Is Ghostbusters 2 really that bad?

[Admiral Shran]

And actually, he didn't even have a warrant to search the Ghostbusters' premises.

4.) a federal entry and inspection order

The answer is in the question.

Except there's no such thing as a federal entry and inspection order. The federal government cannot issue such orders; they cannot even issue traditional search warrants. That has to be done by the individual states.

But let's suppose that such an order does exist in the Ghostbusters universe. Wouldn't it only give Peck the right to, you know, inspect the premises, not shut down what, by his own admission, is a dangerous machine. Yeah, maybe we shouldn't shut down a nuclear acceleration device and radiation storage unit willy-nilly.

That being said, what you said about Peck going to a judge and saying "these guys are blowing shit up real good and we have no idea what's going on" sounds plausible. However, it's still a mistake for the movie to offer no evidence, especially in the scene in the mayor's office. There Peck is literally just making stuff up based on his assumptions.

That said, we're all over-thinking a comedy.

This might be true.

 

[Trekker4747]

But screw all of that. The kids want more Slimer!!!!!

 

[Admiral_Young]

Peck was there I think to be on the skeptics side and the government bureaucrat who doesn't understand what they're doing and is scared. Our friend Walter also probably sees the Ghostbusters as a means to an end for himself, he's ambitious and career minded and is using them to promote himself up the ladder and doesn't care what the consequences of his actions are. There is no investigation into the facility he just shows up with a piece of paper ordering them to shut down. I assume that an investigation would take place afterwards but of course that was proven to be too late

 

[Shazam!]

If GB ever returns to the screen, it might be viable to make an interconnected trilogy, in the style of the Trek movies (WoK, VH, SFS). It's a shame that it hasn't happened like that already.

Why does everything have to be a bloody trilogy?

There is actually a right and wrong answer in regards to Ghostbusters 2 and the correct answer is it's brilliant.

 

[the G-man]

I'd still think there'd have to be something to "prove" they're doing something wrong or illegal. And, personally, I doubt that the packs were "nuclear" in any traditional or typical sense and when Venkman said that he was just being a bit glib.

That said, this was the pre-USA PATRIOT Act days ....

...and a mere six or seven years after three mile island. So the idea that the Feds would hear "nuclear power" and come running isn't that far- fetched.

Furtheremore, if anything the EPA back in the day had more power than the FBI. Just ask the people who lost their jobs and property over some "endangered species" or another.

 

[the G-man]

there's no such thing as a federal entry and inspection order. The federal government cannot issue such orders; they cannot even issue traditional search warrants. That has to be done by the individual states.

Not true. The federal rules of criminal procedure specifically authorize the issuance of warrants by federal magistrates.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

Wouldn't Occam's Razor also apply here? Either the Ghostbusters have managed to cause millions of people across the city to experience delusions of seeing ghosts and other incredible phenomenon, even able to cause this phenomenon to occur before they first get contact with some people and they further caused chaos throughout the entire city that resulted in things happening like the "walls at the precinct bleeding" or ghosts are real and the Ghostbusters managed to achieve a paranormal investigation and elimination process.

I would think that the majority of people would find the "elaborate scam artist" theory to be the simpler explanation than "supernatural attacks." The first requires the Ghostbusters rigging up elaborate lightshows at various prominent spots throughout the city and pretending to stop them for payment. Not the easiest thing in the world, but not impossible. The second requires people to accept:

1) An afterlife,
2) That folks are returning from the grave, and
3) That all of these supernatural occurances are converging in New York City.

And that's just for starters. Believing that the Ghostbusters are scam artists doesn't require a major paradigm shift in your worldview.

I'd be really interested to see what happened between the first movie and the second movie that caused the whole city to turn on them, including the mayor.

This was explained at the beginning of the second movie. From the script I found online:

WINSTON
Ray, man, face it, Ghostbusters doesn't exist. Years from now, those kids won't even remember who we are.

RAY
Ungrateful little yuppie larva! After all we did for this city.

WINSTON
Yeah. Conjured up a hundred-foot marshmallow man, blew the top three floors off an uptown high-rise, ended up getting sued by every state, county and city agency in New York.

RAY
Yeah. But what a ride.

And later:

HARDEMEYER
Can I help you?

PETER
Yeah, get your hand off me. Thank you! I'm an old friend of the mayor's. I wanted to say hello and give him a kiss.

HARDEMEYER
I'm Jack Hardemeyer. I'm the mayor's assistant. I know who you are, Dr. Venkman. I just don't see any ghosts anywhere.

