Disclaimer: I’m not here to excessively and unfairly crap on the new "Ghostbusters" (2016). So much social/political conflict has arisen from a simple movie about ghost exterminators. This article is meant to explain the “lightning-in-a-bottle” effect the original "Ghostbusters" had and why no other cast or director could possibly live up to it with a remake. I didn’t like "Ghostbusters" (2016), not one bit...however it’s not because of the all-female cast which seems to be the “face” of the anti-"Ghostbusters" (2016) movement.

Me, anticipating disapproval of my dislike towards Ghostbusters (2016)

1984's "Ghostbusters" is one of the most perfectly executed films in existence and I’m not exaggerating when I say that. It’s a movie with a concept that could easily be written off as cheesy or too campy for mainstream audiences but it still finds fans in all generations. I worked at a summer camp last summer and even some of the 5-year olds I had to take care of were quoting the 1984 "Ghostbusters" movie much to my surprise. It made me want to revisit the movie and understand what makes it so timeless and enjoyable, and then it made me wonder why the new Paul Feig remake failed to live up to it. "Ghostbusters" is a movie held up almost entirely in the chemistry between its cast members, every joke and piece of dialogue is sold by how the cast interacts with one another. It’s almost like there were few actual “jokes” written in the script and all the comedy came from the situations and the chemistry between the cast, more specifically Dan Aykroyd, Bill Murray and Harold Ramis.

The movie’s premise is so simple, it’s some schlubby men trying to get into business with the knowledge and technology they acquired throughout the years. They’re just exterminators, but with the twist that they exterminate ghosts. It’s so simple and easy to follow that it makes it perfect. It’s not an action movie where ghosts are flying throughout the screen left and right, the heroes leaping from room to room catching ghosts... it’s very subdued and laid back. The movie has such a dry, sarcastic tone to its humor which ends up making the film believable and grounded despite the fact that there are ghosts taking over the city

These characters aren’t heroes, they’re not well-known scientists trying to make a contribution to society. They’re the definition of underdogs and audiences immediately attach themselves to an underdog story. All the "Ghostbusters" want for the first half of the movie is a steady paycheck, they get themselves kicked out of the university they work at and decide to go into business for themselves. It’s not until much later in the movie that the ghost threat to NYC gets serious and they have to take it upon themselves to stop it since they’re the only ones with the means to do so.

At the helms of any other director, writer or cast this movie could’ve fallen apart very quickly. Directed by Ivan Reitman whose other work includes another favorite of mine, Groundhog Day knew that the genius of the dialogue and the concepts lied with the two writers and stars Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis. The movie has a slow build-up and that’s not a bad thing at all. There’s a ghost in the first scene of the movie, but after that, you don’t really see any “ghost busting” for another half hour or so. The movie takes its time and doesn’t spoil the audience by revealing everything all at once.

Dan Aykroyd’s character, Ray has so much childlike wonder and enthusiasm over this ghost business and it starts to rub off on the characters. It was no surprise to find out that Ray was my campers’ favorite character, he reacts with joy and excitement at every turn, he’s the most optimistic member of the group. Bill Murray’s character, Peter is as narcissistic and rude as the roles Bill Murray usually plays. The difference with Peter Venkman is that despite his attitude and distaste towards others, he steps up and doesn’t run away when the threat to NYC borders on world-ending. Harold Ramis plays Egon, the smart socially-awkward character who ends up having some of the funniest lines in the movie just because of his delivery. His plain, monotone voice is surprisingly charming. Ernie Hudson’s character joins the team later on in the movie but he makes for a very refreshing character. He’s an everyman who seriously just needs to be paid. He doesn’t really care about the logistics of ghost catching or the consequences, he’s looking for a job and that alone makes for a humorous situation.

You can’t just recapture chemistry like this. In Paul Feig’s remake, it seems like they just decided “Let’s get four famous female comedians and do the same thing!” But it’s not as easy as it sounds. Paul Feig was definitely banking on writing obvious jokes and letting the cast improvise off one another and it came off real desperate in the final product, the whole remake screams “Look at us, we’re funny!” The original "Ghostbusters" script doesn’t even seem like it’s trying to be a comedy. Every line is played off serious and straightforward, what eventually makes the movie funny is how each cast member plays off one another. To simplify the difference between the two movies: "Ghostbusters" (2016) tried way too hard to be liked, "Ghostbusters" (1984) didn’t give a crap.

