Ghost Busters Timeline

[Christopher]

Clever, but that would have to be really forced to make it work fully. In the cartoon, if I remember correctly, the GB were superstars and pretty much loved by all. Also, the supernatural was pretty common place and easily believed. In GB2, the implication was that the GB were frauds and were properly shut down and were, more or less, disgraced and considered has-beens.

Also, legally speaking, if they were sued by every "state, county, and city agency in New York", I highly doubt they would have even been allowed to continue business until the cases were settled.

Well, in the Real Ghostbusters continuity, the events of the cartoon were the true story, and the movie was a fictionalized account of their real beginnings. That means GB2 was fictionalized as well, and it could've been a greater divergence from "reality."

Of course, I don't consider the later seasons of RGB (after J. Michael Straczynski left) to be quite "real" either. I guess I don't really buy the idea of there being a coherent "reality" to the GB franchise; it's just various different works of fiction based on the same premise, interpreting it in various divergent ways. But in my mind, when I think of the Ghostbusters, I think of the version from the first 65 episodes of RGB first and foremost.

It's been a long time (maybe I should get the DVDs) since I've seen RGB. How does the cartoon deal with the events of GB1 and 2?

As stated, GB1 is treated as a fictionalization of the "real" formation of the Ghostbusters, but the real events are assumed to be pretty close to what's in the movie, and they did do that flashback episode ("Citizen Ghost") that depicted the events following the movie and how they led to the RGB status quo. It was actually one of the smoothest TV continuations of a movie that I've ever seen. Usually there are deliberate changes made in a movie's premise to make it more practical as a weekly series. (The events of Starman were retconned into the '70s so the lead could have a teenaged son in the late '80s. Men in Black: The Series ignored K's retirement and had L join before J. Stargate SG-1 changed the nature of the Stargate network and the parasitic aliens and even altered the spelling of the main character's name. And so on.) But despite the "movie based on real events" thing, the series didn't really contradict the original film in any significant way. (Well, aside from the Sta-Puft Marshmallow Man still existing and being captive in the containment unit, and being a separate entity from Gozer.)

As for GB2, there was never really any strong continuity between it and the animated series. The movie treated RGB as though it never existed (which of course was its prerogative as the core material of the franchise), whereas RGB just revamped itself at the start of its fourth network season to be compatible with GB2, adding Louis Tully to the cast with no explanation and making occasional references to the events of the sequel. There was no real effort to construct a coherent continuity, even within RGB itself.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Someone brought up the issue of magazine article "lead times" vis a vis the "Omni" issue. My understanding is that magazine articles lead by at least 6-8 weeks writing to print.

Using the conservative end of that, the montage would cover about 1 and 1/2 months.

Add that to the amount of time it took to get the "physical plant" (firehouse, portable gear, etc) up and running (they couldn't've opened before it was all done. Egon said the building's wiring was entirely unsuitable for their power needs, so there's at least the better part of a month to tear out and rewire ALONE. The packs and traps would have to be custom built, and there can't be more than a handful of suppliers for things like particle accellerator components in the world. Adding in the event's following the montage...say another month-6 weeks, and I could easily see film 1 covering half a year.

 

[Trekker4747]

Someone brought up the issue of magazine article "lead times" vis a vis the "Omni" issue. My understanding is that magazine articles lead by at least 6-8 weeks writing to print.

Using the conservative end of that, the montage would cover about 1 and 1/2 months.

Add that to the amount of time it took to get the "physical plant" (firehouse, portable gear, etc) up and running (they couldn't've opened before it was all done. Egon said the building's wiring was entirely unsuitable for their power needs, so there's at least the better part of a month to tear out and rewire ALONE. The packs and traps would have to be custom built, and there can't be more than a handful of suppliers for things like particle accellerator components in the world. Adding in the event's following the montage...say another month-6 weeks, and I could easily see film 1 covering half a year.

So I guess Louis' party near the end of the movie was another party.

I could buy him planning a party for his client 3-4 months in advance, but 6 months seems outrageous.

