With Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire opening this weekend, I want to look back on some lesser Ghostbusters films to see how they hold up. Today, I’m looking at the largely reviled Ghostbusters 2016, followed by Ghostbuster II later this week. I’m excited to revisit both films, as it has been a while since I’ve sat down and watched either of them.
Is Ghostbusters 2016 responsible for forging the wedge between studios and fans? Adverse fan reactions have always existed, dating back to the release of The Empire Strikes Back. If you were around in the late 90s or early 2000s, it was hard to miss the backlash that befell George Lucas’ Star Wars prequels or the negative reaction to The Matrix sequels. Everyone hated Spider-Man 3; many vocalized their disdain for Iron Man 3. Hell, in 1990, Francis Ford Coppola faced heaps of abuse for The Godfather Part III.
Yet, if memory serves, Ghostbusters 2016 was the first time a cast and crew fought back. Everyone from writer/director Paul Feig to co-star Leslie Jones has blasted fans in one way, shape, or form, pointing to misogyny toward the predominantly female cast as a reason the “requel” failed at the box office. Websites like Forbes, Deadline, and The Hollywood Reporter wrote pieces condemning fans for their sexist views, resulting in an ongoing battle that continues to this day, for better or worse.
Despite these claims, Ghostbusters 2016 opened with a solid $46M, surpassing the opening weekends of Feig’s previous works, including the female-led comedy hit Bridesmaids, which earned $26M in its opening frame en route to $289M worldwide. Ghostbusters 2016 earned a respectable $229M, more than Ghostbusters: Afterlife ($203M) — a film fans seemingly love — and Ghostbusters II ($215M, not adjusted for inflation). In fact, according to Inverse, men made up 43% of the opening weekend audience, while women comprised 57%—a decline from the 65% who turned up for Feig’s The Heat.
Despite the bizarre attacks against the fans, Ghostbuster 2016’s biggest hurdle was its colossal $145M budget, which nearly doubles the budget for Ghostbusters: Afterlife ($75M) and far surpasses the budgets of Feig’s earlier ventures. Ghostbusters 2016 needed to strike the same cultural chord as Ivan Reitman’s Ghostbusters in 1984. Unfortunately, the same critics who blasted the fans mostly yawned at the production, with only 74% awarding the picture a positive score on RottenTomatoes.
Hollywood has discovered over the years that the online community doesn’t necessarily reflect the general audience. People will show up for a film regardless of what the media or fan base says so long as the product offered provides quality entertainment.
Sadly, Ghostbusters 2016 isn’t very good
As someone who mostly avoids online debates, I was excited about another Ghostbusters. The franchise had dwindled into obscurity following the release of Ghostbusters II in 1989, surviving only in comics and TV shows. In 2016, Hollywood started getting its grubby hands on our favorite properties, so another Ghostbusters flick sounded like a great idea. I liked the cast and crew. Kristen Wiig (swoon!) proved herself a unique talent on SNL and Bridesmaids, Melissa McCarthy’s schtick was still mostly fresh, and Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones were promising up-and-comers. Toss in Chris Hemsworth and modern-day special effects, and the potential was there to reboot the long-dormant franchise into a huge blockbuster. Despite an underwhelming advertising campaign bereft of laughs, I went into the film optimistically.
Unfortunately, following a promising opening act, Ghostbusters 2016 never catches fire and outstays its welcome by a good 30 minutes. Everyone involved tries hard and is clearly having a great time, but the final result is a bloated, nonsensical mess that only partially takes shape. Here is the type of film you can walk away from and return to an hour later without missing anything significant.
What went wrong with Ghostbusters 2016
The biggest issue is Feig’s approach. The writer/director tries to mold Ghostbusters in the same improvisational style as his other comedies. However, films like Bridesmaids and The Heat relied on irreverent R-rated humor for laughs. Unsurprisingly, Feig’s films lack lasting appeal, given their reliance on shock rather than genuine wit or substance.
Ghostbusters 2016 is no different. Beyond a few bits here and there, nothing in the picture resonates. The characters don’t feel real, and the stakes are never fully established. At one point, Wiig’s character, Dr. Erin Gilbert, pleads for help from Andy Garcia’s Mayor Bradley in a crowded restaurant, and her cries go over his head because, well, he’s a moron flanked by bigger morons:
Everyone in Ghostbusters 2016 is a caricature rather than a well-defined character worth rooting for. When Columbia University fires Wiig’s character following a vlog that goes viral, Feig decides to undermine the drama with this bit:
That’s the problem: everything in this movie is a bit. Certain scenes might elicit laughter when viewed individually, but when stitched together, they blend into a continuous stream of awkwardness reminiscent of an endless SNL sketch. Moreover, there’s no structure to the comedy; there’s no set-up to a punchline. Characters talk or shout until the editor mercifully cuts to the next scene.
