, Bill Poole and the victims of the draft riots still are committing mayhem. Or maybe Boss Tweed tries to influence politics from beyond the grave. DeWitt Clinton fights Eleanor Roosevelt for most popular New York ghost?I could go on forever.
I think that a character in this new film is a victim of the Triangle Shirtwaist Fire, which is one of the reasons they chose Washington Square Park as a location…
Was that what they were going for? They just say died in a fire and she isn’t dressed or acts like anyone from 1911 and box of matches aren’t exactly turn of the century.
See, these are the kinda ideas GB needed. Imagine Boss Tweed coming back from the dead and running a newly resurrected Tamanny Hall.
It would lend itself to make jokes about, oh you think New York is corrupt now?
Those ideas might be too dark for the kiddie friendly franchise.
This franchise has been absolutely bizarre when it comes to audiences. It swings between kids fair and people die, ghost bjs, and apparently the new film has the ghost of a kid killed in a fire.
I think Ghostbusters *could* have become a real franchise if they’d cranked out more sequels in the late 80s and early 90s.Ghostbusters 3: Season of the Witch starring Treat Williams and James Remar!
Ghostbusters 8: Slimer Takes Manhattan starring Olivia-Newton John, Kermit the Frog, and Fozzy Bear!
“…around 1995 there was this issue where three of the leads aged horribly…”Horribly? Sure, Hudson has aged extremely well, but the other three all looked fine through early 2000s. I’m thinking of Murray in Charlie’s Angels/Lost in Translation, Aykroyd in Evolution/50 First Dates. They look just like I would’ve expected them to look 20 years removed from the first Ghostbusters.I don’t recall anything Ramis was in, as he was directing more, but I googled him and he looks good on the set of Analyze That from 2003.
They keep making them because childhood fans like you watched Afterlife and plan to see Frozen Empire. It’s your fault, Moss. You’re the problem. Stop watching these fucking movies.
Shut up Charles.
Agreed. The only avenue they should have stuck with for a potential franchise was cartoons. Hook the kids, sell some toys and Ecto Cooler, call it a day. The live action property was reliant on the performances/charisma/moods of the primary three performers (Aykroyd/Murray/Ramis), and just plugging them into increasingly by-the-numbers sequels wasn’t the way to go.
Have you watched the OG Ghostbusters in 2024? Or in the last five years? It does not hold up. It’s sexist and Bill Murray’s character is gross.
lol
I’m always a bit mystified that people rarely credit Sigourney Weaver’s performance in Ghostbusters. Her acting elevated the movie, and the chemistry between her and Bill Murray created the heart of the story. IMHO, that’s the missing piece of the sequels – someone outside the primary quartet you actually cared about.
There was no Sigourney Weaver, only Zuul.
TIL: Sigourney Weaver was in Ghostbusters II.
I just looked and Weaver has never won an Oscar. She is fucking amazing in everything she is in.
She’s number one on my list of actors who have not won an Oscar, but who I want to win. I really really hope she gets one more, stellar role that gets her that award.
Needed one for Galaxy Quest, at least. “I have ONE JOB – it’s a stupid job, but I’m gonna do it.”
And “What is this thing? I mean, it serves no useful purpose for there to be a bunch of chompy, crushy things in the middle of a hallway!”While that was over the top (for humor) so many movies have similar bizarre settings — like what Roger Ebert used to call “steam factories” — apparently abandoned factories where machinery is still running making flames and steam for no other reason than to make the final confrontation between the hero and the villain exciting.
“You, uh, you…”“I. REPEATED. THE. COMPUTER.”Her and Rickman- “See, this was always your problem, Jason, you never cared about the craft.”Bulk trash will be disposed of in incinerators, not compactors. And they will be kept hot, with none of that nonsense about flames going through accessible tunnels at predictable intervals.- The Top 100 Things I’d Do If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord item #63, Peter Anspach (1997) – aka the legendary “Evil Overlord List”, the subject of many a late-90s email chain.
Excellent point.
I say all the time that the Ghostbusters franchise should be a recipe to print money for Hollywood — shooting lasers beams at scary ghosts shouldn’t be too hard to make successful. However, I do believe the franchise is better suited as a series as opposed to a movie franchise. There’s too much backstory they want to cover & there’s not enough actual busting in the movies. It would also make passing the torch far easier than trying to cram everything in 90 minute spurts every 2-3 years.
It’s been said before, but the original actually was lightning in a bottle. It was a combination of fine comedic actors at their peaks as well as excellent writing and direction. Even the same team wasn’t able to replicate what made the first one so special. It should have been just a one-off little gem, but it developed such a cult following because of the cartoon and the frequency with which it was shown on TV that Hollywood saw its potential to be a cash cow. I’m not one of those people who thinks you shouldn’t ever try and reboot it or something, but I do think that it’s pointless to try. You’re not going to make Zoomers care about a movie franchise that old people like.
I saw Afterlife in the theater just to see how bad it would be, and was not disappointed. I even bet my son that they would put “ghost Ramis” in it, and he rebuked that notion with “surely they wouldn’t be that callous.” Easiest 5 bucks I ever made. I’m a mess of contradictions about “franchises,” though I think 7 times out of 10 they’re terrible ideas. But elsewhere in these pages I’ve raved about the Furiosa trailer and cautiously cheered the new Beetlejuice. But I really wish they’d ended Ghostbusters in ‘84 and saved us all the disappointment of…every thing since (sorry, I was too old for the animated show so I’ll exempt it based on its reputation among you youngsters).
The franchise potential is in the high-concept setup. The reason why people loved it so much was the chemistry and talent of the ensemble cast, who were either unenthusiastic about participating, or ready to phone it in for a paycheck. If they had focused on telling original stories within the concept, and not been so dependent on trying to recreate the same jokes with as much of the original cast as possible. The thing about this premise, is that it could kind of work like the Alien franchise. Keep a connective thread in a single cast member if you absolutely have to, but why is there only one Ghostbusters office and set of employees we have to come back to? The new movies they have to have turnover (unless it was some kind of Clint Eastwood elegy to the ravages of time on the busters of ghosts), but even with that, we’re shoehorning the original cast in, or creating ridiculous threads of connection between the original and new characters.
