Ghostbusters (1984 & 2016)

What a light-hearted note to end a term full of dread and terror (both literally with the world and study wise with ghosts). I used to watch the original Ghostbusters with my dad all the time when I was younger. My dad is an avid anti-horror person. Yet, his genes produced someone who enjoys it. The joke is how big of a disappointment I became by dropping my studies to be a plastic surgeon to write horror. Anyway, Ghostbusters is a staple in the horror-comedy genre. If you can get past the humor and graphics to think about yourself being in the shoes of the actual busters, it's quite terrifying. Can you imagine taking on their job? One thing I will say, this term has made me want a Ph.D. in Parapsychology or Paranormal Science, and I am now seriously considering it...




So, we were tasked to watch both the original 1984 film and the 2016 remake for this one. I'd never seen the 2016 remake before this. So, I took a trip down memory lane and rewatched the original and the remake right after. Yes...I spent four straight hours in the name of ghostbusting this assignment. Doing this helped me see how similar the two plots are. They kept the main idea but modernized it in the remake. You followed pretty much the same series of events, with just flipped characters (all female dominate in the 2016 remake) and more modernized places. However, the only real up the remake had was the graphics and technological advances. I may be biased, but the original is still much better than the remake. Both kept the tremendous comedic relief, but somethings in the 2016 version were just too goofy, even for me. 




Alright, let's talk about some tropes. Both films featured that one scientist that doubted until they witnessed it. In the original, Venkam was a creep. In the remake, Erin was trying to keep her reputation clean. What is it about the belief in ghosts and the paranormal that ruins reputations? I guess it's the same thing about being a horror writer? In both films, we get spirits in broad daylight for the majority of the investigations. The common trope they broke is "things going bump in the night."




It's nearly essential I repeat that Ghostbuster is a horror-comedy. Think of Evil Dead II if you have to, but they aren't meant to scare you. "Ghostbusters is laughable and should not be horror." WRONG. Yes, laughable is THE WHOLE POINT. But, it belongs in horror, and let me tell you why. Ghosts. That's the whole court case, folks, ghosts. Spirits are staples of horror, whether they are used to be funny or not. 




I'm kidding. Of course, I have more. Ghostbusters features vortexes and the idea of a post-apocalyptic world but instead of zombies, an army of spirits (the actual dead). Should I bring back around PoltergeistThe Exorcist, or Paranormal Activity, or are we catching on to why this belongs in horror? Again, horror isn't the genre made to scare you. It is anything that unsettles you. There's a whole subgenre that revolves around fears. Clowns don't leave me feeling anyway, but plenty of people are unsettled, creeped out, and terrified of them. Watch Terrifier, even if you're like me, and aren't scared of clowns. You'll see my point. Or give Arachnophobia, a classic, a shot. What about Scooby-Doo made you like it so much as a kid? THE FREAKING GHOSTS, or finding out that it's always people that are bad. If you didn't like Scooby-Doo, Where Are You? just go ahead and hit the X on this tab. You're not welcome here. BUT, both ghosts and psychos are subgenres of horror, whether you like it or not. 




So, how does Ghostbusters fit in a term filled with dreadful and intense hauntings? It's comedic relief, literally. Sometimes, you need a good horror-comedy, and one made as such. Sorry, Evil Dead II. I love you, dearly, but you are only a comedy because you had no budget. 



Outside of that, you see that even in the most straightforward cases of ghosts, people are doubted, made fun of, and treated like they are mentally unstable. At the end of the 2016 version, the government wanted them to keep investigating...quietly. Yeah. I'll never forget when my dad and I went to a Safeway gas station, and there was a van for a small paranormal investigation team. I wanted to talk to them so badly, but all my dad did was laugh and say the world is full of wackos. I was in my teens, so I wasn't as firm as I am to stand up to a parent figure as I am now. If there is one thing to be learned about haunting fiction, mental illness is often the go-to diagnosis, or fraud (you can than Lorriane Warren singlehandedly for this one, LOL). It's taboo, and whether it's funny or terrifying, people love taboo topics in their private time. But take all the humor out of these films, imagine if a big city like New York and someone opening a vortex to start an apocalypse of the dead. That is horrifying to think, and that is horror.

Comments

  1. The plot wasn't similar enough for me to consider the 2016 movie a 'remake' of the 1984 film. Yes, we have similar characters and humor, but the modernized version didn't have enough similarities for me. The plot n regards to Sigourney Weaver and Zuul was completely gone, and that's what I was looking for rather than a man in the basement of a hotel.

    I see why you'd classify this as humorous horror, but why would you do that instead of paranormal fantasy? I know it dos get into an apocalyptic situation, but that can still be in the realm of sci-fi or fantasy rather than horror.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I liked your discussion of why the film belongs to the horror genre rather than comedy. You are pretty convincing. The plot with Zuul is actually quite frightening--I watched the film with my 13-year-old, and she found it scary.

    That's so cool that you encountered a paranormal investigators' van! I would have wanted to talk to them, too.

    Yes, it is unfortunate that people who are believers in the paranormal are ridiculed and seen as less-than-credible. I wonder why? Must have to do with the rise of the Age of Rationalism, Industrialization, and folks just generally wanting to feel safe with everything neatly explained the way it is in the Christian church. Personally, I prefer mystery and not being completely sure what might go bump in the night.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd say it has to do with humans' fear of the unknown for why they don't believe in ghosts. A lot of people nowadays don't believe in things unless they see it with their own eyes, or say something isn't valid unless the person has experienced it. I think it has something to do with that kind of culture.

      Delete
    2. Once upon a time, when I was getting to know a friend's new boyfriend (now husband) I decided to introduce the topic of ghosts and hauntings. (It was October and we were out to dinner talking about how much we all loved Autumn and Halloween). So I said something meant to be playful and innocuous to introduce the topic, something like "So do you believe in ghosts?" His response was a sharp rebuke. Something like, "I think it's sad and pathetic that some people spend any time thinking about ghosts when there are so many important issues in the world they should be paying attention to." UGH. Wah, wah, wah. Even though I generally like the guy, I've never forgotten the sting or forgiven that comment.

      If I ever see a paranormal investigations van in real life, I'll probably make an ass of myself posing for selfies in front of it and asking questions. LOL. I've heard they've been here to my hometown several times, but I've never seen any evidence &/or any episodes featuring Dahlonega, GA.

      I totally agree that Ghostbusters is horror with a comedic twist. Just like Beetlejuice.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular Posts