Do you consider Ghostbusters (1984) a horror movie?

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

No more than Casper is a horror movie

[Cyke]

I'll just reiterate the main point of my previous post: Ghostbusters is the movie I watch to cleanse my palette after a truly terrifying movie.

[ChrisIII]

No more than Casper is a horror movie

Funny you should bring that up; Aykroyd cameos as Ray in that film ("Who you gonna call? Someone else.")

[A Small Talent For War]

what I find a bit more interesting is the question if Ghostbusters is really an adult comedy, has it somehow become perceived as more of a movie for kids. If you look back at that era, there were a lot of horror movies that whose mature themes have really been dulled so that you might think they are fine for children. GREMLINS spawned a whole sub-genre of puppet monsters, but few of them (CRITTERS, GHOULIES, PUPPET MASTER, etc.) are really suitable for children. BEETLEJUICE is another one where you kinda remember it as being much more tame than it really is. Hell, WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT? is definitely for adults, but because of the cartoons (which were not really for kids at the time they were originally produced), don't we all have a feeling it is somewhat a kid's movie today?

Often, the tones of these movies actually were made less horrific in the development process. BEETLEJUICE originally was about a demon who genuinely wanted to terrorize, murder and rape people. Jim Carrey’s THE MASK was originally meant to be in the same vein as Freddy Kreuger in the NIGHTMARE movies. However, the production companies came to the realization that comedy served the material better than straight horror, and “straight horror” at the time was already comedic. The WAXWORK, HOUSE and RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD films for example. Even DAWN OF THE DEAD was darkly satiric more than terrifying.

However, this brings me to unintentional horror movies that were sold to kids. Well, at least one… THE CAT IN THE HAT starring Mike Myers (of SNL and Austin Powers fame – not the one from Halloween) as the titular character.

If someone set out to intentionally take the Genie from Disney’s ALADDIN and use him as a devious demon out to corrupt the souls of children, it would be hard to believe they could come up with a film much different than the one we actually got. Filled with the sort of vaguely nauseating imagery that would be more at home in an early (or very late) David Lynch film or the almost equally insidious THE MASK 2: SON OF THE MASK, I really cannot imagine a movie more horrific that does not actually intend to be.

So, the question is, is that possible? Could someone intentionally write and make a movie that is really a horror film, but convince everyone that it’s a hilarious family romp?

[BeastieRunner]

There is a blow job scene and a date rape drug used.

Not super kid friendly in that respect.

But they are easy ignore I guess.

[The True Detective]

what I find a bit more interesting is the question if Ghostbusters is really an adult comedy, has it somehow become perceived as more of a movie for kids. If you look back at that era, there were a lot of horror movies that whose mature themes have really been dulled so that you might think they are fine for children. GREMLINS spawned a whole sub-genre of puppet monsters, but few of them (CRITTERS, GHOULIES, PUPPET MASTER, etc.) are really suitable for children. BEETLEJUICE is another one where you kinda remember it as being much more tame than it really is. Hell, WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT? is definitely for adults, but because of the cartoons (which were not really for kids at the time they were originally produced), don't we all have a feeling it is somewhat a kid's movie today?

Often, the tones of these movies actually were made less horrific in the development process. BEETLEJUICE originally was about a demon who genuinely wanted to terrorize, murder and rape people. Jim Carrey’s THE MASK was originally meant to be in the same vein as Freddy Kreuger in the NIGHTMARE movies. However, the production companies came to the realization that comedy served the material better than straight horror, and “straight horror” at the time was already comedic. The WAXWORK, HOUSE and RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD films for example. Even DAWN OF THE DEAD was darkly satiric more than terrifying.

However, this brings me to unintentional horror movies that were sold to kids. Well, at least one… THE CAT IN THE HAT starring Mike Myers (of SNL and Austin Powers fame – not the one from Halloween) as the titular character.

If someone set out to intentionally take the Genie from Disney’s ALADDIN and use him as a devious demon out to corrupt the souls of children, it would be hard to believe they could come up with a film much different than the one we actually got. Filled with the sort of vaguely nauseating imagery that would be more at home in an early (or very late) David Lynch film or the almost equally insidious THE MASK 2: SON OF THE MASK, I really cannot imagine a movie more horrific that does not actually intend to be.