A perfectly cast movie doesn’t just have good leads but excellent supporting characters as well. I rewatched "Ghostbusters" (2016) just a few weeks ago and I couldn’t tell you the names of any of the side characters. However, characters like Louis Tully (Rick Moranis) Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver) Walter Peck (William Atherton) and Janine (Annie Potts) are timeless and will be remembered years after "Ghostbusters" (2016) escapes everyone’s memory. Each character has such memorable moments and unique quirks to their personalities that allow them to stand out. Janine’s “Ghostbusters, whaddya want?!” outburst, Louis Tully’s entire state of being, Walter Peck’s shrewd disapproval of the Ghostbusters...everything works so perfectly. I’ve seen this movie so many times but it still makes me laugh to this day.

A remake was never going to be a good idea for this movie, especially judging Hollywood’s past attem[s at remakes like "Robocop" and "Total Recall." I thought "Ghostbusters" (2016) would go the way of "Jurassic World" where it’s not entirely a remake but more like a spiritual sequel. It becomes its own movie while still establishing that the events of the original movie took place at one point. "Ghostbusters" (2016) COMPLETELY ignores the fact that the 1984 movie exists. They don’t reference that there was a Ghostbusters team before them, they create their equipment from scratch...it tries so hard to piss off fans of the original! It had so much going against it right off the bat. The problem is that while it tried to be its own thing, the movie could not escape making callbacks to the original with references and catch phrases. This movie could’ve been saved (slightly) by at least acknowledging that the first movie happened, instead the movie has cameos by the original cast WHO DON’T EVEN PLAY THEIR CHARACTERS. Original cast members like Bill Murray, Ernie Hudson, Sigourney Weaver, Dan Aykroyd and Annie Potts show up in the movie but not as Venkman, Winston, Dana, Ray or Janine...they’re just one-off jokes so that the movie can ask the audience “do you remember these people? Isn’t that so funny that you recognize them?” The movie is incredibly desperate and it’s a shame that most critiques of this movie were blasted with accusations of sexism. Obviously, there is some sexism to be factored in, people took it upon themselves to judge the movie based on its all-female cast.

Honestly, the all-female cast was the least of "Ghostbusters" (2016)’s worries. As a huge fan of the original, I had absolutely no problem with a different take on the idea and seeing female comedians take on the mantle. I can assure you that this movie would still have a negative buzz around it had they cast obvious male comedians like Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill or James Franco. Without a good script, this remake was never going to even come close to the charm and wit of the original. I like Kristen Wiig, Kate McKinnon and sometimes Leslie Jones on certain skits on SNL. I think they could’ve done a great job here had they been given a better script to work off of. I think there are plenty of other actresses who would’ve been better choices than Melissa McCarthy to lead a team of "Ghostbusters," actresses like Amy Poehler, Kristen Bell, and Mila Kunis would’ve been excellent choices...but instead, they wanted to go the Bridesmaids route while forgetting to make it funny. Kristen Wiig is probably the strongest actress in the cast with a variety of work behind her, but they only had her act in the movie rather than help in the creative aspect. I’m sure a lot of the problems could’ve been eased down had she written the movie or at least been given the chance to rework the script.

The original "Ghostbusters" is in many cases a perfect film and should not have been given the old Hollywood reboot treatment. People like to point out that there was already a "Ghostbusters 2," but they seem to forget that fans of the original did not really like "Ghostbusters 2." Coming off of the animated series "The Real Ghostbusters," "Ghostbusters 2" was a bit too childish and toned down from how the original played out. "Ghostbusters 2" was already a failure to most fans and should’ve been a sign that other attempts to market on the franchise would not be well-received. There's a reason a "Ghostbusters 3" never happened before Harold Ramis passed away.

what a lazy logo

I highly recommend the 1984 "Ghostbusters" as a way to study how comedy can come from something simple like a reaction shot. It has amazing use of effects and puppetry. The only effect I would say is completely dated would be the “dog-like” forms Dana and Louis take on near the end. When the dogs aren’t moving they look totally fine, they’re really well-made puppets. However, when the dogs start running it’s a pretty bad effect that doesn’t look good knowing what today’s technology can accomplish. Other than that, every line of dialogue is perfect. Every situation is comedic gold and every supporting character is given something interesting to do. It’s one of those movies I watch just about every other month or so, just as a test to see if I start to get tired of it and it hasn’t failed me once. I was slightly nervous, writing an article about "Ghostbusters" while knowing I was going to be addressing the new one, what with all the stigma surrounding the reception it got from its first trailer. However, if you watch these two back-to-back, there’s a clear victor in terms of filmmaking, script, props, and use of locations. The original "Ghostbusters" accomplishes so much with such a small premise. A simple story that starts with ghosts disrupting libraries and hotels soon turns into NYC being open to an interdimensional portal and an ancient god taking the form of a marshmallow company’s mascot. And the best part is, it’s completely believable in the world of the movie. It moves with such perfect pacing and is an easily rewatchable movie.

R.I.P Harold Ramis