Franchises that honor the concept but aren’t enslaved to the cast and the tropes created by their chemistry seem to be more durable (at least in the examples my memory is cherry-picking).
The issue is with the first sentence. The Ghostbusters “franchise” is the problemGhostbusters should have been one fun movie(and maybe a fun kids cartoon after). Ghostbusters 2 was not good. 2016 was not good. Afterlife was not good. I have not seen Frozen Empire but I suspect it is not goodI think a legacy sequel could have worked at one point but it would have had to been done correctly. It needs to be a high concept comedy. Afterlife and now Frozen Empire treat the original like a holy text and are overly self serious
YES. The “holy text” thing was such a terrible decision. It flies in the face of what Ghostbusters was. Those guys shouldn’t be treated like saints. But fans want the creators to respect Ghostbusters, and apparently that translates to treating it with this sappy, reverential tone that doesn’t fit the property at all.
The only “not good” movie in the franchise is the 2016 iteration which was terrible in just about every conceivable way.The real issue people seem to have is that the OG is a 10/10 film and none of the sequels have been able to reach that level of perfection. But, 2 and Afterlife are both fun, perfectly serviceable sequels that actually are worth rewatching.Hopefully, Frozen Empire will be at least as good as its direct predecessor.
The Star Wars sequels were going great, then Rise of Skywalker happened.But yeah, I’m with you on Ghostbusters. The original was about a group of schlubby, blue-collar guys who were basically exterminators. They stumbled into saving the city. The lead barely took things seriously and was more interested in hitting on Sigourney Weaver than he was in being a hero. Now the new ones treat him and the rest of the original crew with this weird, unearned reverence. The tone is all wrong.Funny enough, but the 2016 reboot, ignoring whether or not it was actually good (it was pretty funny but just ok if you ask me), was a much more fitting continuation. It was SNL alums and other comic actors riffing and busting ghosts. That’s what Ghostbusters is all about.Note: I haven’t seen the two latest movies. This is my impression from trailers and reviews, neither of which have convinced me to check either movie out.
I have come to enjoy/appreciate that they’re not just schlubby, blue-collar guys, but they got there because they’re essentially failed academics.
In hindsight as a skeptic I think it’s funny that Dean Yeager isn’t knocking parapsychology itself, just Venkman’s professionalism as a scientist and professor. Like… dude, parapsychology is bullshit pseudo-science. Let’s not pretend that Venkman was the only issue here.
OK, so they weren’t *just* schlubby, blue collar guys, but they also weren’t *not* schlubby, blue collar guys.
They were not schlubby, blue-collar guys. They were academics and research scientists. Venkman might have treated it like a “dodge or hustle” as Dean Yeager put it but we’re not talking about public utility dudes. Aykroyd might have initially conceived of them that way but that is not what they became in the rewrites.
Fair point, but they washed out of academia and ended up in a schlubby, blue collar career as glorified exterminators. Sure, they were exterminating ghosts, but my point is just that the tone of the original Ghostbusters doesn’t seem at all compatible with the recent entries in the series.
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 the films and treat them sort of like mass hysteria. So Afterlife’s tone is reverent and main character Phoebe is reverent and science teacher Rudd is reverent but the outside world is NOT. (And a lot of the dramatic tension comes from Egon’s absentee fatherhood of Carrie Coon, which is just fucking weird in a movie that so clearly hero-worships him.) I said it elsewhere but I think part of the issue is that Afterlife feels written by a Ghostbusters fan who got bullied in the aughts for liking an old 80s movie and wants desperately to prove to the audience that the GB are actually cool and edgy and outsider or whatever.I generally like Afterlife for the punch of the nostalgia button but I cannot deny that it’s a goddam mess.That said, I don’t agree with the tone of this article, which seems to insist that there was no other way for things to go. That feeling nostalgia for GB and thinking there’s potential for expansion is inherently wrongheaded.
Somehow, the ghosts returned.
I see it took less than one paragraph to bring out the same old “lightning in a bottle” methaphor…I’m not that clever with words, so can anyone find a new metaphor for the original Ghostbusters’ unlikely success?
Slimer in a trap?
A perfect storm? A perfectly-blended cocktail? The perfect blend of chocolate and peanut butter?
Slime in a Bill Murray’s mouth?
“Cocaine in the writer’s room”
“The franchise rights alone will make us rich beyond our wildest dreams.” -Peter VenkmanIn reality, Ghostbusters has been a franchise and a multiverse for a long time. The Real Ghostbusters cartoon, often well liked, framed the movie Ghostbusters as a movie about them. That happened during the timeline of the cartoon. And that the Ghostbusters were perplexed by the actors chosen to represent them. Winston even thought it sounded like a law firm when reading off the names, and animated Venkman even says that Bill Murray doesn’t look a thing like him.After Ghostbusters II, they never could get III off the ground. A hellish Manhattan was expensive, Murray wouldn’t come back. Unsurprising since Ramis shoved him up against a wall when they were filming Groundhog Day. Ghostbusters: The Video Game, according to the in game commentary, very much the movie Aykroyd wanted to make. One of the scenes, with gargoyles and walking down a disaster strewn street, was reprised in Ghostbusters: Answer The Call. Point is, they were treating it as the third movie they wouldn’t get to make. It also introduced the fifth ghostbuster “the Rookie” as an experimental equipment technician.There’s a whole thing with Ivo Shandor, cults, going into parallel spirit realms, slime, Stay Puft, and so on. Very Ghostbusters. Elements seen in all kinds of things.IDW Comics picked up Ghostbusters as a series (not the first time for a Ghostbusters comic) and the Rookie and franchised them to Chicago. They’re actually pretty enjoyable, with their own problems and personalities. There’s even a competitive non-Ghostbusters company. Shades of the cola wars, their line was paranormal obliteration.IDW also picked up on something from The Real Ghostbusters. Going in to the containment unit. They made it a nexus between realities. It was a lot of fu n to see the Prime Ghostbusters, New Ghostbusters, Chicago Ghostbusters, Real Ghostbusters, Extreme Ghostbusters, Sanctum of Slime Ghostbusters, and Answer the Call Ghostbusters all together. In their unique illustrative style. On the same page.You’ve watched the cartoons, played the game, enjoyed the original movie. The comics are where the syncretism comes in to play, and you should give them a read. As for the new movies? I guess try telling a kid born in 1994 that The Phantom Menace isn’t really Star Wars. I’m sure there are plenty who are wowed by Afterlife. If it was entirely new to me, I think I’d be wowed. Moving to a new school, mysterious relatives, secret cults, getting your parent to believe you, and then stopping the end of the world? Sounds rad.