So, the question is, is that possible? Could someone intentionally write and make a movie that is really a horror film, but convince everyone that it’s a hilarious family romp?

I've always found it interesting how certain franchises which started out blatantly not for kids have slowly become more kid friendly over the years. Even R rated movies like Rambo and RoboCop have had cartoons aimed at kids. A lot of adult movies from the 80s did this.

[A Small Talent For War]

I've always found it interesting how certain franchises which started out blatantly not for kids have slowly become more kid friendly over the years. Even R rated movies like Rambo and RoboCop have had cartoons aimed at kids. A lot of adult movies from the 80s did this.

That's a good point. Beetlejuice and the Ghostbusters also had Saturday Morning cartoons so that may be how a lot of people today were first introduced to the characters. Godzilla is another franchise that grew surprisingly kid friendly even before it got a cartoon.

Another tangentially interesting thing about Ghostbusters was also how it was fairly anti-government regulation and fit in with the Reagan Era.

[Riv86672]

These new posts are really good, dang!

[ChrisIII]

That's a good point. Beetlejuice and the Ghostbusters also had Saturday Morning cartoons so that may be how a lot of people today were first introduced to the characters. Godzilla is another franchise that grew surprisingly kid friendly even before it got a cartoon.

Another tangentially interesting thing about Ghostbusters was also how it was fairly anti-government regulation and fit in with the Reagan Era.

One of the reasons Ghostbusters 2 was toned down-as well as an uncontained Slimer wondering around the firehouse and helping Louis out near the end-is due to the success of the cartoon. Annie Pott's Jeanine also looks a lot more like her cartoon version as well.

Funny thing is that the movie pretty much writes out the cartoon as a continuation of the first movie right away by stating they were disbanded after the Gozer/Stay Puft incident. (Although I think the cartoon has an explanation for this, that the movies are simply based off their adventures or something like that, much like Marvel having comics based on their stuff in-universe)

Rambo III was a bit more humorous than the first 2 but I'm not sure if the Rambo cartoon and toys had any bearing on that (and of course eventually Rambo IV and V went way over the violence of the original trilogy!). Robocop III however was toned down to PG-13; Police Academy also had cartoons and toys (The sound effects guy was a major hit with younger viewers); and although I haven't seen many of the films, I'm guessing that maybe some of the rowdier humor from the first might've been toned down a bit.

[A Small Talent For War]

One of the reasons Ghostbusters 2 was toned down-as well as an uncontained Slimer wondering around the firehouse and helping Louis out near the end-is due to the success of the cartoon. Annie Pott's Jeanine also looks a lot more like her cartoon version as well.

Funny thing is that the movie pretty much writes out the cartoon as a continuation of the first movie right away by stating they were disbanded after the Gozer/Stay Puft incident. (Although I think the cartoon has an explanation for this, that the movies are simply based off their adventures or something like that, much like Marvel having comics based on their stuff in-universe)

Rambo III was a bit more humorous than the first 2 but I'm not sure if the Rambo cartoon and toys had any bearing on that (and of course eventually Rambo IV and V went way over the violence of the original trilogy!). Robocop III however was toned down to PG-13; Police Academy also had cartoons and toys (The sound effects guy was a major hit with younger viewers); and although I haven't seen many of the films, I'm guessing that maybe some of the rowdier humor from the first might've been toned down a bit.

It is a good question too as to how people first encountered the material as well. I imagine most kids would have seen the versions that were edited for television rather than the full theatrical release. A lot of the more mature material in GHOSTBUSTERS, BEETLEJUICE, GREMLINS and even POLTERGEIST can be cut without significantly changing the story.

[WebLurker]

Funny thing is that the movie pretty much writes out the cartoon as a continuation of the first movie right away by stating they were disbanded after the Gozer/Stay Puft incident. (Although I think the cartoon has an explanation for this, that the movies are simply based off their adventures or something like that, much like Marvel having comics based on their stuff in-universe)

My limited understanding is that the cartoons were a continuity reboot with the movies as movies "in-universe," while the movies were just their own thing with the cartoon having no relation. I think the comics based on the first two movies + the video game used a multiverse premise to crossover with the cartoon and female reboot film, which could be a way have everything in the franchise coexist. Course, the new Afterlife movie will probably decanonize everything made to take place after the first two movies, but, if those comics are already playing with a multiverse, who's to say that they "always" took place in their own universe where only the original movies happened?

