True. Otherwise there's no contrast, and the root of comedy is in contradictions. What we see versus what we expect, how people act versus how they should act, etc.
I saw a video where Max Landis made that point. He also brought up a film like Kingsman, which similar to the original Ghostbusters wasn't a comedy, but had comedy in it. Where Kingsman was a spy movie that happened to have a lot of comedy in it, Ghostbusters was more of a catastrophe/supernatural movie that happened to have jokes. Compare that to the new Ghostbusters which looks like it's a straight up comedy.
The best analogy I've seen so far is that the new Ghostbusters looks like an SnL skit.
I liked Kingsman, and part of it was because it occassionally went over the top and me go "what the fuck!" but in a good way. It was straight enough to take seriously, but had satirical elements to it. Some said that the results were inconsistent and left them not knowing whether it was supposed to be serious, comedy, satire, or what. If the movie is well made, that almost doesn't matter. Just enjoy the ride, and I did.
The original Ghostbusters were scientists, guys with PhDs and the like. Ackroyd explains how the storage containment system works with enough detail for us to take it seriously, and know that it would be a very bad idea to just shut it down. That would be like opening all the cages at the zoo. "Don't cross the streams" and stuff is rooted in science. Science that's all made up, of course, but it sounds plausible and works within the film.
Ultimately, the best comedy IMO has enough "serious" in it to ground you, so the ridiculous stuff stands out and is funny. With SNL skits (good analogy, by the way), it's satire to begin with. When it's funny, it's funny because it's making fun of the real thing. How can anyone take the Ghostbusters remake seriously when it doesn't even appear to take itself seriously?