So many things have been said about the 2016 reboot of the Ghostbusters franchise. The film, directed by Paul Feig, written by Katie Dippold and Paul Feig, is based on the original 1984 film, whose script was written by Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis.

Some loved the 2016 film. Some hated it. Some just plain boycotted it because, well, misogyny. Even today it’s hard to find serious critiques of the film which are not based on “nobody wants to see Femi Nazi” (which is a comment I read more than once online).

My plan for AlValentini.com is to focus on screenwriting, scripts, technical analysis.

In this case, though, it’s particularly hard to move away from the sea of extremely opinionated men who criticised the film without bothering to actually see it. For them, it was a crusade from the get go. And the way the director and the talents reacted was just fuel to their fire. When the press stepped in to underline the harshness of this group of people, they got even more enraged. It reminds me of the relationship between part of the electorate and Trump’s coverage.

But let’s try… From a screenwriting point of view, the majority of commenters online focused on how similar the two scripts are. And, for the most part, they are. They both start with the scientists at Columbia University, they both show “something strange” happening “in the neighbourhood”, the heroes kicked out of Uni because of their claims, getting their own place, setting up shop, meeting the mayor, saving the city from an apocalyptic crisis, the car, the logo, etc…

Now… you may like the result or you may dislike it. It’s not the point of this post.

What I want to explore is the substantial difference between the two scripts, something that I believe to be quite apparent but that most seem to talk about: the characters.

I have watched the original film again a couple of times lately, and there’s one thing that stands out: there is almost no back story for any of the characters.

Actions are set in motion in a very simplistic way in the 1984 movie. It feels like they never moved too far away from the logline. Why is Peter Venkman so interested in catching ghosts? Just because it’s a cool trick to pick up coeds? Is he just pulled in by Ray? If so, why is Ray so into catching ghosts? Is it just because it’s scientifically relevant? Is that the reason why he puts up his childhood house for a remortgage?

The implications are just left in the air, they don’t really impact the characters, who don’t evolve minimally from beginning to end. The world may change around them, slightly. But the journey is only drafted and never really used a device.

Let’s look at 2016 film’s script now. We have two characters, Erin and Abby, who used to be misfits at school. They still are, in a way. Erin experienced a ghost sightseeing that lasted for a year when she was a child and that traumatised her. Abby was the only one who believed her. This strong event gave them a reason to start looking for ghosts.

The supporting characters are also multidimensional and far better portrayed than in the original. Janine had a handful of lines while Kevin has a lot more and a lot more scenes too. The same goes for Holtz, who holds a lot more space than Egon Spengler did. And when you look at Patty’s character, this is even more obvious, compared to Winston’s character.

All and all, the 2016 movie worked off a solid character work, setting motivations, strong wants and put them in front of reasonable obstacles. While the bare journey structure was also present in the 1984 film, the same can’t be said for the character work.

Oh, and one more thing. The 2016 film gave us the most epic Ghostbusters scene of all times. I’m talking about Holtz fighting the ghosts with her two guns. That scene alone is the best tribute to the original Ghostbusters franchise you could have ever hoped for.