Ghostbusters: The Supernatural Spectacular

by Richard Mueller

A trio of misfits comes up with an unusual way to make a living--the exorcism of ghosts

Genres: Fiction, Paranormal, Humor, Audiobook, Supernatural, Novels, Comedy

256 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1985

Reviews

[Amy Noelle · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5⭐️ I like the film version way more, the actors add so much. But the storyline I find very fun and the audiobook narration was pretty good.

[Jason Pierce · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read in The Ghostbusters Movie Novelization Omnibus.

First, I need to get something off my chest. Shouldn't it be "whom are you going to call?" I'm no grammarian, but ain't that the way you're supposed to sling it? Probably, but I reckon that wouldn't be anywhere near as much fun. Just like No Time wouldn't've done anywhere near as well as it did had it been recorded by The Guess Whom, but I digress... as usual.

This is another book where it is impossible for me to separate the movie from the story in my head. I've seen the movie so many times I can practically quote it line-for-line from start to finish. It's actually one of the most quotable movies from the 80s, but unfortunately it's not a quotable book. (More on that in a moment.) I can't read this objectively because I saw the actors acting out everything in my head, but I suspect anyone reading this who hadn't seen the movie first (if such a person exists) would be unimpressed. Much of what makes this story great is the camaraderie between the actors, the sets, the special effects, etc. In short, the production makes the movie work, and once you strip all that away, what's left is underwhelming.

I was expecting this to be terrible based on some reviews I had seen before I started, but it wasn't. Heck, it wasn't even bad, really, but I wouldn't call it good, either. Mostly, it left me a little confused. Not the story; the story is fine. I'm confused about some of the choices the author made. This isn't the first Ghostbusters novelization, but the second. Larry Milne wrote the first, and that was a strict screenplay to page dealio like most novelizations. I don't plan to read that one, and opted for this one instead since people said it expanded on the source material, and I thought that might be neat. This was written a year after the movie came out, so Mueller had great material to work with, but he kind of botched it. Most noticeable was his refusal to use profanity or anything remotely close to it in the dialogue. As a result, a lot of great lines (or even mediocre ones) lose all their charm.

Let's play a game. The images below show the quotes as they appear in the book. See if you can identify what's wrong with them in relation to the accompanying scene in the movie. The answers appear at the end.

















1. "The effect? I'll tell you what the effect is. It's pissing me off!"
2. "What the hell are you doing?"
3. "We came, we saw, we kicked its ass!"
4. "Oh shit."*
5. "What an asshole."
6. "Your mother!"
7. "Since I joined these men, I've seen shit that'll turn you white!"
8. "Yes, it's true. This man has no dick."

Why? What was the point of such inane changes? It can't be because vulgarity wasn't allowed in his contract, because he uses "ass" at least once. After Walter Peck has the power shut off, everything goes to hell in a handcart. They're standing outside, and "Peter Venkman had nothing to say. He simply turned and knocked Walter Peck on his ass." But you'll never find it in the dialogue. "Damn" was even altered in one scene that isn't in the movie. Ghosts have wreaked some havoc at a movie theater and the screen goes black. One of the moviegoers shouts "You jerkbag, fix the demn theng."

This theater is one that shows bad sci-fi or pornos, depending on the day, and that brings up another point. While Mueller refuses to be crude with his language, he has no problem getting crude with some of his content. I can't find his age, but based on some stuff I saw on linkedin, I'm guessing he was in his late 30s when he wrote this, but it reads more like it was written by a 16-year-old boy. Basically, he's a bit of a pervy horndog. Venkman considers rubbing his foot along a female students' leg at the beginning while she's doing that ESP test. You know, foreplay for what he really has in mind. Some of Egon's equipment look like sex toys. And how about what everyone is thinking the first time we see Dana? Several people notice her, comment on her physical attributes, and one "old duffer out walking his schnauzer gazed at Dana and remembered how long it had been since it had been long." This kind of stuff is all over the book, but no profanity, so it's not like he was trying to stay out of PG-13 territory. Again, I confess myself confused.

There was some backstory on all of the main characters, but in the end it was pretty pointless and didn't add anything. Venkman was born in a traveling carnival family and was a carny barker when he was a kid. Stantz was estranged from his brother and sister (mostly due to Venkman being an ass), though that was backstory about how he had his parents' house to sell. Again, this adds nothing, but most of it is so short that it doesn't detract from the story either.

Harlan Bojay and Robert Learned Coombs are two homeless peeps who often just happen to be where the action is taking place, and they seem to serve as a Greek or Shakespearean (not to mention unnecessary) chorus for the reader. I'm glad they were left out of the movie.