[Alan2099]

My limited understanding is that the cartoons were a continuity reboot with the movies as movies "in-universe," while the movies were just their own thing with the cartoon having no relation. I think the comics based on the first two movies + the video game used a multiverse premise to crossover with the cartoon and female reboot film, which could be a way have everything in the franchise coexist. Course, the new Afterlife movie will probably decanonize everything made to take place after the first two movies, but, if those comics are already playing with a multiverse, who's to say that they "always" took place in their own universe where only the original movies happened?

That's pretty much right.

The movies are their own thing.

In the cartoon, the movies are just movies that adapted their early adventures, although one episode suggests the movies are pretty close to what actually happened to them. A later episode even mentions Vigo and the mood slime. Oddly enough, Dana never gets a single mention anywhere in the cartoon.

Later, the cartoon universe would be continued with Ghostbusters Extreme.

The comics take the first two movies as canon as well as MOST of the game (but not all of it. The game mentions Winston getting his doctorate while he's never had one in the comics.)

Later due to multiverse shenanigans, the comic version of the Ghostbusters met the cartoon versions. Sometime after that, we saw more of the multiverse, which showed Answer the call as a separate universe. Also oddly enough they showed Extreme and Real Ghostbusters being two separate universes.

[WebLurker]

Also oddly enough they showed Extreme and Real Ghostbusters being two separate universes.

Maybe similar events happened in two realities but we saw one in the earlier stages and another in the later era?

[BeastieRunner]

Another tangentially interesting thing about Ghostbusters was also how it was fairly anti-government regulation and fit in with the Reagan Era.

Ghostbusters is often held up as a libertarian film when analyzed from the political side of things.

My limited understanding is that the cartoons were a continuity reboot with the movies as movies "in-universe," while the movies were just their own thing with the cartoon having no relation. I think the comics based on the first two movies + the video game used a multiverse premise to crossover with the cartoon and female reboot film, which could be a way have everything in the franchise coexist. Course, the new Afterlife movie will probably decanonize everything made to take place after the first two movies, but, if those comics are already playing with a multiverse, who's to say that they "always" took place in their own universe where only the original movies happened?

That's pretty much right.

The movies are their own thing.

In the cartoon, the movies are just movies that adapted their early adventures, although one episode suggests the movies are pretty close to what actually happened to them. A later episode even mentions Vigo and the mood slime. Oddly enough, Dana never gets a single mention anywhere in the cartoon.

Later, the cartoon universe would be continued with Ghostbusters Extreme.

The comics take the first two movies as canon as well as MOST of the game (but not all of it. The game mentions Winston getting his doctorate while he's never had one in the comics.)

Later due to multiverse shenanigans, the comic version of the Ghostbusters met the cartoon versions. Sometime after that, we saw more of the multiverse, which showed Answer the call as a separate universe. Also oddly enough they showed Extreme and Real Ghostbusters being two separate universes.

Maybe similar events happened in two realities but we saw one in the earlier stages and another in the later era?

One of my favorite Ghostbusters quotes comes from the RGB cartoon, the one they made a movie about them starting their business (they even include the opening from the 1984 movie) ...

"Murray, Aykroyd, Ramis? What is that, a law firm?"

[ChrisIII]

It is a good question too as to how people first encountered the material as well. I imagine most kids would have seen the versions that were edited for television rather than the full theatrical release. A lot of the more mature material in GHOSTBUSTERS, BEETLEJUICE, GREMLINS and even POLTERGEIST can be cut without significantly changing the story.

Funny thing is sometimes they deleted certain horror or iffy scenes but to fill up the broadcast runtime they put in deleted material.

GOONIES for example (although not a horror movie). It kept all the skeletons and other corpses but I guess the country club scene (Where the Goonies wreck the pipes, causing the showers and bathrooms to go crazy) was a bit too risque for 80's broadcast, so it was replaced with an extra scene of Chunk and Sloth.

GREMLINS likewise added material that wasn't in the theatrical cut such as the fate of the other bank employees.


I actually recall a Pay-per-view version of II which I'm pretty sure had the deleted scene of Vigo-posessed Ray attempt to crash the Ectomobile (Part of the scene is still in the montage). Then again it could be one of the memory cheating things, like all the people who insist the Biggs scenes were all there when they saw Star Wars.