I think the movie doesn't have any real "time line" -I'm sorry to say- as comedies and movies back then in general were more interested in telling a good and entertaining story than they were making sure it made logical sense chronolgicaly.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Someone brought up the issue of magazine article "lead times" vis a vis the "Omni" issue. My understanding is that magazine articles lead by at least 6-8 weeks writing to print.

Using the conservative end of that, the montage would cover about 1 and 1/2 months.

Add that to the amount of time it took to get the "physical plant" (firehouse, portable gear, etc) up and running (they couldn't've opened before it was all done. Egon said the building's wiring was entirely unsuitable for their power needs, so there's at least the better part of a month to tear out and rewire ALONE. The packs and traps would have to be custom built, and there can't be more than a handful of suppliers for things like particle accellerator components in the world. Adding in the event's following the montage...say another month-6 weeks, and I could easily see film 1 covering half a year.

So I guess Louis' party near the end of the movie was another party.

I could buy him planning a party for his client 3-4 months in advance, but 6 months seems outrageous.

I think the movie doesn't have any real "time line" -I'm sorry to say- as comedies and movies back then in general were more interested in telling a good and entertaining story than they were making sure it made logical sense chronolgicaly.

Louis' party could have been a "year end" party...the end of the FISCAL year, not the callendar one.

 

[Trekker4747]

Someone brought up the issue of magazine article "lead times" vis a vis the "Omni" issue. My understanding is that magazine articles lead by at least 6-8 weeks writing to print.

Using the conservative end of that, the montage would cover about 1 and 1/2 months.

Add that to the amount of time it took to get the "physical plant" (firehouse, portable gear, etc) up and running (they couldn't've opened before it was all done. Egon said the building's wiring was entirely unsuitable for their power needs, so there's at least the better part of a month to tear out and rewire ALONE. The packs and traps would have to be custom built, and there can't be more than a handful of suppliers for things like particle accellerator components in the world. Adding in the event's following the montage...say another month-6 weeks, and I could easily see film 1 covering half a year.

So I guess Louis' party near the end of the movie was another party.

I could buy him planning a party for his client 3-4 months in advance, but 6 months seems outrageous.

I think the movie doesn't have any real "time line" -I'm sorry to say- as comedies and movies back then in general were more interested in telling a good and entertaining story than they were making sure it made logical sense chronolgicaly.

Louis' party could have been a "year end" party...the end of the FISCAL year, not the callendar one.

True, but planning it six-months in advance? Seems extreme.

 

[Broccoli]

Given Peter's non reaction to Ray's declaration about the car

You need to watch Murray's facial expression after Aykroyd drops the "Only $4800" line, then.

Clever, but that would have to be really forced to make it work fully. In the cartoon, if I remember correctly, the GB were superstars and pretty much loved by all. Also, the supernatural was pretty common place and easily believed. In GB2, the implication was that the GB were frauds and were properly shut down and were, more or less, disgraced and considered has-beens.

Also, legally speaking, if they were sued by every "state, county, and city agency in New York", I highly doubt they would have even been allowed to continue business until the cases were settled.

That's one thing I dislike about the second movie, after the events of the first movie I don't see how it's possible anyone expect perhaps for a small minority could think the Ghostbusters are frauds. Stay Puft did a lot of damage, including stepping on a church. Ghosts were running rampant all over New York since the containment grid failed (what happened to them over the years while the Ghostbusters were sued? I doubt they just went away since Slimer is still around in Ghostbusters 2).

Suing the Ghostbusters also seemed really harsh to me, though it's never established if Stay Puft could be injured or killed by traditional weapons or not I have my doubts considering he was a god. I would say chances are good that the Ghostbusters are the only one who could of stopped him.

Actually the part where it's mentioned they were sued by the city could be very true. Even though they saved the city from a major supernatural threat (along with the potential of the rest of the world) they did cause considerable damage and had no way to provide funding for rebuilding. Lenny wasn't exactly a fan of theirs and was probably advised by Peck's people to sue the Ghostbusters instead of throwing them a ticker tape parade! I'm curious though how much money the boys made during the course of the few weeks they were in business for. I'm sure that Peter upped the price of service for each job...