And now we come to Walter Peck, or rather the EPA in general. I. Hate. The EPA. It's not Walter Peck's fault, but I imagine everyone in that organization is probably like him. I hate it even more right at the moment because all I want is a stupid bathroom faucet with decent water pressure, but everything now is 1.8 gpm max flow, and it is just pitiful (it used to be 2.2, and there is a world of difference between the two). Plus they design things specifically so you can't repair them without tearing them all to pieces and you're forced to buy an entire new faucet when all you need is a fucking $0.25 o-ring. (I don't think that part is the EPA's fault, but I don't care; they can still eat shit and die.) Anyway, anyone who works for the EPA (and a few other government bureaucracies) should have this happen to them every single time they step outside every single day:



Then they should encounter this every time they step indoors:**



This will force them to run back outside and get creamed by 20 tons of marshmallows again. Eventually, they will be so sick of that and being terrified by the ghost, that they will take a page from Andrea's book, and just...



...and the world will be a better place. I have spoken.

One thing I really liked about the book was the addition of a quote preceding each chapter. They could be from any source, but they were all applicable to scenes coming up. Here are a couple of faves.

"Some people are so fond of ill luck that they run halfway to meet it." -Douglas Jerrold
"It is one of the blessings of old friends that you can afford to be stupid with them." -Emerson
"If a sane dog fights a mad dog, it's the sane dog's ear that is bitten off." -Burmese proverb (You can ask Evander Holyfield about the veracity of that one.)
"I hate all bungling like sin, but most of all bungling in state affairs, which produces nothing but mischief to thousands and millions." -Goethe PREACH IT, BROTHER!

Final thoughts: This wasn't bad, but if you're already familiar with the movie, just stick with the movie. If you're not familiar with the movie, just watch the movie. You can't even use this for the old stand-by academic reason to compare what changed between the screenplay and the finished film because this was written after the fact. It's pretty much fan fiction.

* When I was a child, I used to think the hand came out of the chair and clamped over Dana's mouth because she had said a bad word... Children are stupid. Or maybe it was just me.

** Not that you asked, but that damn library ghost was one of the three things on TV that used to make me jump in my mother's lap when I was young. The others were Large Marge on Pee Wee's Big Adventure and the Wicked Witch of the West.

P.S. Since I'm going over childhood memories, give the Ghostbusters theme a listen. This was my favorite song to hear at Golden Skateworld and never failed to get me back out on the roller rink. Why? I have no idea. It's not like I skated any differently to this song than I did to any other except "The Chicken Dance" where you pinched your fingers, flapped your arms, wiggled your ass, and if you were me, then landed on it before you had a chance to clap the last measure. Ah, those were the days.

[Sean Carlin · Rating 1 out of 5]

I love Ghostbusters. I am a lifelong fan. I saw the first film in theaters when I was eight, watched the cartoon series every Saturday morning, and stood in a line stretched around the block to see Ghostbusters II during the summer of 1989. My Ghostbusters bona fides are well-established, my fan credentials in good standing.
​
But this subpar novelization (which I'd never before read) inadvertently lays bare an irrefutable fact: Ghostbusters is a good story... but, like Jurassic Park, it's not a great piece of storytelling per se. It's a great concept, undoubtedly, brought to magical life not by superior screenwriting, but rather all the other artifices of cinema working in perfect harmony: magnificent New York locations, atmospheric music that manages to be both whimsical and suspenseful, eye-popping visual effects, impeccable comic timing, and casting, casting, casting. On the page, devoid of Bill Murray's deadpan sarcasm, Dan Aykroyd's childlike enthusiasm, and Harold Ramis's mirthless stoicism, these characters simply don't come off as very well-rounded or dimensional...​
​
... a flaw for which the author tries (and fails) to overcompensate by providing backstories that seem not only superfluous, but tonally out of step with the comedic spirit of the film. (For example: Is anything gained by establishing that Stantz's brother is a Republican and his sister a Democrat, and that neither want anything to do with him?) The book is full of weird, tangential narrative digressions (Harlan Bojay and Robert Learned Coombs?) that don't so much embellish the story as stop it in its tracks. If you knew nothing about Ghostbusters, and had only ever experienced it via this disjointed novelization -- which is neither scary nor funny -- you wouldn't for a New York minute get what the big deal is. Even held to the standards of a 1980s grade-school novel, this is a pretty weak effort. The movie may (deservedly) be a classic, but this ephemeral literary cash-in tie-in is best left forgotten.

[Brecht Verschuere · Rating 2 out of 5]

So this big ghost head is disappointed. A lot of misquotes. Even less zeddemore than in the movie. Some extra scenes that are okay. But I am going to watch the movie more often. We came. We saw we kicked its butt. Really??? Yes it's true. This man.... Is a jerk. Common Richard mueller...

