Who Do We REALLY Want to Call?

Ghostbusters III. There's buzz. It's out there. With the recent success of Ghostbusters: The Game, there's renewed interest in the franchise we all love. Rumors swirl about the script, a new team of ghostbusters, and the ever-reluctant Bill Murray's role. I won't address those here. What I intend to address is this question: what are we really looking for from Ghostbusters III?

I loved Ghostbusters: The Game, and I anticipated something of a revival for the franchise when it sold well, but I didn't do so with relish. Of late, we have seen a cavalcade of reboots and remakes tromping through theaters, with original properties being buried beneath other directors' visions for films, many of which were already classics and just fine as they were, and the longer this trend has gone on the less money I have wanted to spend at the movies. Films, it seems, are being cranked out not because they are based on novel ideas and not even because of overwhelming demand, but because of earning potential. Alvin and the Chipmunks, Herbie, The A-Team, The Smurfs, even my beloved Transformers have been resurrected on the altar of the almighty dollar, not to mention Yogi Bear, which stars Dan Aykroyd (who should really know better). Is this what we want for Ghostbusters?

It wasn't because of the fact that it was tied to any preexisting property that the first Ghostbusters was so wildly successful. The film had magic. It had a great cast, it was written well, paced well, and well-directed. It also came along during a period of time when creativity was being, in large part, celebrated by audiences and the film industry alike - a time when a comedy could get by on its intellectual merits and didn't have to wallow in vulgarity or appeal to the lowest common denominator to find an audience. It also happened at a time when the principal stars were still up-and-coming to some degree and of a different mindset. The film was untrod land, new comedic territory for a talent like Bill Murray to explore. Now, I'm sorry to say, it's old. There are hallmarks, familiar beats to hit, an established style to attempt to adhere to. Any attempt at making a sequel necessitates a reinterpretation of certain elements of a film's style that arose organically, without any constraints on how they could be defined. This is exquisitely difficult, and it is why sequels fail so often. Add to this the current climate, in which art is looked at askance by those who think so little of the moviegoing audience that they think it much safer to pander to them. In brief: do we want Ghostbusters III to be another Blues Brothers 2000?

I want more Ghostbusters, there's no doubting it. But I can no more doubt that than I can the fact that the first Ghostbusters film is unlikely ever to be surpassed by a sequel, even if all the same pieces are put into place. Ghostbusters, like Queen or the Beatles, was a bolt of lightning, and the process of trying to recreate it may turn out something exciting and fun, but I maintain that this will always feel shallow when we watch the original. I want more Ghostbusters, but I don't want that franchise dragged into the modern era, which has no respect for such artful films.

Ghostbusters has what we're looking for, and it wasn't given those things by people who were trying to build on something that already worked once. So who do we really want to call? Ghostbusters, of course. And, if it happens to be on AMC some night, maybe Ghostbusters 2.