Hey! You can’t enjoy things here!
I’m not sure that I’d put too much stock in Atari game developers claiming in their video game commentary that the game they were selling was actually the third movie that Aykroyd and Ramis wanted to make.Here’s quotes from Aykroyd and Ramis in a New York Times article from 2009: “In the beginning they came to me, and I said, ‘I encourage you, go ahead,’ ” he (Aykroyd) recounted. “They gave me the script. I took it. I rewrote it doing little tiny structural things, mostly bringing back the tone of the original dialogue and the vernacular the terms, the idiom but they really had it. Two-thirds of it was there. Then they gave it to Harold. He did the same thing.”“The game is being hawked by Atari as having been written by Mr. Aykroyd and Mr. Ramis, but both men, in addition to the real writers at Terminal Reality, readily acknowledge that is mostly marketing bunk. “They were happy to have our involvement at all,” Mr. Ramis said. “The crassest way I can put it is that they couldn’t have paid us enough to give it the time and attention required to make it as funny as a feature film.” The story also has a few other interesting thoughts by Ackroyd about the game and franchise as a whole. The full story is here, but might be paywalled – https://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/31/arts/31schi.html
I appreciate the link to the article. Here’s one from 2007, which is interesting because it shows how Aykroyd’s perspective may have changed over the years: https://www.spookcentral.tk/2023/01/20/game-informer-dan-aykroyd-interview-december-2007
However, here’s Aykroyd saying “It really is, to me, the third movie.”
Thanks for the link to the article and the video. It is interesting to see how Aykroyd’s perspective may have changed from the 2007 article you linked during the game’s development period, to the 2009 NY Times article published a few weeks before the game. I know that Aykroyd is also listed on wikipedia as referring to the game as a third movie in a Game Informer article during the run up to the game release.I wonder if the change in perspective may just be the ‘marketing bunk’ that the NY Times article mentioned? I believe that the video above is from the game disc and produced by Atari; do you know if Aykroyd made any similar claims outside of the game’s marketing push?
I might sound a little crass and I very well may be wrong on this, but I’d be willing to bet that Aykroyd and Ramis only referred to it as a third movie when they were being paid to.I hope I’m not coming across as too negative here; it really is interesting to see how a creator’s feelings towards a work based on their creation might change as the project develops. However else I may feel towards the marketing, it really is a fun game itself as well.
No, I don’t know of any other instances where Aykroyd or Ramis said anything like that. I think you are likely right that they took compensation as writers and voice actors and publicizing the work was part of their contract, but they have to be aware that saying something like that as a creator is going to give people (like us) the impression of sincerity. I don’t think it’s the third movie they wanted, as it certainly is too long to be a film! They shouldn’t have said those things if they didn’t at least approve of it as a work. Things get interesting when dealing with secondary canon, but as far back as The Real Ghostbusters (and who approved that? I think it counts as Ghostbusters, but is it? That’s why we have secondary canon) there has been a multiverse. Maybe since the beginning, if Ray wasn’t spouting nonsense about returning to a “place of origin, or nearest convenient parallel dimension.”Fun nod in the game? There’s a drawing “To Uncle Egon, From Ed”, which is a reference to Ed Spengler of the Braxton Films (a maker of fan films) Denver Ghostbusters. You can find it in the firehouse on one of the workbenches.
Ramis shoved him up against a wall when they were filming Groundhog Day
Wait, what?
Quite enjoyed Afterlife, but yeah the fact that no one remembered the ghosts and proof of the afterlife was a bit annoying. Would have been so much more interesting to tackle a world in which ghosts were part of every day life. Have crazy cults, all religions claiming they were right, good and bad ghosts. Ghostbusters as an international franchise.
People who were old enough like Rudd’s character remembered. Kids didn’t know. Ask kids today about anything that happened in the 80s ..or like what us a rotary phone …they don’t know that stuff man. That made sense to me.
Think people would remember ghosts. Especially kids. I mean, the whole monster under the bed, ghosts in the closet thing would be a bit different to them
I am in favor of a lot of things ending. Won’t happen because I understand that artistry and money are always at odds, but I’d be fine with many franchises reaching a logical stop point.The MCU clearly hit that with Endgame and then just kept going, artistically not a wise choice. Ghostbusters, Jurssaic Park, they just weren’t meant to be franchises. Even ones that benefited, could you imagine Back to the Future going on still? Video games too. We are like what, 15 assassins creed games in? Would have been for the better if there was an endgame at some point. I believe Orson Welles once said, any story can have a happy ending, depending on where you end it. Star Wars had a happy ending, then it kept going, and humans aren’t immortal. If you go on forever, it only ever ends when something isn’t viable or everyone is dead, if even.
Hot take: I’ve held the belief for a while now, that I think 007 should end. There’s only so much they can do with James Bond (several times over), and it has proven doubly hard post-cold war.
Bond I feel is a bit easier to keep going since its very formula heavy and the actor can change, the love interest always changes, etc. Until recently when they tried doing an MCU and it didn’t work.
