Months ago, I posted about the next Ghostbusters live-action movie should lean more into horror. Perhaps a spin-off, set in London or something.
Anyway, my pick for writer/director was Zach Cregger… and understandably there was some push back.
I just wondered, if you’ve now seen Resident Evil, has this changed your view? Would you want Cregger to direct a spin-off Ghostbusters movie?
I don’t think there was pushback because people didn’t think he was good, and the quality of Resident Evil will somehow change their minds.
There was pushback because he’s not the right fit for the Ghostbusters IP - wrong genre.
I don’t think it’s necessarily the wrong genre. They’re different flavours of overlapping genres.
Ghostbusters is comedy-first, with supernatural and horror elements. Cregger’s films are horror-first, with comedy coming through the characters and their reactions. The balance is different, but the comic mechanism is surprisingly similar.
I also don’t really buy the idea that Zach Cregger couldn’t dial the horror down, or replace blood with slime. And I think there’s absolutely room for a potential spin-off that leans further into horror without affecting the more family-friendly main canon.
Apparently, Cregger had to cut a lot of the comedy out of Resident Evil because test audiences were laughing so much.
What connects his movies to Ghostbusters, in my view, is that natural behavioural comedy - ordinary people responding to completely terrifying or absurd situations in recognisably human ways. It’s less about traditional punchlines and more about finding the humour in how people actually behave when something completely insane is happening.
That feels very Ghostbusters to me.
I’d vote for Edgar Wright, personally.
Or better yet, a live action TV series which allows a range of different directors to take turns experimenting with the franchise. But that’s a topic for another thread.
I don’t think Ghostbusters should lean more heavily into the horror genre. They’re more light horror, suitable for age 12+. I think once you start hitting gore horror like Resident Evil, whilst they’re great films, I feel it moves the franchise away from what was originally intended (although i think Dan Akroyd may have wanted a more adult comedy time of film at the time of writig). If these films had been 18 rate (Resident Evil level) then I would never have been able to see the original back in 1984.
Ghostbusters isn’t really a horror franchise just like it really isn’t a comedy franchise. Leaning too far in either direction strips away what makes the movies special and what makes the entire concept of Ghostbusters work. You need the spooky but you need most of it played up for laughs and you need the jokes but delivered pretty straight.
Going too far into SNL style comedy is one of the main things that hurt the 2016 film in my opinion and I feel like if someone just made a horror film but slapped some people in khaki flight suits in there it would be terrible.
That’s what I think too. And when making Ghostbusters, Bill Murray and others described how frighteningly scary the movie is. Not how funny it is. There aren’t a ton of jokes, there are a ton of situations that are absurd and funny as a result of how straight they are played.
Egon is hilarious, but not because he makes jokes. It’s Harold Ramis’ straight delivery of things. Do you remember the time you tried to drill a hole through your head? That would have worked if you hadn’t stopped me.
That’s funny, but its not a joke. The maid in the corner trying to put out a fire with a spray bottle, that’s a funny situation, but it’s not a joke. Since Ghostbusters was a successful comedy, Ghostbusters 2 by contrast, did lean into more intentional jokes but still remained grounded.
Contrast with 2016 and it contained many intentional jokes. Many were legitimately funny, but they were meant to be jokes and punchlines and quips. That is one of the core flaws with the movie unfortunately.
EDIT: When they are in the subway in Ghostbusters 2016, and the guy is spray painting a no ghost logo and they say ‘That would make a great logo!’ and walk away.. that is an intentional and bad joke. Contrast again to Ghostbusters 2 in a almost completely pitch black subway where literal severed heads appear, that’s scary and the situation surrounding it becomes funny. OK, we must be close.
100%
The courtroom scene in Ghostbusters II is such a prime example of it. The Scoleri brothers are terrifying when stripped from that scene. Ghastly and distorted, oversized, bones showing, and parts of electrical chairs hanging off them. Throw them in any horror movie and they would fit right in.
But after the trio get the packs on and the bros get done flipping all the chairs and have an another jumpscare moment, we get all of them screaming and firing wildly clearly rusty from a few years of not ghost busting. Then they mirror the audience, nervous chuckles and start laughing as a group until they all start to relax until the Scoleri Bros show up again and they immediately start getting back into the groove.
