The latest “Ghostbusters” film trades humor for nostalgia, reframing a scrappy comedy as a solemn legacy.
“Ghostbusters: Afterlife” raises a question: what did people truly love about the 1984 original? For many, the charm of the first “Ghostbusters” lay in its blend of quirky humor and loose, anarchic fun, a style akin to early Saturday Night Live sketches. The film’s appeal was simple: a group of down-and-out misfits accidentally confirmed the supernatural, making audiences laugh along the way. Its accessible, lighthearted comedy made it a memorable entry point to films like The Jerk, Trading Places, and Caddyshack.
The latest installment, however, paints the ghostbusting legacy as something almost mythical, focusing on a new generation played by Mckenna Grace and Finn Wolfhard. In “Afterlife,” ghostbusting is no longer a comedic venture but a solemn duty passed down by revered ancestors. Characters Phoebe and Trevor, the grandchildren of an original Ghostbuster, stumble upon the old tech and artifacts in their grandfather’s Oklahoman farmhouse. The familiar Ecto-1 is now a revered relic, its rumbling engine and high-powered proton packs treated like sacred artifacts. The movie infuses each discovery with an exaggerated sense of lore and mysticism, transforming these once-quirky ghostbusters into full-blown superheroes.
At the heart of this shift is a strong emphasis on “legacy.” Director Jason Reitman, son of original director Ivan Reitman, has designed his film as a tribute to his father’s work, suggesting that “Afterlife” “hands back” the franchise to fans. But the question remains: which fans? Those who loved Ghostbusters for its irreverent humor and charm, or those who see it as a nostalgic emblem of a simpler time, now cloaked in gravitas?
In making “Ghostbusters” into a solemn franchise of heroes and legacies, Hollywood may have missed what made it so beloved in the first place.
