I think the difference is H.R. Bloodengutz and Home for the Holidays were built on deeply disturbing premises - a psychopathic, murderous television host and a rampaging army of escaped asylum inmates. The humor comes from the juxtaposition of the "dark" (the murders, gore, terror) and the "light," or the things that are traditionally happy and safe (Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving). These conceits work even better when the juxtaposition is taken to over-the-top extremes (the rabid easter bunny, the snowman with severed head). The natural absurdity of the situations is what's making the house fun and really work - you're scared, but you're being scared by a giant easter bunny. You're scared, but only because an insane woman is singing Christmas carols next to a man strangled in Christmas lights. It's taking expectations of an especially happy thing and twisting them to the point where they're nearly unrecognizable.
The problem is, Ghostbusters features none of the things I just talked about. It doesn't really take anything to extremity, and nothing about it or its settings are particularly "safe." The one exception is the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man (the whole bit is they thought it was something innocent and could never hurt anyone), but there isn't really anything else like that in the movie, and that one thing can't carry the house (and would be hard to execute logistically in the first place). It just isn't a horror film - it's an action comedy that happens to feature ghosts and demons. It just doesn't really work as a haunted house, at least conceptually. And here's the thing - they could do it anyway and might turn out a really quality product that people enjoy, and that's fine. But that thing won't really be Ghostbusters - it'll have to be a major compromise of what that film/franchise is and what it's about. We'll see something that resembles Ghostbusters on the surface... but that's it. (Sounds a lot like The Walking Dead, when you really think about it...)