Ghostbusters, released in 1984, is a comedy classic. The film, starring Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis, Sigourney Weaver, and Ernie Hudson, was one of the most popular films of the 1980s. With a box-office gross of nearly $300 million in 1984 money and enough positive reviews to propel it to a 97% on Rotten Tomatoes, its reputation is sterling. Why, then, has no one been able to make a successful followup since?
With a direct sequel released in 1989, a reboot in 2016, and another direct sequel in 2021, Hollywood keeps trying to reach the same level of magic it did with the 1984 original. While the first sequel garnered more than its fair share of groans from critics worldwide, it did manage to gross $215 million at the time of its release. The 2016 reboot, however, was a massive box-office failure, reaching only $229 million on a $144 million budget.
RELATED:10 Best Ghostbusters Games, Ranked
Ghostbusters: Afterlife, a sequel/reboot that was released just last year, was also a bomb and grossed less than $200 million off of its more modest $75 million budget. Considering the star power in front of the camera and the immense talent behind it for all of these later projects, why hasn’t the world been down to bust ghosts since 1989?
The Original Was a Comedy
It might be easy to forget, but the firstGhostbustersfilm was first and foremost a laugh-a-minute comedy. Fresh off of hits likeMeatballs,Stripes, andCaddyshack, Bill Murray was one of the most lauded comedy actors of the early 1980s. The production team behind the originalGhostbusterswisely hired him on as the lead and placed him on-screen with other comedy maestros of the time like Dan Aykroyd,Rick Moranis, and Harold Ramis for the purpose of creating a high concept sci-fi/horror/comedy to beat the band. They succeeded, and the laughs and bucks flowed in equal measure.
The film itself packed to the brim with knee-slapping gags. From “cats and dogs living together” to big twinkies, the screenplay forGhostbustersand the ad-libbed lines by the hilarious cast easily mix with the high-stakes low-panic scenes of ghost mayhem. The movie also features some straightforward ghost scares and sci-fi exposition (courtesy ofactual ghost believer Dan Arkroyd), but the jokes carry more weight than the other elements. Coming at a time when star-studded comedies were much of the meat and potatoes at the North American box-office,Ghostbustersoffered that product while combining it with a light-heartedly spooky ghost story.
The Massive Weight of Being Legendary
Ghostbustersis many people’s favorite film. Released when baby boomers were in their movie watching prime, the film has been now shared for three-plus generations and is regarded as something to behold. To be fair, it is.Ghostbusterspacks so much goodness into its 108-minute runtime that it’s hard to believe just how effective it really is. Rightly considered a classic, the gold sheen that surrounds it unfortunately sometimes acts as a governor on the film’s quality. While fans know the film back-to-front, it can be hard for people that truly love something to separate their feeling for the film from the actual film itself. This problem can, and did, lead toGhostbustersgetting confused for something else than it actually is.
There is no sentimentality in the original film. The main characters are middle-aged failures who start a business to make some money. There was no holy agenda, virtually no scenes of actual tension, and the characters never really act as if they are in significant danger. This is not a negative, but a positive. The film knows it’s a comedy and therefore treats each and every situation the characters find themselves in with a comic stance. The Busters themselves are constantly cracking jokes at what should be terrifying, and this helps to endear the audience to them wile softening the blow of what could have been something truly scary.
Director Ivan Reitman and writers Harold Ramis and Dan Aykroyd want audiences to be spooked by the ghosts while simultaneously busting a gut at how the team reacts toward them. It’s moreAbbott and CostellothanThe Changeling, and its all the better for it. The effect of fans combining their nostalgic feelings for the film with their cries for new entries has confused Hollywood on how to handle sequels and reboots of the brand. The second film, which followed a mere five years after the original, wasn’t nearly as well regarded but still managed to retain most of the comedic spirit of its predecessor. Theother two Ghostbusters films tryand fail to play off of the 1984 film’s tightrope tone.
A Ridiculous Controversy
When it was announced in the mid-2010s that Paul Feig was rebootingGhostbusterswith an all-female cast, the world rioted. Proving that sexism and racism still run rampant in many circles, fans took to the internet to voice their distaste for the new cast which included Melissa McCarthy, Kate McKinnon, Kristen Wiig, and Leslie Jones.
Not all of the press anticipation was negative, however. Many citedFeig’s track recordof providing hilarious films and the cast’s ability to wring laughs out of most situations, but the box-office intake proved disastrous as previously mentioned. Critical reviews were actually positive, it ranks on Rotten Tomatoes as the second best-reviewedGhostbustersfilm, but goodwill from the pundits was not enough to ensure a future for this reboot. It did get one thing right, however. It was first and foremost a comedy.
After Feig’s failure, talk immediately began on another reboot. While critics seemed to enjoy the female cast well enough, the box-office intake and intense fan outrage completely squashed chances for a sequel in this new continuation. Fans wanted to go back to where it all began, and Hollywood listened. Hiring the director of the original film’s son, Jason Reitman, and promising a return from all surviving cast members,Ghostbusters: Afterlifewas put into production just a few years after 2016’sGhostbusters: Answer the Call. Pushed backfrom its original release dateas a result of COVID-19, the five-year time difference was not enough to makeGhostbusters: Afterlifethe film that fans were waiting for.
Nostalgia Candy
Ghostbusters: Afterliferepresents the most significant departure from the original film of the entire series. While itdoes shoehorn in the original castand even manages to bring back the now-deceased Harold Ramis, it seemed to completely miss the mark. With a new cast including Carrie Coon, Finn Wolfhard, Mckenna Grace, Bokeem Woodbine, Logan Kim, and Paul Rudd,Afterlifehad the pedigree and the onscreen talent to appear as a sequel that would finally bring back our favorite team of Busters back to the forefront while also providing some fresh meat for supposed sequels.
With a more muted critical response thanAnswer the Callbefore it and an absolutely dismal box-office intake, fans dreams were once again squashed. The film failed spectacularly, and much of it was due to its misunderstanding of the source material. As previously stated,Ghostbusterswas a comedy.Afterlife, while featuring some comedic moments, wasmore of aStranger Thingsclonethan a true laugh-fest in the vein of Reitman’s first film. With more sentimental music cues, heartfelt callbacks, and tired references to the original films than one can count,Afterlifehad its heart in the wrong place.
Not as funny asAnswer the Callor the two original films and not a straightforward family drama as some of the plot elements would suggest,Afterlifeis a mishmash of tones and feelings that seems to betray the intention of the original film. Each reference to the series in the newest film is treated with a respect and a reverence that would lead someone that hadn’t seen the first two films to believe that they were filled with wonder and awe instead of ghost fellatio jokes.Ghostbustersis funny and goofy, not sad and wistful. That fact paired with misled fan expectations has ensured that a worthyGhostbustersfilm has not been released in more than thirty years.