I won’t go so far as to say the franchise should end or has no future. Far from it. The problem is the same old problem we’ve seen before, the vile contagion of fan service. Of making films that tickle the nostalgia of aging original fans, but do nothing to build new fans, which is how you make a franchise sustainable. I like the first two films fine, but I find something very sad, pathetic even, about the subsequent films that trot out those aging actors who just show up for a paycheck. It is disheartening because it doesn’t move the franchise forward in any way. Why should young fans care about seeing Dan Aykroyd or Bill Murray? I appreciated what they tried to do with the Paul Feig Ghostbusters, finding a fresh new start. I liked the idea of a female troupe of Ghostbusters. The mistake was they went too far, and tried to reboot the whole thing, which just angered fans who felt their movies’ canon was being erased (which is a stupid reason to torch a movie and harass its stars). Had I made that film, I would’ve done something in a world where the original Ghostbusters existed, but now the industry is full of competitors, and it’s male dominated, and you have a group of women who try to break in to the business. That could’ve been interesting.If there is a future in this franchise, it’s with McKenna Grace as Phoebe Spengler. Phoebe is the one breakout character in the last two films, and you could definitely build a film around the character. It’s what made the most recent film so frustrating, that they took the best person to come out of the Jason Reitman revival, and more or less sidelined them for a large portion of the film. So yes, by all means, put Aykroyd and Murray and the rest out to pasture. Acknowledge the canon, but do something fresh and new with these young characters so you can build new fans that will sustain the franchise. Because if one is a true fan of the originals, they’ll want to see the thing endure and find new fans, and you don’t do that by leading kids by the scruff of the neck, and telling them, “My childhood movies are important and you will acknowledge them!”
The problem with 2016 was that it wasn’t funny. There was clearly a LOT of bad improvisation going on. Unlike with the original four, there was no real straight (wo)man in the group. Everyone was dialed to 11 and there was no one who was funny for just being so self-serious. The only character I liked was Leslie Jones, because she actually reacts the way a real person would react to seeing ghosts and spooky stuff. Also, the original movie feels like it takes place in a real New York and all these fantastical things are happening there. 2016 takes place in “movie New York,” where even the mayor and his assistant are “on.” The mayor in the original felt like he could really be the mayor of New York. Not so with Andy Garcia, although the one thing I truly laughed at in the 2016 movie was when Kristen Wiig implored him, “Don’t be the mayor from Jaws.”
You make some good points. There’s a lot of bad improv. Good improv feels organic, so you can’t tell it from what is scripted. But bad improv draws attention to itself. You can tell they’re doing it. It’s why I can’t stand Joe Swanberg’s films, because he relies so heavily on improv for dialogue out of a misguided idea that improv = verisimilitude, and you wind up with characters who just talk because they’re afraid to stop, afraid of a pause and what it might do.
I really thought the cast was strong, and perhaps Wiig could’ve been the straight to ground the film. And maybe setting it in NYC was the wrong approach, and they needed a different city. You could do a great Ghostbusters in Chicago. If ghosts were real, the whole city would be haunted AF considering all the terrible tragedies that have taken place there over the years. And Paul Feig was definitely the wrong person to direct. You know who would’ve been great to direct? James Gunn. He’d make an outstanding Ghostbusters.
Funnily enough a movie often favorably compared to Ghostbusters and considered a “spiritual sequel” is Evolution.Directed by Ivan Reitman.Incidentally, just because I love them as a creative team and they’re clearly up for doing franchise shit now that they’re working for Marvel, I’d like to see what Benson and Moorehead could do with GB.
I would have loved to see Holtzman in the background working at the research center, if just to piss off the Chads.
Yeah, no problem with the actors in that film – I love all the lady Ghostbusters, just not in that movie. Everything was so cartoonish (that’s the word I’d been looking for), while the original played it straight, which heightens its appeal.
I had the same thought that the 2016 film should have taken place in Chicago. They could have actually tied it to the original films as one of the lucrative franchises that Venkman dreamed about in the first film. Then, the originals make a quick cameo and they’re out of the film, letting the ladies carry the load.
2016 was just a bad approach. Too silly and clownish. These are supernatural forces that are classically horrific – somebody needed to play the thing straight and instead they all just goof around. I really wanted to like it, but it just was not good.
Oh noes… fan service!!!
Had you made the film you would’ve been faced with the same no-win situation as Feig, which is that IF you connect Answer the Call to the existing canon you risk the ire of weirdo fandom AND you have to figure out how to address the status of any currently living stars. People sometimes act like these things are made in a creative bubble but there are studio egos and actor egos and rights issues (one of the reasons they even ever bother to consult with Aykroyd every time is some legal weirdness over rights) etc. I’m not shit-talking to be antagonistic, or that’s not my intent anyway, and I don’t like how Feig approached the property (essentially “Look at me saving this IP from development hell and being a Super Cool Ally!”). But it’s undeniably way easier to Monday morning direct an IP that has studio hands all over it.
I appreciated what they tried to do with the Paul Feig Ghostbusters, finding a fresh new start. I liked the idea of a female troupe of Ghostbusters. Yeah, I liked the concept…but A) Don’t remake the formation of the Ghostbuster squad a beat-for-beat remake. They should’ve let the women be their own things, in a different city ( like New Orleans).
B) The ghosts should never be actively doing “silly things”, like making an army do a dance off; there needs to be a certain amount menace to the ghosts for the rest of the comedy to work. Even Slimer when first seen in the original, while played for laughs, was pretty creepy. Probably the worst that they did is eventually turning him into a pet.
Nah.
Ghostbusters was a slacker comedy that happened to feature ghosts.A true sequel to it would have been Venkman, Stantz, and Spengler finding something else pseudoscientific to grift off of among a group of straight-men. Hell, the concept of Jumanji would have worked with that ensemble, I’d wager.I saw Ghostbusters: Afterlife and it was just such a slog. The fan service, the supposedly tear-jerking presence of Egon as a ghost, the extraordinarily sad sight of a bunch of 70-something actors jumping back in their ghostbusting suits to cash another paycheck… it had none of the charm of the original, and worse it didn’t have that Second City improv feel that the three leads brought to the proceedings in the first movie.(And yes, I did purposefully leave out Ernie Hudson’s Zeddimore, because the one glaring fault I found in the original movie was his character. Ghostbusters: Afterthought, basically. It did Ernie no favors except for his paycheck.)
I never felt the original had any improvisational feel to it. Yeah it was a bit of a shaggy dog story but there wasn’t a throwaway line and everyone’s delivery was spot-on.