PETER
Well, that's why I wanted to talk to His Highness. See, we did a little job for the city a while back and got stiffed on the bill by some bureaucratic bookworm like yourself.

HARDEMEYER
Look, you stay away from the mayor. He's running for governor next fall and the last thing we need is for him to be associated with two-bit frauds and publicity hounds like you and your friends.

As the first movie showed, the Ghostbusters were a big fad. And like a lot of fads, they died out fast. This, combined with the massive property damage and the American tendency to build people up into heroes & bring them crashing down again, explains it pretty clearly to me. Pretty plausible, IMO.

 

[Christopher]

And that's just for starters. Believing that the Ghostbusters are scam artists doesn't require a major paradigm shift in your worldview.

Going strictly by the first movie, maybe, if the supernatural events died down after Gozer was defeated. But it's impossible to reconcile with the Real Ghostbusters continuity, wherein mass public hauntings and citywide supernatural manifestations were happening on a weekly basis and the reality of the supernatural was accepted without question by virtually everybody (except Egon's father, and even he was eventually convinced). I mean, we had the Ghostbusters battling a giant monster in full daylight on one of New York's bridges. We had another bridge taken hostage by trolls. We had infinitely cloned tiny Slimers spreading all over the city and covering everything in green slime, then combining into a giant blue Slimer that climbed the Empire State Building King Kong-style. There were so many events that affected a large portion of the city or were covered on the news, plus the constant smaller-scale hauntings by the hundreds, that within that universe it's inconceivable that the public could forget ghosts were real.

Which just made it all the more awkward when they altered the RGB continuity to incorporate elements from GB2. It just didn't fit.

Then again, RGB explained the first movie as a fictionalized account of actual events, with Murray, Aykroyd, Ramis, and Hudson taking on the roles of the "real" Peter, Ray, Egon, and Winston. Maybe GB2 could be taken as a similar fictionalization, explaining the discrepancies. But then, in that theory, the "real" world is one where the existence of the supernatural is widely documented and accepted; so why would anyone in such a universe make a movie "based on a true story" and postulate something as counterfactual as widespread disbelief in the supernatural?

 

[Trekker4747]

This was explained at the beginning of the second movie. From the script I found online:

....

As the first movie showed, the Ghostbusters were a big fad. And like a lot of fads, they died out fast. This, combined with the massive property damage and the American tendency to build people up into heroes & bring them crashing down again, explains it pretty clearly to me. Pretty plausible, IMO.

The dialogue in the scene, condensing five-years worth of events into a few lines of dialogue, explains nothing other than a rough idea of how the city turned on the Ghostbusters following the whole "giant marshmallow man and end of times" thing.

On the Occam's Razor front, sorry, I think you're wrong. It would take an extrordnairy amount of work, luck, and time for four men to put together a city-wide stunt of fooling people into thinking they're seeing ghosts. That so much set-up would be required by itself makes it far less "simple" and this is even assuming they live in "our world" where many people already believe in ghosts and "ghost hunters." Then you factor in things that simply cannot be explained away including the thousands of people who saw a stories-tall marshmallow man walking down the street and those thousands of people who'd all say they never met the Ghostbusters, were drugged or anything. Then there's all of the other weird stuff that happened, bleeding walls at the precinct, skeletons driving cabs, ghosts in vendor carts, the red plasma balls flying around the city. Comparing that to "there's a such thing as the supernatural" and you say the former is simpler? Sorry.

What you're pretty much saying is that a city-wide conspiracy to convict and jail OJ that'd include numerous people and levels of law enforcement and investigating is "simpler" than the fact he was an asshole who just snapped and killed his wife.

It's just not simple, possible or reasonable to think the Ghostbusters were scam artists that somehow managed to fake 1000s of ghost sightings upto and including covering an entire city block in marshmallow that appeared out of nowhere. Yeah it was drugs... and mirrors.

Sorry. Nothing "simple" about the idea they could've fakes it at all. Not to mention they'd have countless scientific proof and could even get independant proof because, presumably, the evidence would easily be able to be seen and captured. I do admit it's possible the paranormal activity died down in the intervening time but that'd simply put them out of business, not discredit them. The property damage caused by their proton packs? That's what insurance is for.

Furthermore, going back to Peck, on his front more proof would be required than "I think they're lying" especially when he's in the mayor's office and he pulls the "they use intoxicating chemicals and light shows" out of his ass.