That contrast is Ghostbusters.
No.
Cregger specialises in horror movies, Ghostbusters needs to remain a sci-fi-comedy-horror franchise.
I feel like if you’re saying “no” to Zach Cregger without any kind of alternative then you’re saying “yes” to Gil Keenan.
And I take that personally.
That’s a weird thing to take personally
I walked out of Resident Evil saying to my roommate I feel Cregger would be great for a new Ghostbusters.
But he really wouldn’t. His strength are in creeping tension, twists and tonal shifts, dark humour, and gore. He’s much closer to someone like Raimi than Reitman.
I feel like the argument has changed slightly here. Initially it was that Cregger’s strengths made him a bad fit for Ghostbusters. Now it’s why Cregger specifically.
Why? Because I find his films scary, hilarious and interesting. I think he’s the most exciting director working in horror at the moment, and his understanding of behavioural comedy lends itself perfectly to Ghostbusters. His last three horror films are sitting at 92%, 93% and 96% on Rotten Tomatoes.
They’ve also made roughly $515 million worldwide (and counting) from a combined production budget of around $117.5 million. You’re talking elite here.
And I’m not suggesting handing him the keys to the main canon. I’m talking about a spin-off, which is exactly where you can give a filmmaker more freedom while Ghost Corps still protects what makes Ghostbusters what it is.
As for whether Cregger would actually want to do it, neither of us knows that. I’m arguing why I think he’d be a great fit.
But why make the argument for Cregger versus any of the other horror directors that emerged over the past decade or whatever? Because he’s had a string of hits? His last movie was based on established IP and was incredibly divisive for how little he respected the existing canon. But also, I very much doubt Cregger would agree to do a Ghostbusters movie after his mixed experience with Resident Evil - he wants to work on his own ideas. But additionally, if he did sign up, Ghost Corp have (thankfully) a lot of IP control (and have preserved the essence of GB) so there would likely be tension there.
Lord & Miller were the team to get behind with this, and they went to Spider-man instead.
And if we are to consider directors from the horror-comedy genre, then we should consider Chris McKay (Renfield), Christopher Landon (Freaky, Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse, Happy Death Day, Happy Death Day 2U), Jonny Campbell (Cold Storage), and Kirill Sokolov (They Will Kill You) to name a few.
However, I still think that would mark a notable tonal shift in what comedy genre Ghostbusters would exist in.
I feel like the argument has changed slightly here. Initially it was that Cregger’s strengths made him a bad fit for Ghostbusters. Now it’s why Cregger specifically.
Why? Because I find his films scary, hilarious and interesting. I think he’s the most exciting director working in horror at the moment, and his understanding of behavioural comedy lends itself perfectly to Ghostbusters. His last three horror films are sitting at 92%, 93% and 96% on Rotten Tomatoes.
They’ve also made roughly $515 million worldwide (and counting) from a combined production budget of around $117.5 million. You’re talking elite here.
And I’m not suggesting handing him the keys to the main canon. I’m talking about a spin-off, which is exactly where you can give a filmmaker more freedom while Ghost Corps still protects what makes Ghostbusters what it is.
As for whether Cregger would actually want to do it, neither of us knows that. I’m arguing why I think he’d be a great fit.
Hey, I’ve heard he makes good movies, so why not? But like people have said, leaning too far into horror (even if the jokes are still flying constantly) could be a bit jarring. Not my personal choice (also I haven’t seen any of his movies, but I’ve heard good things).
Now, James Gunn on the other hand…is too busy with DC and would say no, but that kind of filmmaker could work imo.
If Jason doesn’t direct the next one, I figure they will try to venture outside Ghost Corps to seek a director. I don’t feel it will be Gil again.
I think Zach Cregger directing would get people talking, but I’m not sure how it would turn out. I’ve been mixed on the films that I’ve seen. I thought Barbarian was fine, but it seems that I was one of the few that didn’t like Weapons at all. I’ve yet to see the new Resident Evil.