I consider the original to be a “coming of age” story. You’ve got a trio of lead characters; none of whom behave like an adult. They show no respect for authority and are unable to form more than a cursory relationship with women. It isn’t until they *literally* destroy a symbol of childhood innocence (the Sta-Puft Marshmallow man) that they achieve full maturity.
The constant railing about nostalgia is more irritating than nostalgia-baiting itself.
I disagree completely with the premise here. The lore is a big part of the appeal of the original. Ray and Egon throwing around phrases like “Tobin’s Spirit Guide” and “Spates Catalog” and “free-floating full torso vapor” is both hilarious and deeply intriguing.
I loved what dorks it made all of them, except Murray who didn’t know what the hell Ramis and Aykroyd were talking about (which was even funnier).
RIGHT?!How does someone acknowledge the animated series in the same article that shit-talks the lore? The animated series, which was considered canon, is FULL of lore!
I loved the animated series, and love Extreme Ghostbusters even more, but hard disagree that they’re canon. There was an episode where they did a demonstration of the proton streams, and Egon said it was harmless to humans as he put his hand in it like it was light. This contradicts the beams destroying various things in the films. Winston also never gained technical knowledge like he did in the cartoon where he built a little helicopter and did maintenance on the Ecto-1. They also never switched to the different colored uniforms like they did in the cartoon. Finally, Egon uncharacteristically left New York for Oklahoma for ten years, while in Extreme Ghostbusters, Egon was still at the firehouse to keep vigil over the containment grid in 1997. Dana also never had an extended relationship with Peter in the cartoon.The original film was the jumping off point to three continuities: 2 leading to Afterlife and Frozen Empire; 2 leading into the 09 video game; and the animated continuity that integrated elements of 2 after the fact. All three contradict each other in various ways. I prefer to believe the video game is canon, but they’re all their own canon.
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 lore. Obviously the writers of the animated series made shit up as needed but it started from the films.It is just weird to me that some people talk about the original film like it was just some off-hand laffer that featured a few light horror elements. There’s way more to it than that. Sadly another segment of the population seems to think that the lore itself is precious and untouchable, which the animated series and various comic book and video game offshoots should prove is dumb and wrong.
It’s not just inconsistencies, but outright different outcomes. Not minor details, but big, life-altering differences. Ghostbusters 2 had them go out of business and performing at children’s birthday parties, having lost several lawsuits in the wake of Gozer’s attack. The Real Ghostbusters kept going immediately after Gozer’s attack and stayed in business for the entire duration of the show. Even when Louis became a regular character following Ghostbusters 2, Peter inexplicably still has no relationship with Dana.The cartoon continuity was more of an adaptation than a successor to the films. Their personalities became much more pronounced in the cartoon. Janine was always about Egon in the cartoon, but in Ghostbusters 2 that was completely gone and she went after Louis instead. An inconsistency is something that can be considered a mistake, or a minor detail difference, but leading entirely different lives is another timeline.I’m not horribly attached to any lore, but the time to capitalize on the original team ended in the mid-90s. They should have done something like Creed or Cobra Kai where returning characters were in supporting roles with a new cast to bust ghosts. Really a missed opportunity to adapt Extreme Ghostbusters.
Okay?You’re having a completely different conversation than I am. The article says that GB doesn’t have lore. It does. Obviously it does as evidenced by all the spinoff stuff. There’s the obvious proof and there’s also the history of the first movie’s development, which I outline hereabouts. Aykroyd wrote REAMS of lore. To say otherwise is to be weirdly ignorant of the property.
I replied to you because you said the cartoon was canon. If I wanted to disagree about lore being a thing, I would have made an argument about the lore.
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 series did NOT happen, right? Multiverses aren’t considered non-canon, they’re just multiverses, right?Like…. I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make by arguing with me about the canon or non-canon status of the animated series. Even IF I agreed with your position, so fucking what? The article is still wrong. Canon, non-canon, whatever, the animated series exists in part because there was material to feed into it.Is this a semantics issue? WTF?
No need to bring multiverses into this, that’s a different discussion entirely. The issue is you’re throwing around the word ‘canon’ as if it doesn’t mean anything. By context, you’re saying it’s canon because it’s based on the movie and not because it shares a consistent continuity. Something can only be canon to something else if they both consistently adhere to a shared timeline. This is like saying the Singerverse X-Men films are canon to the 90s animated series, even though the differences are clear and obvious.
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.Right. So according to the GB animated series, the movie was an adaptation of their life rights. The animated series was also a continuation of the characterizations and world-building done in the film. DESPITE WHATEVER BRANCHING OFF the animated series eventually did from the movie, it came FROM the movie. And while it invented plenty of backstory for its own world, even that backstory had its basis in the characters and worldbuilding done in the film. For the purposes of discussing whether or not Ghostbusters (and to some extent, depending on the conversation participants, GB2) contains “lore”, it obviously DOES. There’s the IRL (and IMO hilariously dumb) parapsychological research and technology on which Aykroyd based much of the movie’s gear and background mythology. There’s also mythology he made up. Then there’s the characterization from him, Ramis, and Reitman.I believe I used “canon” correctly. But I may have misused it in some way. If so, fine. I’m not using it “as if it doesn’t mean anything”. If you want to be a semanticist, FINE. But that’s not the fucking point of me bringing the concept of canon into the conversation. The POINT was that the article mentions the animated series and also contends that Ghostbusters has no lore. Which I find ridiculous. Canon, non-canon, who fucking cares? Knock me for a misuse of a term if you feel it necessary and then fuck off.
Or maybe just take the L and back away from the conversation I’m not even having with you that you acknowledged I wasn’t having with you. You claimed the animated series was “considered canon” when it is not. That’s it. The cartoon being based on the movie, which has lore, and the cartoon having lore in it, I have never disputed, and I am not interested in disputing that.You know a cartoon series that was based on a movie with that has lore? Beetlejuice. Police Academy. The Mask. Men in Black. Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventures. RoboCop. Back to the Future. Godzilla. Rambo. None of them are canon, and not a single person considers them canon. No one considers The Real Ghostbusters canon, either. It has lore, it’s based on the movie, yes, and like I keep saying, that doesn’t matter. It’s still not canon.Something that is canon—that is, events that exist within the continuity of an ongoing series—is something that is acknowledged as canon by that series by depicting or referencing those events. For example, the Netflix Daredevil series is considered canon to the MCU. Some people dubiously claimed it wasn’t canon because there weren’t any crossovers, and then they went and stuck Matt Murdoch into a Spider-Man movie. Now, the MCU is not considered canon to the comics in spite of being based on them, although there are tie-in MCU comics that are considered canon in spite of being largely superfluous, and those comics are not canon to the mainline 616 or Ultimate comics the movies are based on.Something is not canon just because it is an adaptation based on a canonical film.