The second movie makes no sense in terms of what happened in the events of the first. Really, they should've just had the second movie begin with the Ghostbusters suffering a drought in their business after five-years of work and consider cashing it all in and trying to find their way back into "normal life" before a big "event" happens that causes all of the activity to spike back up.

And no damn baby. That idea was just stupid.

 

[ByrdMan]

The second movie makes no sense. And, IIRC, in the cartoon the idea was that they (the cartoon versions) were the REAL Ghostbusters and that the movie even existed in their universe and was even a Hollywood take on their origins. (An episode features the Ghostbusters dealing with a movie about them being made) another episode even deals with the events that took place directly after the encounter with Gozer. The cartoon as I recall took a bit of a cue from the second movie but I think it was still supposed to be its own thing.

By the way, the reason it was called "The Real Ghostbusters" wasn't for any of those reasons. It was called that due to an out of court settlement after Filmation sued Columbia due to the fact that they had already produced a live action TV show called "The Ghost Busters" in the '70s.

 

[Trekker4747]

The second movie makes no sense. And, IIRC, in the cartoon the idea was that they (the cartoon versions) were the REAL Ghostbusters and that the movie even existed in their universe and was even a Hollywood take on their origins. (An episode features the Ghostbusters dealing with a movie about them being made) another episode even deals with the events that took place directly after the encounter with Gozer. The cartoon as I recall took a bit of a cue from the second movie but I think it was still supposed to be its own thing.

By the way, the reason it was called "The Real Ghostbusters" wasn't for any of those reasons. It was called that due to an out of court settlement after Filmation sued Columbia due to the fact that they had already produced a live action TV show called "The Ghost Busters" in the '70s.

Yes. I know.

What I'm saying is that in the cartoon's universe the movie was a fictional account of their lives. In the cartoon they're the "real versions" of the Ghostbusters and Ramis, Aykroyd, etc. are the actors who played them.

 

[Christopher]

You're both right. Columbia/DIC called their show The Real Ghostbusters to distinguish it from Filmation's Ghostbusters, an animated sequel to Filmation's live-action '70s The Ghost Busters which was made to capitalize on the film's success and came out in the same year as RGB. So that's the real-world reason for the title. But within the show, they occasionally found ways to give the title in-universe meaning. Indeed, the series premiere involved a trio of ghosts establishing a scam ghost-fighting agency to discredit the Ghostbusters, so that made the main characters the real Ghostbusters in contrast to the impostors. And then, as you say, came the episode about the making of the movie.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

And that's just for starters. Believing that the Ghostbusters are scam artists doesn't require a major paradigm shift in your worldview.

Going strictly by the first movie, maybe, if the supernatural events died down after Gozer was defeated. But it's impossible to reconcile with the Real Ghostbusters continuity, wherein mass public hauntings and citywide supernatural manifestations were happening on a weekly basis and the reality of the supernatural was accepted without question by virtually everybody.

Outside of Slimer making a quick cameo appearance in Ghostbusters 2, I've never seen or read anything that's led me to believe that the cartoon takes place in the same continuity as the movies. So I was only considering the movies in my argument.

 

[JonnyQuest037]

What you're pretty much saying is that a city-wide conspiracy to convict and jail OJ that'd include numerous people and levels of law enforcement and investigating is "simpler" than the fact he was an asshole who just snapped and killed his wife.

That's not anything remotely like what I said. Please don't change my arguments to make them easier for you to try and refute.

 

[Christopher]

Outside of Slimer making a quick cameo appearance in Ghostbusters 2, I've never seen or read anything that's led me to believe that the cartoon takes place in the same continuity as the movies. So I was only considering the movies in my argument.

I wasn't saying that you weren't. I was merely offering an alternative view from the perspective of a fan of the animated series.

 

[Admiral_Young]

There are two episodes (both included in the two pack of the Ghosbusters DVD) that suggest that "The Ghostbusters" or at least most of it does take place in the contunity of the films. "Citizen Ghost" explains how Slimer came to live with the Ghostbusters after they defeated Gozer. "Partners in Slime" (season four episode) takes place a year after Ghostbusters II and deals with Peter being covered in mood slime so he can infiltrate Ghost Town controlled by a Ghost Mobster who has kidnapped Janine. What bugs me most about "Citizen Ghost" is that there is no mention whatsoever of Dana (of course this might have to do with Signourney Weaver not giving approval to use her likeness or whatever) since she and Peter began their relationship after the movie at this point and the episode takes place literally right after the first movie.