[Justin Soderberg · Rating 3 out of 5]

Getting ready for the premiere of Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire, we opted to dive into the novelization of the original film by Richard Mueller. A nostalgic journey indeed, but it didn't quite measure up to the feature film experience.

When Dr. Peter Venkman and his Columbia University colleagues get booted from their academic posts, they form a ghost-catching business. Their luck changes when Dana Barrett seeks their help for her haunted apartment in New York City. What follows is a battle against ghastly ghosts threatening the city. After saving New York from a slime invasion, the Ghostbusters face closure. But when an ancient tyrant targets Dana's baby as his new vessel, they must rally to save the day once again!

This novel was released a year after the movie's release, so Mueller had ample material to work with, but he missed the mark. His biggest misstep was steering clear of using any dialogue resembling that of the movie, causing many iconic lines to lose their charm. 

Reading a book after watching its movie adaptation can be an enjoyable academic exercise. It allows you to analyze the differences between the film and the original novel. However, when a book is written post-movie release, it may alter elements solely for the sake of differentiation, resembling fan-fiction rather than genuine comparison. If you know the movie, stick with the movie. If you're new to it, watch the movie instead.

While not necessarily good or bad, this book didn't quite hit the mark for us. We decided to read the novelization of the 1984 Ghostbusters film for a fresh perspective, but in hindsight, watching the movie may have been a better choice.

[Victor Orozco · Rating 5 out of 5]

It all begins here with a wonderful adaptation of the penultimate script to the movie. There are some differences here and there. Mostly from the writer who loyally adapts the screenplay but also adds a splendid amount of detail not found in the movie. Some of it is found in deleted scenes that were eventually released on DVD/Blu-ray/4KHD. Two vagrants walking amidst various incidents. How Ray and Winston are on a job in a museum was partially depicted in the final film as Ray's dream sequence with a beautiful ghost giving him a "job." A scene involving the Ecto-1 dealing with unwanted parking tickets.

But the best part comes from the writer who adapts some nice details on the Ghostbusters never realized in the final film. How Peter Venkman was the son of a carnival showman, Egon a total geek completely awkward with women. Or how Ray Stantz has been enamored with the paranormal as a way to avoid his stern older brother and activist sister. Dana Barrett has two brothers of her own. And Winston Zeddemore formerly a highly trained airman with US Strategic Air Command looking for work with the Ghostbusters.

But probably what makes this so different from the final film is that the movie allowed the actors to adlib whereas this book contains the original dialogue that was meant to be said. And you can bet guys like Dan Aykroyd and Bill Murray were going to adlib.

A great story adapted for reading and so glad to have finally read it.

[Blake · Rating 3 out of 5]

(FYI I tend to only review one book per series, unless I want to change my scoring by 0.50 or more of a star. -- I tend not to read reviews until after I read a book, so I go in with an open mind.)

I'm finally going through my tv, film etc. tie in library owned book list, to add more older basic reviews. If I liked a book enough to keep then they are at the least a 3 star.

I'm only adding one book per author and I'm not going to re-read every book to be more accurate, not when I have 1000s of new to me authors to try (I can't say no to free books....)

First time read the author's work?: Yes

Will you be reading more?: Yes

Would you recommend?: Yes


------------
How I rate Stars: 5* = I loved (must read all I can find by the author)
4* = I really enjoyed (got to read all the series and try other books by the author).
3* = I enjoyed (I will continue to read the series)
or
3* = Good book just not my thing (I realised I don't like the genre or picked up a kids book to review in error.)

All of the above scores means I would recommend them!
-
2* = it was okay (I might give the next book in the series a try, to see if that was better IMHO.)
1* = Disliked

Note: adding these basic 'reviews' after finding out that some people see the stars differently than I do - hoping this clarifies how I feel about the book. :-)

[Gregg · Rating 4 out of 5]

How I came across this novelization a year or two after I saw the movie, I could not say, but reading it after the film gave me an appreciation of the skills necessary for a good adaptation. Mueller works off Ramis’s and Ackroyd’s script with ease and facility—it’s irritating he had to censor the dialogue, substituting “What the devil” on occasion and omitting money lines like “this prehistoric bitch” altogether—but he adds back story to the main characters that’s utterly fascinating, and he blends indirect discourse with dialogue seamlessly. We even get a glimpse into the ghosts’ take on things, on occasion. Want to know what the terror dog thought of having to possess the body of Louis Tully? Reader, read this book and find out.

The sequel to the film, Ghostbusters: Afterlife is due out next month. Going off the trailers, I get the impression that the mythos hinted at in the film and more deeply explored in this novel (Ivo Shandor’s Gozer cult and the PKE readings almost seem like Lovecraft Lite) will figure significantly in the story. One hopes so, at least.