I recently watched the 2000 comedy Meet the Parents for comparison’s sake and was pleasantly surprised by the meticulous craftsmanship in its gags. In the early stages of the film, as Greg (played by Ben Stiller) encounters his girlfriend’s parents, Jack (portrayed by Robert DeNiro) and Dina (played by Blythe Danner), director Jay Roach artfully weaves subtle jokes into each conversation. Simultaneously, he lays the groundwork for a more significant comedic payoff later in the story, i.e., Jinx the cat defecting on the ashes of Jack’s mother. That’s the big payoff, and it’s brilliant.
Ghostbusters 2016 goes for the big payoff in each scene and relies on a series of running gags that go nowhere. Take, for instance, the scenes in which McCarthy berates a young man for delivering soup without enough noodles:
If this were an R-rated vehicle, McCarthy could unleash a batch of adult-oriented insults that might eventually garner a laugh or two. Restrained by a PG-13 rating, the actress rambles on and on without rhyme or reason, effectively stopping the film dead in its tracks for a two-minute monologue about soup.
Hemsworth, likewise, goes too far with his character. He’s introduced as an attractive, well-meaning dunce who takes everything literally but devolves into a complete buffoon who may need psychological help. He’s dumb, you see. That’s the gag.
I’m reminded of Roger Ebert’s line about funny hats in his review of Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove, where he notes the film’s “humor is generated by a basic comic principle: People trying to be funny are never as funny as people trying to be serious and failing. The laughs have to seem forced on unwilling characters by the logic of events. A man wearing a funny hat is not funny. But a man who doesn’t know he’s wearing a funny hat … ah, now you’ve got something.”
In Ghostbusters, every character is vying for laughs. Whether it’s McKinnon’s eccentric scientist or Jones’ constantly shouting MTA operator, the cast often ends up stepping on each other’s comedic timing instead of synergizing and playing off each other’s strengths. Comparatively, Reitman’s Ghostbusters follows the Strangelove formula. Peter (Bill Murray), Ray (Dan Aykroyd), Egon (Harold Ramis), and Winston (Ernie Hudson) are regular fellas starting a business who end up getting in way over their heads. The comedy in the film arises from the characters’ reactions to the supernatural or horror elements unfolding around them. Furthermore, the script defines each character: Peter embodies the cynical showboat persona, Ray exudes exuberant man-child energy, Egon represents the pragmatic scientist, and Winston is the relatable everyman seeking a stable income. No one oversteps their boundaries, and their contrasting personalities result in the film’s funniest bits.
Reitman and writers Aykroyd and Ramis approach the material with seriousness. As the plot unfolds and Gozer makes its presence known, the weight of the world’s fate, whether for better or worse, becomes palpable on the Ghostbusters’ shoulders.
I also admire how Ghostbusters seamlessly transitions from a laid-back comedy to a thrilling supernatural action adventure. With each act, Ghostbusters introduces new elements that keep the premise engaging and fresh. Reitman never lingers too long on a scene or gag and moves the picture along quickly. Those 105 minutes fly by.
In contrast, Ghostbusters 2016, while only slightly longer by a mere 10 minutes, feels like a 2+ hour experience. Every scene presents an onslaught of improvisation that grows tiresome after the first 15-20 minutes. The climactic battle also disappoints due to the unconvincing green screen, lack of intensity/drama, and tacky CGI.
Yet, general audiences still gave Ghostbusters 2016 a chance. Its lackluster performance wasn’t solely due to the backlash from a vocal minority on social media but rather because it failed to recapture the magic and charm of the original Ghostbusters. In the end, Ghostbusters 2016 set a precedent where lazy or incompetent studios could hastily assemble subpar productions and then shift blame onto fans when these projects inevitably failed. However, I think this trend is gradually fading away.
Remarkably, if you give people quality products like Avatar, Dune, Oppenheimer, or Barbie, they show up at cinemas in droves. Funny how that works.
Lastly, Ghostbusters 2016 also revealed a significant nugget: some films aren’t meant to be franchises. Despite my love for Ghostbusters, subsequent sequels demonstrated limited thematic material for further stories beyond what could fill a short Saturday morning cartoon. The original Ghostbusters was a cinematic masterpiece in which every element fused into a perfect whole; characters and concepts were not created to become an expansive universe.
Ghostbusters: Afterlife attempted to extract emotional depth from the Ghostbusters concept but felt more like superficial fan service than a necessary continuation of the story. Frozen Empire looks like more of the same.
To that end, Feig was justified in his decision to remake Ghostbusters and explore a separate universe. However, as this lengthy article illustrates, some successes are impossible to replicate, regardless of the talent involved.
