Ghostbusters 1984 - 2016

Ghostbusters “Big Bads” from 1984 and 2016

I watched the Ghostbusters reboot a few years ago. It had been maybe fifteen years since I watched the original. My impression was that the new film was not as funny. After watching both movies again, my opinion has changed, and I enjoyed the new Ghostbusters more than the original, which in my opinion has not aged well. But the first film is revered, and not just because of its legendary cast: it has a stronger story.

I was put off by the 1984 film because of the early scenes with Dr. Peter Venkman, played by Bill Murry. I will pick up the sword and shield of the social justice warrior for a moment. I didn't like being asked to laugh at Venkman's manipulative deceit of a young woman to get her in the sack. Many women in their twenties have been lied to this way, by men purporting to be interested in their talent, intelligence, etc., only to find it's all a front. Though he didn't go all Weinstein on her, he still subjected her to a psychic casting couch of sorts. I was glad when Raymond interrupted them. Later, Venkman pursues Dana, played by Sigourney Weaver. Although he was obnoxious, it didn't bother me. He was up-front with Dana—there was no manipulation. I equate this to Erin's over-the-top obvious attraction to Kevin. And yeah, the women harassed him during the job interview. Why didn't that bother me as much? Maybe because they're women, and he's a big guy. The potential for sexual violence, sometimes lurking under the surface when the man is the aggressor, is not there. 

I thought the 2016 film was much funnier. Some lines I love:

"The Aldrich mansion had a security fence to guard against Irish immigrants," says the museum guide. And, "in this very room, PT Barnum first had the idea to enslave elephants." 

"Can you try saying no to the salty parabolas?" (As Holtzmann crunches a potato chip.)

"An aquarium is a submarine for fish," proclaims Kevin.

"Sorry to DeBarge in," says Abby, commenting on the background music.

"Plant your feet firmly to compensate for the kickback!" Holtzmann instructs Abby, who then flies around the alley like a balloon losing its air. The '84 film uses the particle streams to a greater comedic advantage than the original.

In addition to funnier bits, this Ghostbusters also has more celebrities. There are cameos by Bill Murray, Ozzie Osbourne, Annie Potts, Dan Ackroyd, Ernie Hudson, and Sigourney Weaver, to name a few. Some of their talents are squandered, though. Michael Kenneth Williams, who plays one of the cops, was the legendary Omar Little in The Wire. He is wasted here. 

Although the 1984 film's humor is timeworn—except for Rick Moranis' character Louis, whose every utterance is hysterically funny--the story structure is stronger. The "big bad" becomes known within the first third of the film. Knowing that Zule has arrived on earth and has possessed Louis and Dana creates suspense and high stakes.

But in the '16 Ghostbusters, the evil doesn't snowball until the last third. Indeed, we know something is going on--Rowan, a weirdo who is setting up ghost-summoning devices around town, rambles on about a "fourth cataclysm." By the halfway point, however, we have only seen two menacing ghosts. There's no "big bad" until near the end. So, the film begins to seem like a series of one-off gags. 

Rowan's cataclysm is not a well-crafted scheme, story-wise. He has a big machine, and somehow there are spirits awaiting release behind mirror-like screens. How does he do this? And how does he turn into the giant ghost from the Ghostbusters logo? It's all very murky and comes across more like a CGI razzle-dazzle street celebration.

In the 1984 film, the use of the energy streams is consistent. You shoot them at the ghost to draw it into the containment box. You don't cross the streams, or you'll die. In the newer film, the use of the streams is inconsistent. On first use, the ghostbusters use the weapons the way their '84 counterparts did, lasso-ing and capturing spirits. But during the climactic battle, the streams turn into guns that blast the ghosts into jellied fragments. 

A few other inconsistencies bothered me. The battle scenes in the 2016 movie are set in New York City. Where is the traffic? There are no empty streets in New York until the very wee hours.

What happened to Bill Murray's skeptic after he fell out of the window? I assume he died. We see the ghostbusters looking down toward the ground, and he must be laying there, but--why not show him? 

And finally, there was a hair continuity problem that I found distracting. After Erin and Abby's hair turns white, we see them again after they have dyed it to appear more natural. Erin's hair is a perfect bottle-red. But Abby still has the same dark roots she had before. Why isn't her hair all the same color?

Too many of these small errors make the second film muddied and confused. But I still thought it was very funny.