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.But let’s play this fucking stupid game because you seem incapable of getting past it. Let’s turn to the fucking dictionary definition:“a collection or list of sacred books accepted as genuine.”There is no doubt about whether the events that occurred in The Real Ghostbusters is “accepted as genuine”. Within the fiction of the Ghostbusters world, both the animated series and the original film are “accepted as genuine”. The IDW comic book series forwards the idea that the various GB spinoffs exist within an IP multiverse, which forwards the idea that they are “accepted as genuine”.Whose idea of the Ghostbusters world does not “accept as genuine” the animated series? I’m perfectly fine accepting that SOME fans don’t accept the animated series “as genuine” for whatever reason, odd though I might find it. But that’s not what you said. YOU said “No one considers The Real Ghostbusters canon”. Aside from the fact that I’m not “No one”, you’re also speaking for a huge fandom. And you shouldn’t. And while I also acknowledge that you’re using hyperbole to make a point, you’re also being a fucking pedantic semantic asshole so here’s some back at you.
Oh, the irony. You can double, triple, quadruple down, but I think you already know you’re wrong, if not outright deluding yourself just so you can be argumentative and act like you’re never wrong about anything. I admit when I’m wrong, I’m wrong about a lot of things. You have to resort to vague dictionary definitions and not the most common accepted usage of the word. I don’t speak for all Ghostbusters fans, I speak on behalf of logic and the English language, and accusing me of that implies you’re doing the same by merely holding a contrary position. But I can confidently say that most fans will not agree with you, if any. It’s just accepted terminology, period. It’s not an opinion or anything that can be disputed. It just is.
Wikipedia:
The canon of a work of fiction is “the body of works taking place in a particular fictional world that are widely considered to be official or authoritative; [especially] those created by the original author or developer of the world”.[2] Canon is contrasted with, or used as the basis for, works of fan fiction and other derivative works.[3]
All film series adapted into a cartoon, even if using any film as the basis for its world whose events are considered as taking place before the series began, is considered a derivative work. In this context, that does NOT mean it’s ripping off the movie, it means it is derived from the original work/canon. I shouldn’t need to explain that, but with you being particular about words and treating “accepted as genuine” as people liking it or considering it a faithful adaptation and not “accepted as genuine to the continuity of the original work,” I need to start making these posts autism-proof for you. Shall we continue?
Wiktionary:
non-canon: Not part of canon; outside of the main continuity of a fictional universe.
Merriam-Webster:
3b: the authentic works of a writer
3c: a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works
Dictionary.com (which looks like where you got your cherry-picked definition from):
10. established or agreed-upon constraints governing the background narrative, setting, storyline, characters, etc., in a particular fictional world
Collins Dictionary:
4b. the works ascribed to an author that are accepted as genuine
4c. the complete works, as of an author
4d. those works, authors, etc. accepted as major or essential
The Free Dictionary:
5b. The works of a writer that have been accepted as authentic.
5c. Material considered to be officially part of a fictional universe or considered to fit within the history established by a fictional universe.There’s more, but they’re basically the same. And before you try to pivot to how the Ghostbusters logo, name, and characters were officially licensed to the series, they can do that and it still won’t mean Egon canonically has white hair and red circular glasses, or whichever details, minor and major, consistently and frequently contradict the canon. They canonically went out of business immediately after the first movie according to Ghostbusters 2, they did not continue business as normal like they did in the cartoon. If you want to try to prove me wrong, find someone, anyone, scour the entire internet for someone trying to insist that The Real Ghostbusters is canon. If you can find a single instance of this, and I seriously doubt you will, you’ll also find someone proving that’s wrong using simple logic and facts. And I can guarantee you, you will not find someone using ‘canon’ they way you tried to use it, which seems to change meaning with each reply you make.
SLOW CLAPNow go fuck yourself.
Only the animated series was real. The movies were dramatizations of actual events the animated Ghostbusters were a part of.
The original film exists as a movie within the continuity of the GB cartoon.
I really like how the Real Ghostbusters are presented as the actual guys, and the movie version is exactly that – a movie version, not the same people (there’s an episode where they go watch it and aren’t too impressed!).
Murray…Aykroyd…Ramis? What’s that…a law firm?
The lore within the movie is a whole different thing than the lore built off of the original film, which was a one-off comedy that’s been turned into a whole universe based on nostalgia. I think the thing to do is to create a whole other movie franchise based on ghost hunters. Not a copy of the Ghostbusters, but a paranormal team that’s a different take. I know a few paranormal investigators and have even been on an investigation, and those folks are super interesting.
Nah, it’s just (really good) flavor text. The intriguing weirdness and specificity of the lore dialogue adds authenticity and character, and it’s fun to listen to the actors say it. But the lore itself is absolutely inconsequential. You could chop it all out and replace it with completely different cryptic gobbledegook telling a completely different backstory, and it would make absolutely no difference to the movie at all.
It’s like the problem with Halo. The first game was incredibly good at framing the things, places and events around the story with potent language suggesting intriguing histories or cultural connotations. Weird and juicily suggestive names like “Reach” or “Guilty Spark” or “The Pillar of Autumn” immediately implying layers of rich backstory below the surface, which grounds the story in a distinctive sense of place. …But the more subsequent stories tried to dig into that lore and make it the actual story instead of the flavoring the less interesting it all became. That’s what Ghostbusters is doing to itself. It’s confusing the frosting for the cake.
I agree about the lore in Ghostbusters being very intriguing. But I also agree that maybe trying to expand it has only made things worse. This might be an instance where two things can be true. Like how Tarantino built in some intriguing lore in Pulp Fiction, but obviously that film is best left as is.
