I was disappointed in Ghostbusters 2, too, but I recently read the script online, and can say it had some funny lines in it (everyone remembers the line about Egon straightening the slinky, but there were others)

The thing is, the first Ghostbusters movie worked in SO many ways. The main overall plot was interesting. They actually made it work in a half-way plausable way (the Ghostbusters' origins as university professors, the problems with the EPA, the mayor's reaction when the whole city becomes haunted). And, in much the same ways I praise games, it really took its idea to its limit. The idea of confronted an ancient god is about as far as the idea could be taken. But throughout the whole movie, there's also the equally vital comedy, which is still very funny today, and climaxes in true mania at the same moment the more serious side climaxes, with the towering Stay Puft making its way through New York. Also, as FO pointed out (at least to me IRL), Ghostbusters has perfect pacing - there's always something interesting happening.

The funny parts in Ghostbusters 2 weren't as funny as the funny parts in Ghostbusters 1... but I think the major problem with GB2 is that it has no other levels of interest. Did anyone really care about the Carpathian warlord? Maybe he could have been worthwhile, but he wasn't in the movie that actually exists, and it still doesn't seem to stretch the idea of ghostbusting as far as the confrontation with Gozer. It probably doesn't help that Viggo was such a non-entity through most of the movie. I, personally, didn't think the slime was explained very well - I guess it just appeared because of bad vibes, but that's not very interesting. I'm not sure it could be made interesting without a lot more inspiration.

And I guess that's the main problem. They could force some funny lines, but the inspiration, and the connection to Ghostbusters and not just some generic comedy, seemed missing. But how do you top a battle with a god?
I LOOOOOOVE Flying Omelette!!
Crawl and 1000