[Dorio · Rating 5 out of 5]

Es la primera vez que experimento esto de leer la novelización de una película y ha sido un acierto. No solo porque expanden un poco más lo que ya hemos experimentado con la película, sino que porque nos hace sentir que estamos experimentando esta historia por primera vez. Si todas las novelizaciones son así, creo que me entregaré a un par más. Muchas veces se dice que el libro es mejor que la película cuando es la película la que se basa en el texto. ¿Es la novelización mejor que la película? Con la emoción de este momento, me atrevería a decir, sí ¿por qué no?

[Panashe Dzingayi · Rating 3 out of 5]

I watched the movie and had to read the book when I came across it. Obviously, reading it brought a bit of nostalgia. lastly, I've got to say, reading a book about a movie you've watched is easier (if I can say that) because you visualize everything the writer is describing correctly.
3/5 stars for me.

Thank you, I am grateful.

[Jorge Atencio · Rating 4 out of 5]

Cool book, specially if you are a fan and want to experience the movie in a different way with the insights of characters backgrounds and ideas and scenes that were deleted or later used in the animated shows

[Line · Rating 4 out of 5]

Is it 100% faithful to the movie? not quite. Was it still incredibly fun though? absolutely. I really enjoyed getting some insight and some backstory for these characters and also more Egon Spengler is ALWAYS a good thing.

[Paxton Holley · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fun adaptation of the movie. Extra scenes. I enjoyed reading it.

[Lee Ferrier · Rating 2 out of 5]

Venkman came off as unlikeable and inconsistently written. Honestly, most of the characters feel inconsistent and what the hell happened to Dana? Some of the dialogue is questionable as well.

[Devin Copes · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was hoping that it would have added some more to the story.

[Mathew Benham · Rating 4 out of 5]

Loved the book and movie, only disappointing thing was I was hoping the book was more in depth detail.

[Suzanne · Rating 2 out of 5]

It was fun thinking about the movie - but really the actors and special effects added so much.

[Bourdonne · Rating 3 out of 5]

I never read a novelization of a movie before, it was a rather enjoyable beach read.

[Joe · Rating 3 out of 5]

Just watch the movie.

[Andrea Amadei · Rating 4 out of 5]

È proprio come rivedere i film

[Michael · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is a very typical novelization of a hugely popular film. The author had a little leeway to add some background details and some of the internal dialogue of the characters, but mostly he had to stick to the script. Serious Ghostbusters fans will be pleased that the scene in the Central Park weather station (cut in the theatrical release) is included, here moved to “Fort Detmerring.” Other brief ghostly vignettes have been created by the author. I remember that I didn’t like some of the author’s interpretations of the characters, particularly Peter Venkman, and it seemed to me that some of the Bowery Boys flavor of the movie was lost in the over-intellectualized rendering of their thoughts. I read it when I was still a teenager and ridiculously obsessed with the film, and I have to give the publishers some credit, because the paper has held up better than a lot of books I have bought since.

[Tamara✨ · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm a big ass nerd and I love love LOVE reading tie-ins and quite often novelisations too of books and films. I don't know how I got a hold of this but it was in my computer so I decided to read it since it was very short.

It's pretty much the same as the film which is fun because I never tire of watching the movie!! There were some little bits that differed from the film, but not much.

Honestly there's not much to say other than it's pretty faithful to the film so it's not bad in that respect..?

https://hercommonplaceblog.wordpress....

[Andy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Novelization tie in for the original 1984 movie that more or less is pretty faithful.

There's a few added bits that aren't in the movie, such as a couple of characters, Harlan Bojay and Robert Learned Coombs, that keep popping up throughout the book. But a few of the quotable one liners from the film don't feature, and the ending felt a bit thrown together and glossed over to me.

If you love the movie, then you'll probably enjoy this too.

[Lucy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Interesting look at the movie; a fair number of moments that can be seen as deleted scenes, or that ended up never filmed. Richard also wrote some of the better Real Ghostbusters episodes, and is obviously comfortable in this universe.

[Jason · Rating 1 out of 5]

Some parts pulled from an earlier draft of the screenplay that I've read about. Which is fine.

The lack of understanding of the characters was not, though. Ridiculous, terrible backstories tacked on.

And every joke was mangled.

[bluetyson]

isbn,original

[Kristina Brown · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you love the film you'll want to read this book. There's some great extra details about your favourite ghostbusters.

[TheGeeksAttic · Rating 4 out of 5]

Deep discussion and review from Paper Movies:
Ghostbusters I & II Novelization Discussion
https://youtu.be/Tx8NxlnD5Eo

[Sasha]

coworker said it was terrible that i had never seen this movie. so he lent me the book.