I don’t get the point of this editorial. The people who grew up on ghostbusters make movies now. The cartoons were far more popular with people my younger brother’s age than the movies. My wife grew up loving the sequel and didn’t even see the original until adulthood. People have come to this franchise in many different ways and they will continue to do so. Filmmakers and studios will revisit the property until there’s no interest. There is no intellectual justification to “end” any franchise because some of the fans of the original feel its strayed off course. If you don’t wanna see it, don’t see it. Once enough people feel that way, they’ll stop making it. Personally, I don’t care to ever see another batman movie, but it would be ridiculous for me to argue that it’s time for Batman to “end” because the new batmans aren’t what the original was or was “intended” to be. Very silly piece of pop culture commentary.
That promo video for the original is hilarious! Thank the powers that be, though, that they did not use the awful theme song in that video.Sidenote: is commenting going to get shut off here just like it has now been shut off on The Root and Kotaku?
thanks for the heads up, just noticed that now after your comment. Did something happen at kotaku that they banned comments?
No clue. It’s very strange.
I always think back to an exchange in the MAD magazine satire (“Ghost-Dusters.”) “We’re all set up in this old fire station and ready for business. Do you know what we have here?” “Yeah, a 25 million dollar ‘Saturday Night Live’ sketch.” More specifically, a 25m 90-minute “SNL” sketch that hits all the marks. Nothing more, nothing less.
Just got out of the theater from seeing this one. Wtah are you guys watching? Afterlife (which i finally got around to seeing last week) and Frozen Empire were both some of the better movies I’ve seen in years. Not to mention the absolute best series revival I think I’ve ever seen. Could there have been better jokes or more cameos or whatever nonsense you people come up with? Sure. But I’ll be damned if both movies aren’t wildly entertaining for anyone who loved both originals! People, you take your selves and your opinions way too seriously. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was a flaming turd of a revival. These are great! Also while I did enjoy the female cast version, it is definitely NOT on par with the other 4 and should just be looked at as an entirely different thing. If viewed separately..say they had called themselves “spectre punchers” (whatever) that would have been considered a funny movie. Leslie Jones was great specifically. If ur out there people like me…go see the movie, revel in the sweet sweet nostalgia and leave your critical thinking caps at home. My guess is a lot of this comes from people who are never happy with anything studios put out or there’s some underlying upset about the queer /interdimensional “almost” relationship. Funny no one cared when Aykroyd was getting a blowy from a ghost.
This article just has ”old man yells at cloud” energy 😂
You will get devoured in any millennial online space for dissing Ghostbusters II, but I honestly think it’s a collective fever dream that it was ever a good film. The “franchise” (ugh) has had 1 good movie out of 5 and indeed needs to be put out to pasture.
What annoys me so much about these franchises is like they spend years making the first film, it’s good because they put the work in. Then it’s a success so they fast-track a sequel and are surprised when it isn’t any good. If they had just taken the time to write a compelling sequel (after having set up the world) then we wouldn’t have any reason to complain
Agreed. see “Grease 2″ and “Shock Treatment”
RE: “I say no more. Enough is enough. The Ghostbusters franchise needs to stop.”—-Okay, you are aware that nothing is forcing you to go to see any further Ghostbusters… right?Whenever I see someone like you complain about the existence of sequels, it makes me wonder if there is someone forcing them at gunpoint to endure the sheer torture that they make such sequels out to be.I was 24 when the original Ghostbusters materialized… And yes, it was ‘new and different’… Well, time has been passing….
I enjoyed ‘Afterlife’, and found it a fitting tribute to Harold Ramis, and an intriguing continuance of the story, with the Spengler family adding new blood to ‘the business’ alongside the originals. I am extremely interested in seeing ‘Frozen Empire’….But I do not expect it to be ‘New and Different’ or to somehow replicate the 1984 zaniness of the original. There is no way that could happen in ANY universe, simply because things are only ‘New’ ONCE.The first time I had ‘Mac & Cheese’, it was ‘new and different’…Now, it is COMFORT FOOD… and I am FINE with that!So, IF the writing is solid on any further Ghostbusters entries, I have no problem with them, either.AGAIN; No one is forcing you to go see any more Ghostbusters…..So quit Bitchin`!
It is not for adults
Sigourney Weaver is great, agreed. That was your point, yes?Gosh, I wish we could have commented on this:
I can’t believe the franchise didn’t follow Venkman’s sideline as a serial rapist.
There was potential for Ghostbusters to be a thrilling and beloved franchise that lasts forever, but they just never had decent writers with good ideas outside the 09 video game.The animated shows, especially Extreme Ghostbusters, had a lot of stories that went beyond the boss ghost of the week. The one that I keep thinking of is when Kylie believed she was speaking with her dearly departed great grandmother, but it was a spirit disguising itself in order to possess her. There was a similar story in The Real Ghostbusters to explain how Janine lost her Brooklyn accent and became considerably more foxy than she used to be with a ghost posing as her fairy godmother over a period of years that fed on her insecurities. Stories that give the characters new and unique experiences is what the films should have done to remain fresh and in the zeitgeist. Make it girls and badly improvised or make it children and not funny were never ideas that were going to work.
RE: “I say no more. Enough is enough. The Ghostbusters franchise needs to stop.”—-Okay, you are aware that nothing is forcing you to go to see any further Ghostbusters… right?Whenever
I see someone like you complain about the existence of sequels, it
makes me wonder if there is someone forcing them at gunpoint to endure
the sheer torture that they make such sequels out to be.I was 24 when the original Ghostbusters materialized… And yes, it was ‘new and different’… Well, time has been passing….
I
enjoyed ‘Afterlife’, and found it a fitting tribute to Harold Ramis,
and an intriguing continuance of the story, with the Spengler family
adding new blood to ‘the business’ alongside the originals. I am extremely interested in seeing ‘Frozen Empire’….But I do not expect it to be ‘New and Different’ or to somehow replicate the 1984 zaniness of the original. There is no way that could happen in ANY universe, simply because things are only ‘New’ ONCE.The first time I had ‘Mac & Cheese’, it was ‘new and different’…Now, it is COMFORT FOOD… and I am FINE with that!So, IF the writing is solid on any further Ghostbusters entries, I have no problem with them, either.Complaining that since you do not enjoy Ghostbusters anymore, then no more should be made, is ridiculous.