Someone brought up the issue of magazine article "lead times" vis a vis the "Omni" issue. My understanding is that magazine articles lead by at least 6-8 weeks writing to print.

Using the conservative end of that, the montage would cover about 1 and 1/2 months.

Add that to the amount of time it took to get the "physical plant" (firehouse, portable gear, etc) up and running (they couldn't've opened before it was all done. Egon said the building's wiring was entirely unsuitable for their power needs, so there's at least the better part of a month to tear out and rewire ALONE. The packs and traps would have to be custom built, and there can't be more than a handful of suppliers for things like particle accellerator components in the world. Adding in the event's following the montage...say another month-6 weeks, and I could easily see film 1 covering half a year.

So I guess Louis' party near the end of the movie was another party.

I could buy him planning a party for his client 3-4 months in advance, but 6 months seems outrageous.

I think the movie doesn't have any real "time line" -I'm sorry to say- as comedies and movies back then in general were more interested in telling a good and entertaining story than they were making sure it made logical sense chronolgicaly.

Louis' party could have been a "year end" party...the end of the FISCAL year, not the callendar one.

Still doesn't explain away why he was planning for it 6 months in advance.

The timeflow in GB doesn't work.

But then, it doesn't have to.

 

[Hober Mallow]

The animated series was really good about maintaining continuity with the movies. Gozer and Viggo are mentioned multiple times, and as someone else mentioned, they told the story of how Slimer joined them.

As for GB2, there was never really any strong continuity between it and the animated series. The movie treated RGB as though it never existed (which of course was its prerogative as the core material of the franchise), whereas RGB just revamped itself at the start of its fourth network season to be compatible with GB2, adding Louis Tully to the cast with no explanation and making occasional references to the events of the sequel. There was no real effort to construct a coherent continuity, even within RGB itself.

That's not exactly true. GB2 has Slimer just hanging around the firehouse and then driving Lewis to to the museum. He was even called Slimer in the movie, which was the name first used in the cartoon.

Now if we start talking about the Slimer! and Extreme Ghostbusters continuity, things get a little more complicated. Particularly in the case of Slimer!, where characters' eyes bug out of their heads and refridgerators drop on top of them a la Looney Tunes. Although in Slimer!, the hotel guy from the first movie is a major character.

 

[CommodoreKong]

I'm guessing Slimer being a more friendly ghost in GB2 was a changed required by the studio to match the cartoon since in Ghostbusters the Videogame they have him in a cage to study him (most likely some sort of mini containment unit Egon built) and he breaks out, forcing you to go and capture him again.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

So I guess Louis' party near the end of the movie was another party.

I could buy him planning a party for his client 3-4 months in advance, but 6 months seems outrageous.

I think the movie doesn't have any real "time line" -I'm sorry to say- as comedies and movies back then in general were more interested in telling a good and entertaining story than they were making sure it made logical sense chronolgicaly.

Louis' party could have been a "year end" party...the end of the FISCAL year, not the callendar one.

True, but planning it six-months in advance? Seems extreme.

We ARE talking about Louis...

Wouldn't surprise me if he did it EVERY year.

 

[Kirk's_Tights]

Threads like this make me cry.

Why do we have to care if a movie is 100% accurate? Why can't we just sit back and watch it?

A movie really becomes less enjoyable when people think too hard about it and tear it apart to find flaws. Ghostbusters (one word, people) is an epic movie. It doesn't need to be ripped to shreds to see how accurate it is. Just watch it and be happy such an awesome movie exists.

 

[Broccoli]

Threads like this make me cry.

Why do we have to care if a movie is 100% accurate? Why can't we just sit back and watch it?

A movie really becomes less enjoyable when people think too hard about it and tear it apart to find flaws. Ghostbusters (one word, people) is an epic movie. It doesn't need to be ripped to shreds to see how accurate it is. Just watch it and be happy such an awesome movie exists.

Responses like this make me cry.

Because when you love a movie so much it is fun to speculate and discuss the various things about it. Also, no one is "tear[ing] it apart" and finding flaws. The flaws were already there. This thread isn't "OMG!! The WriTers suxxxs!" It's "Okay, we love this movie; how can we fix this?"