 

[Trekker4747]

There are two episodes (both included in the two pack of the Ghosbusters DVD) that suggest that "The Ghostbusters" or at least most of it does take place in the contunity of the films. "Citizen Ghost" explains how Slimer came to live with the Ghostbusters after they defeated Gozer. "Partners in Slime" (season four episode) takes place a year after Ghostbusters II and deals with Peter being covered in mood slime so he can infiltrate Ghost Town controlled by a Ghost Mobster who has kidnapped Janine. What bugs me most about "Citizen Ghost" is that there is no mention whatsoever of Dana (of course this might have to do with Signourney Weaver not giving approval to use her likeness or whatever) since she and Peter began their relationship after the movie at this point and the episode takes place literally right after the first movie.

The "Real Ghostbusters" live in OUR universe (just as cartoons) the movie exists in the Real Ghostbusters' (our) universe. The movie, for the Real Ghostbusters, is a fictional(ized) account of how the Ghostbusters came to be. The Ghostbusters expressed some dismay and apprehension about elements of the movie. It could be that either Dana didn't exist in the 'real world' and was invented by Hollywood to inject a romantic sub-plot (IIRC, the cartoon Peter wasn't quite a schmoozing ladies man, at least not as much of one movie Peter is) or after the movie goes to black, in Ecto-One, Dana (in the cartoon world) tells Peter to fuck off.

I doubt not using her had anything to do with using Weaver's likeness considering none of the Ghostbusters or Janine's cartoon versions look anything like their movie counterparts. Dana isn't likely around because the cartoon makers, rightly, assumed kids wouldn't want to deal with Dana and Peter's relationship in the cartoon.

There's no way to make the Cartoon and the Movie work together. Both had different takes on things and the cartoon out-right contradicts the movies (again, showing the movie as existing as a movie in the cartoon world.) There's also no way the lawsuits and subsequent "down time" of popularity happened in the cartoon universe. So the movies have to be fictional, dramatized, "inspired by a true story" takes on the cartoon Ghostbusters' real lives.

 

[Christopher]

There are two episodes (both included in the two pack of the Ghosbusters DVD) that suggest that "The Ghostbusters" or at least most of it does take place in the contunity of the films. "Citizen Ghost" explains how Slimer came to live with the Ghostbusters after they defeated Gozer. "Partners in Slime" (season four episode) takes place a year after Ghostbusters II and deals with Peter being covered in mood slime so he can infiltrate Ghost Town controlled by a Ghost Mobster who has kidnapped Janine.

But "Take Two" makes it explicit that the movie we know, the one starring Murry, Aykroyd, and Ramis, is a dramatization of the actual events. So we can assume that what happened in the "real world" of RGB continuity was basically the same story that was dramatized on film, but probably with some variations in detail.

And pointing out that later episodes incorporated elements of GBII is just reiterating the problem I was pointing out -- namely that GBII contradicts what RGB had established, so they can't be in the same continuity. So later seasons incorporating elements from GBII creates continuity problems.

I doubt not using her had anything to do with using Weaver's likeness considering none of the Ghostbusters or Janine's cartoon versions look anything like their movie counterparts.

Exactly. The cartoon's makers were specifically instructed not to use likenesses of the film's actors, and the audition process for actors specifically prohibited doing imitations of the actors (though that didn't stop Maurice LaMarche from getting hired for his dead-on Harold Ramis impression, and later on they ditched Lorenzo Music for Dave Coulier doing a Bill Murray impression because the producers misconstrued Murray's comment that Music didn't sound like him as a complaint).

Dana isn't likely around because the cartoon makers, rightly, assumed kids wouldn't want to deal with Dana and Peter's relationship in the cartoon.

Quite so. Given all the sexual innuendo present in their interactions in the movie, it's understandable that they avoided it altogether in the show.

Of course, they also left out Louis Tully until the post-GB2 retool. And there was no Peck, though we did occasionally see Mayor Klotch. So maybe they just wanted to focus on the core staff (and ghost mascot/pet) of the Ghostbusters operation and not deal much with characters outside that circle.

 

[Trekker4747]

It's been a long time since I watched the post-GB2 episodes of the cartoon, I didn't even watch them when I went through the series, so I'm not sure how much the cartoon contradicts the movies (or vice versa) that can't be hand-waved away by saying "the movies dramatized the things that really happened."

 

[Christopher]

^Well, maybe you can. But as I said, given that RGB depicts a universe where the reality of the supernatural is a pervasive and widely accepted fact, why would any filmmakers in that universe make a Ghostbusters movie which postulated that New Yorkers had stopped believing in ghosts?