Sorry to keep harping on this buddy, but I just really disagree strongly with that and I think this is where a lot of the disagreement on what this franchise is stems from.
I see this line of criticism (or defense when it comes to the 2016 film), and I see it as a conflating of the Peter Venkman character (and Winston Zeddemore to a degree) with the entire team as a whole. Peter was the money-hungry sleezeball, Winston was the every day guy who just was looking for steady paycheck. Ray and Egon were always the hearts and brains of the team though. They take their work studying paranormal phenomenon seriously, and are overjoyed whenever there are any breakthroughs. IE- their reactions to Peter getting slimed in the first movie. "That's great!" Yes, that's a funny line. But it's not at throwaway joke. That's exactly what those characters would say. Ray's wide-eyed excitement and Egon's dead seriousness are funny in an endearing sort of way. It's not cynical.
Furthermore, in Ghostbusters II, the first thing they do is jump straight into an investigation, even breaking the law to do so-- all to help a friend. And because they're curious about the bigger implications. Nothing to do with making a buck at that point. They don't beat you over the head with it, but it's there.
I recently came across the cast's appearance on Oprah in 89 to promote the second film (which was delightful to watch) and I found it very illuminating in terms of understanding how these guys, especially Ramis and Aykroyd viewed their own creation and how their relationship with it evolved a bit with time. A couple of moments I time-marked here:
(in which Ramis acknowledges the moral messaging in the second film)
(in which Ramis comments on how parenthood impacted the creation of the second film, the desire to stay something moral with it and reflect their real life journeys)
People tend chalk it up to "toys and merchandising" clouding people's visions and creating this rose-tinted nostalgia, but what I see is creators who had a real emotional investment in what they had created and understood that there was a greater responsibility at play here than just making a cheap joke, with a legion of kids and families who had become fans of the thing. I think they understood they were making something bigger with first film too, but it became even more pronounced in the second film with them growing as people between films. You can write it off and say "well the second film sucked, so it doesn't count", but hey-- for me, it's my favorite Ghostbusters film and it's the one I gravitated to as a kid and shaped my view of the franchise the most. I think that is a key piece to how one views the franchise as a whole. It resonates because it has heart. Even Peter is trying to right a wrong in the second film, despite himself.
TL;DR- Ghostbusters wouldn't have been what it was without Bill Murray, but it's also a lot more than just Bill Murray.
Yes, THIS. 1000 times THIS.
Look, I've come more around on the value of the first movie, but for me, GB2 is so resoundingly better simply because of the difference between the two. A lot of the tenor of the comedy in the first film is indeed derived from cynicism, even if there are characters in it that aren't. Dan's entire POV on the premise was the idea of a job catching ghosts being mundane and blue collar--Venkman being the real icon of that. The dry humor, the entirety of the Sedgewick bust being a bit of a poke at the stuffiness of rich people and the most direct threat to the GBs before the third act being the brainlessness of bureaucracy all feed back into that. Venkman being a sleazy sexual predator was never okay, but socially we used to be willing to laugh at a joke version of it. If that was all we had ever had of Venkman, I would hate him. As mentioned, GB2 actually evolves Venkman as a character and gives him self-reflection, and it makes all the difference.
And I think that cynicism being such a defining element of the first film has locked some of the expectations of people who judge the rest of the franchise. GB moved away from most of its cynicism as soon as the cartoon series (although it kept just enough intact, before the show was retooled to be more childish), but the first film being the standard metric of judgement has caused people to consciously devalue GB2 and I think it's ridiculous. Which is funny to me when I see how quoted and adored the film actually is by people... only for some of them to turn around and add the "but it's not good" qualifier at the end, when to me, it sounds like they enjoy it!
While yes, GB2 does ape the story construction of the first film and it shouldn't have--there's much more to the movie than that. The first film doesn't have a message or theme unless you really reach for one. I know it's become semi-popular to read it as science vs. religion, but I really don't think that reading was intended by Ramis or Aykroyd. I think it's entirely coincidental.
But GB2 is ABOUT something from the outset, and it's a commentary that more people need to look at in their own lives. It's sort of the ultimate response to the first film, which is that cynicism, apathy and hate are tearing us apart and will doom us all. I know that the geek community (at least historically) mostly leans toward cynicism. You see it everywhere in geekdom--from Star Wars prequel/sequel hate to MCU judgement to everything else. You know it and I know it. So I think a lot of geeks respond to that cynical edge of the first movie and thus, they're cynical about the second film as a result. I've seen people complain about things in the film that are ultimately meaningless (the GBs don't smoke anymore! They made this movie for babies!11!!), as if the film having a moral message makes it lame. It's cooler to be cynical than to give a damn, I guess.
GB2 doesn't slam you in the face with its message every ten minutes. It doesn't go into Nolan-istic long winded lectures or monologues about it, but you cannot claim the film isn't actually
about something. Gozer was a blank slate, a pure force of nature. As a villain, she's weaker than ANY from the MCU. Vigo may be a bit under served by the action in the final battle, but he has more personality and presence than the Goze. Vigo's entire plan is rooted in the strength he draws from people's hate; that the hate of large groups will help him rise to power. Doesn't that sound like a fellow from Europe in the '30s? Or a certain orange-faced hate monger? So it's especially endearing to me that these characters known for being icons of cynicism, the Ghostbusters, have to now rally behind rising above that--to be something greater. GB2 is the film that, to me, elevates them to the status of superheroes.
I mean, this is all stuff I noticed when I watched the film with adult eyes--I always loved the movie, but one day as I got older, I latched onto the theme and thought about the world around me and it meant a lot to me. It spoke to me--I'm often at odds with myself for how my own cynicism and anger causes me problems in life, and I watch how it controls so many others (especially this own fandom back in 2016 *cough*) and I find myself wishing I could douse everyone in positively charged slime. The scene at the end when Ray tells Janosz he loves him is funny of course, but the very idea is unbearably sweet, and I wish people could actually BE that way to their fellow human beings.
I love the other two, but
Ghostbusters II is a franchise high for me, and it only gets better for me as time goes on.
Whether this remains a stand alone film and sequel to the iconic original, or sets the table to bring the franchise back to life, it's a fantastic movie and one of my favourites of the year.