Also, this is a discussion board where we - SHOCK - discuss things!

 

[JediKnightButler]

Clever, but that would have to be really forced to make it work fully. In the cartoon, if I remember correctly, the GB were superstars and pretty much loved by all. Also, the supernatural was pretty common place and easily believed. In GB2, the implication was that the GB were frauds and were properly shut down and were, more or less, disgraced and considered has-beens.

Also, legally speaking, if they were sued by every "state, county, and city agency in New York", I highly doubt they would have even been allowed to continue business until the cases were settled.

That's one thing I dislike about the second movie, after the events of the first movie I don't see how it's possible anyone expect perhaps for a small minority could think the Ghostbusters are frauds. Stay Puft did a lot of damage, including stepping on a church. Ghosts were running rampant all over New York since the containment grid failed (what happened to them over the years while the Ghostbusters were sued? I doubt they just went away since Slimer is still around in Ghostbusters 2).

Suing the Ghostbusters also seemed really harsh to me, though it's never established if Stay Puft could be injured or killed by traditional weapons or not I have my doubts considering he was a god. I would say chances are good that the Ghostbusters are the only one who could of stopped him.

I felt the same way too about GB2, which I like to pretend doesn't really exist (except for maybe the courtroom scene at the beginning). It looked like they were considered heroes by the end of GB1 and it doesn't make sense for the state, city, etc. to sue them for damages, most of which were caused by supernatural beings- not to mention the fact that the reason that the firehouse exploded and most of those ghosts were allowed to run amok throughout the city at the end because of the shutdown of the containment field ordered by the EPA official. Of course, the state, city, etc. couldn't exactly sue supernatural beings to recoup their losses and I guess the Ghostbusters were ultimately made the scapegoats for everything.

 

[Kirk's_Tights]

Responses like this make me cry.

Because when you love a movie so much it is fun to speculate and discuss the various things about it. Also, no one is "tear[ing] it apart" and finding flaws. The flaws were already there. This thread isn't "OMG!! The WriTers suxxxs!" It's "Okay, we love this movie; how can we fix this?"

Also, this is a discussion board where we - SHOCK - discuss things!

No need to be a dick about it "Broccoli". It wasn't a swipe at anyone, I just don't get why people have to think this much about it. I love Ghostbusters but I don't feel a need to analyse it and think this much about it and I don't know why others have to, either. I could care less about flaws.

 

[Christopher]

^It's fun to think about such things. It's not about whining or attacking, it's about recreational exercise of the mind -- tackling interesting puzzles and using one's imagination to propose possible solutions.

 

[Kirk's_Tights]

My God, when did I say anyone whined or attacked it?

My question was simply why do people do this instead of watching movies for what they are. It wasn't a joke question, it was an actual question that I was hoping someone would answer so I can understand because I personally watch a movie and enjoy it for what it is and not worry about the mistakes because I see no point. No matter how wrong it is, it will still be a part of the movie and I can't change that. I want to know why people are bothered by it. IT WAS NOT AN ATTACK IN ANY WAY.

Geez, ask a simple question, people get offensive. And they say us ladies are cranky when we PMS.

 

[Timby]

Ghostbusters (one word, people)

When referring to the first film, it can go either way. All of the script drafts, be it Aykroyd or Aykroyd and Ramis working in tandem, titled the film as "Ghost Busters," and the initial appearance of the title on-screen (just after the library sequence) has a hard return between the two words, implying a break between them. (Much like it's "Star Wars," not "Starwars.") Also, I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the re-statement of the title at the end of the closing credits states it as "Ghost Busters."

On the other hand, the posters for the film, as well as the sequel and spin-offs, treat it as one word: "Ghostbusters."

All that said, I really should see a doctor for some therapy about the encyclopedic knowledge I have about these damned movies.