As much as kids loved it, that last thing Ghostbusters movies needed to turn into was a family-friendly.
‘Ghostbusters’ feels, to me, like a movie that’s a victim of how cool it is. The Ecto-1, the proton packs, the funky ghost design, all have such a unique and wonderful vibe, and it makes you want to see more of them. The problem is, as a story the first one does everything so well and the sequels just feel like retreads. Another cosmic evil threatens the world, another rallying cry to the people of New York, another authority figure who thinks the ‘Busters are conmen. Some witty banter which won’t top the original one-liners. Every Ghostbusters has style; only one of them has substance.
The article’s thesis nails it: This was never supposed to be a “franchise.” Sure, a cartoon spinoff aimed at kids is fine. But endless legacy sequels and a reboot? Ugh, no thanks. Particularly when most of them put the original up on some sacrosanct pedestal and complete miss the point? Bleh.For me, the only proper follow-up to Ghostbusters is Galaxy Quest. Both have a similar sensibility. While GQ wasn’t the smash Ghostbusters was, it has certainly gained a huge following after its initial release. Mercifully, though many attempts were made, GQ never had a sequel and I pray it stays that way.
Charles Moss did not bother to watch the new movie but decided to write this article about it, like some recalcitrant high schooler cobbling together a book report for a novel they were too lazy to read. It doesn’t sound like he even watched the original recently, otherwise he wouldn’t used the term schlubby to describe a set of characters where three are PhDs. In a world where AI is stealing creatives’ jobs, it seems very foolish to write a hit piece like this without doing the one thing ChatGPT cannot do, go to a theater and see if you like something enough to tell others about it.
Look at how the Star Wars sequels and the last two Indiana Jones movies worked out.The Star Wars sequels made 2 billion dollars. They seemed to have worked out okay. ( Quality concerns aside).
Some aspects of the original GHOSTBUSTERS really haven’t aged well, like just how sleazy Venkman actually is (if he existed as that version of the character today, he’d get maced pretty quick I bet). But, overall, it’s still a stone cold classic.
I also really like GHOSTBUSTERS 2! It even has a whole meta angle that felt ahead of its time, but just wasn’t particularly well-implemented. And “no comedy”? “A bathtub tried to eat his friend’s baby.” ladies and gentleman. The sequel also does some interesting stuff like show them struggling to make ends meet, and get sectioned (even though they saved the city from a giant marshmallow man – where were the doctors then?!).As far as I recall, AFTERLIFE just borrows the bits it likes from the first one and makes zero mention to part 2…? Like, isn’t there a bit in the cave where there’s these dates about big bad events and 1989 isn’t listed, or something like that…? I might have missed tiny references though. I also think the whole “the Ghostbusters actually exist but people have forgotten about them” was a solid angle that’s basically glossed over with a shrug. Why wouldn’t their exploits live on, at least in terms of the impact on science that actual ghosts and interdimensional gods are real…! I really hope FROZEN EMPIRE course-corrects some of this but I doubt it, because these new movies are more interested in going “Hey here’s that thing you like, now clap” than anything else.Lastly, the Real Ghostbusters comic was fucking amazing. I remember a story that saw Venkman (and Slimer) go on holiday to Egypt, and while there they deal with a giant screaming mouth ghost that, I shit you not, was the manifestation of slaves who’d had their tongues cut out.
The original GB was a comic riff on Poltergeist. If you want to turn it into a franchise, it should be a series of pastiches of more modern horrors. Imagine the GB characters popping up in a Paranormal Activity movie! Ghostbusters vs The Conjuring! Ghostbusters vs Sadako!
Or maybe you should just stop going to Ghostbusters movies and let the rest of us enjoy them in peace.
You got older and your tastes changed. Happens to everybody.
I like these characters and this world and I’d like to see what’s up this time. The fact that they brought in new fresh blood just means that maybe they’ll make more. It’s not so character dependent like recasting James Bond, the various spin-offs proved that.
Let the original characters fade into the background, or turn Ray into the “Giles” role that sets up the mission and have at it.
a post on a blog really disturbs your enjoyment of some shitty Sony movie?
no, but having to slog thru an overwritten gatekeeping think piece about why the author is burnt out on Ghostbusters does.
and I quite liked what you call a shitty Sony movie
I saw the original Ghostbusters in the eighties and liked it as much as you’d expect a seven-year-old to like it. I saw the second one in the theaters and liked it, too. I was also genuinely spooked by some of it. Those movies’ visual effects always overachieved. But then I saw the original movie when I was in my early twenties and was surprised at how much I didn’t like it. Part of it was political, which kind of surprised me, since this was a movie for the younger set I tend to dislike movies whose political subtext is too obvious. But this is a movie that’s terrified of a really, really, levitating-from-the-mattress turned-on woman having sex and that draws its biggest baddie from the EPA. Ooof, if this thing wasn’t a pure cultural product of the Reagan years, I don’t know what would be. Of course, I also think “The Lost Boys”, which is a hard-right Cold War analogy featuring a little materialistic jerk and some kid who runs around looking like he escaped from a Rambo playset as heroes would also fall into that category. The things you miss when you’re young, I guess.The only parts of it that work are the improvised bits and the feeling that the leads are simultaneously experts and kinda/sorta losers at the very same time. That bit where Murray asks the woman in the library if there’d been any history of madness in her family and she goes on about an uncle who “thought he was Saint Jerome” is great, though I can’t quite tell you why. No wonder they couldn’t make another one that worked as well as the first one did.
Okay, maybe it’s not deserving of a mythos, but have you ever read the 1986 roleplaying game from West End Games and Chaosium? If anything proves that the franchise has legs, it’s that game. That game is solid gold, one of the best ever published, and it’s full of ideas for expanding the Ghostbusters universe in fun ways that feel right. Just like The Real Ghostbusters, it’s a million miles ahead of the sequels.