This is part of the disconnect when talking about the impact the original Ghostbusters had back in 1984: A lot of the people discussing that impact are talking about it using a collection of assumptions as to what it was like because they were born after 1984. It's sorta like when anyone born after 1977 tries to talk about the cultural impact of Star Wars. They're just kinda guessing at what it was actually like, and transposing their reactions from when they saw it as a little kid on VHS without any greater cultural context (and being a little kid trying to process shit like that is kinda ridiculous anyway) with whatever they've read on the matter afterwards.
Star Wars fans kinda have a leg up in that the film was so big, and the phenomenon was so long lasting, that there's a lot of material to look at that allows for a more accurate picture of what the film did and didn't do on a larger scale.
With Ghostbusters, it's often a bunch of self-proclaimed '90s kids talking out their ass about what it was like in the mid '80s.
Ghostbusters wasn't particularly scary, although it wasn't trying to round the edges off its sci-fi weirdness, either. It was ridiculously funny, but it also wasn't trying to be particularly welcoming with its comedy.
People tend to think of it as a family-friendly film series, and it wasn't. The second movie tried to be that more than the first did, and it hurt that movie. Ghostbusters wasn't a straight up horror film, and it wasn't a kids film. It was a smartass comedy aimed at adults, blending sci-fi and horror elements to help serve both the story and the jokes.
I think that's a solid take, honestly. Makes sense. The most likely of my suggestions in the previous post was that Drew simply guessed wrong based on her previous roles.