 

[Christopher]

My question was simply why do people do this instead of watching movies for what they are. It wasn't a joke question, it was an actual question that I was hoping someone would answer so I can understand because I personally watch a movie and enjoy it for what it is and not worry about the mistakes because I see no point. No matter how wrong it is, it will still be a part of the movie and I can't change that. I want to know why people are bothered by it. IT WAS NOT AN ATTACK IN ANY WAY.

Okay, sorry for the misunderstanding. But the answer is the same -- it's not about being bothered, it's about wanting the opportunity to exercise our imaginations by tackling the conceptual problems in the works of fiction we enjoy. It's not worrying, it's having fun. A lot of people enjoy solving problems and exploring the questions and ramifications raised by a fictional world. Think of it as interactive entertainment. Instead of just passively absorbing what we're shown, we engage with the universe, take the opportunity to exert our own creativity by thinking up ways to fill in the conceptual gaps, to look beyond what we're shown and speculate about what lies beyond it.

Ghostbusters (one word, people)

When referring to the first film, it can go either way. All of the script drafts, be it Aykroyd or Aykroyd and Ramis working in tandem, titled the film as "Ghost Busters," and the initial appearance of the title on-screen (just after the library sequence) has a hard return between the two words, implying a break between them. (Much like it's "Star Wars," not "Starwars.") Also, I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the re-statement of the title at the end of the closing credits states it as "Ghost Busters."

On the other hand, the posters for the film, as well as the sequel and spin-offs, treat it as one word: "Ghostbusters."

Maybe they changed it because of the legal issues with Filmation, whose original '70s show was called The Ghost Busters. (Although the cartoon sequel Filmation produced was called Ghostbusters.)

 

[Chekov's Phaser]

Threads like this make me cry.

Why do we have to care if a movie is 100% accurate? Why can't we just sit back and watch it?

A movie really becomes less enjoyable when people think too hard about it and tear it apart to find flaws. Ghostbusters (one word, people) is an epic movie. It doesn't need to be ripped to shreds to see how accurate it is. Just watch it and be happy such an awesome movie exists.

Some people have fun talking about and analyzing a movie. It's fun to discuss the little inconsistencies of GB, but in no way does it take away my enjoyment of the movie (and that probably goes for most people in this thread). At the end of the day, the movie is still one of my favorite all time. (I've already played the new game twice!)

Look at the actual Star Trek part of this BBS. This thread doesn't compare to the nitpickyness of some of those threads. If it's all in good fun, what harm is there?

 

[Broccoli]

Responses like this make me cry.

Because when you love a movie so much it is fun to speculate and discuss the various things about it. Also, no one is "tear[ing] it apart" and finding flaws. The flaws were already there. This thread isn't "OMG!! The WriTers suxxxs!" It's "Okay, we love this movie; how can we fix this?"

Also, this is a discussion board where we - SHOCK - discuss things!

No need to be a dick about it "Broccoli". It wasn't a swipe at anyone, I just don't get why people have to think this much about it. I love Ghostbusters but I don't feel a need to analyse it and think this much about it and I don't know why others have to, either. I could care less about flaws.

Well, on a message board, someone's gotta be the dick.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

Alright, I've put my new 42" TV and Blu-Ray edition of Ghostbusters to the test to figure this out. I noticed once the containment unit was breached and the ghosts gathered at Dana's apartment that the trees were changing in Central Park. Which would put the movie in autumn. Then, I went to the montage.

The first paper, USA Today, is dated Wednesday, October 8, 1984. This is the "Ghost Fever Grips Manhattan" paper.

Next is the New York Post dated October 22, 1984. Then, there's a series of magazines that flash up. These include:

Time dated October 1984
Omni dated October 1984
The Atlantic dated October 1984

and finally the Ghostbusters Super Diet edition of The Globe dated October 15, 1984.

So, the USA Today would've gone up shortly if not the day after the Hotel Sedgewick was busted (October 8) and the last dated paper would be the New York Post at October 22. After the montage is when Winston Zeddemore is hired, and he says he's only been with the company for a couple weeks before they fight Gozer.

So, it looks like the Ghostbusters business was only successful for, at most, a month and a half before getting shut down. Damn, Blu-Ray's got a good picture! Ghostbusting never looked so good!