MovieChat Forums > Ghostbusters II (1989) Discussion > The Ghostbusters being driven out of bus...

The Ghostbusters being driven out of business just didn't ring true

posted 9 years ago by The-Last-Prydonian
7 replies | jump to latest

The story revolving around the Ghostbusters being driven out of business due to being plagued by lawsuits and court orders was just ridiculous. We're supposed to buy that the people of New York had become convinced they were the victims of an enormous hoax, even though a crack appears in the road outside Dana Barretts apartment building, and people are left covered with marshallow after the destruction of Mr. Stay Puft and that's just for starters. I can't imagine how even with their advanced scientific knowledge and equipment they could have pulled off such an elaborate set-up.

[–] TerrorTribble 9 years ago

Well maybe a lot of the New Yorkers in 1984 had moved to the suburbs by '89. 😊

But seriously, Venkman does cover this a bit at the trial. People don't want to know about the existence of the paranormal. It's too heavy to contemplate, plus it invites ridicule. They'd rather someone else deal with it, and that occasionally means the Ghostbusters end up martyrs to the cause, taking the ridicule on behalf of the public.

Screw you guys. I liked Blues Brothers 2000. :)

[–] ns1crr 9 years ago

The blatant contradiction of the first Ghostbusters gets the film off to a bad start. We saw in the first film that the Ghostbusters ran their business for at least a few months, regularly busting ghosts, and by the finale New York was infested with ghosts that were causing chaos not to mention the thousands of people who must have seen a skyscraper tall marshmallow man destroying buildings around Central Park. We saw in the mayor's office that people thought the Apocalypse had come. It's impossible to believe that nobody except except Louis and Dana still support the Ghostbusters.

It wasn't even necessary in order for them to be underdogs again. Here's how easily it could be changed: the Ghostbusters get blamed for provoking the ghosts, court orders confiscate their equipment and put them in the hands of an governmental ghostbusting team. As ghostbusting is now classed as environmental protection they're naturally led by the Ghostbusters' nemesis, Walter Peck. Instead of messing about with slime for most of the film, the Ghostbusters are now focused on demonstrating that they are the only ones with the know-how to battle the ghosts, made more difficult as Peck turns out to secretly be in league with Vigo.

While I'm at it, the ending can to be fixed too: instead of hanging around in a museum doing nothing, Vigo successfully resurrects and wanders around New York wreaking havoc. With the Ghostbusting equipment destroyed, Ray and Egon must build some out of objects in the environment, while Winston slows Vigo down with his demolitions expertise, and Peter distracts him with taunts.

[–] TerrorTribble 9 years ago

The blatant contradiction

It's not a contradiction, it's a comment on society. They'd rather not deal with unpleasant realities, so they essentially made the Ghostbusters scapegoats. Plus nothing satisfies human nature more than building up heroes, just so they can tear them down again. It doesn't mean no one in the entire city supports them; it just means group think can be a powerful influence.

Screw you guys. I liked Blues Brothers 2000. :)

[–] ryderdvs 9 years ago

This was always my one complaint about the film Rocky Balboa. It doesn't make any sense for Rocky to be living beneath his means, by running Adrian's restaurant. It's completely logical that the character could have gone back to endorsement deals, and filming commercials. George Foreman made approximately $250,000,000 off of the George Foreman Grill. But I understand why Stallone chose to write the character outline in that way.

[–] smoko 9 years ago

...instead of hanging around in a museum doing nothing, Vigo successfully resurrects and wanders around New York wreaking havoc.
I like that idea. The problem with Vigo is that he spent most of the movie in a painting, and all of it in a museum. I want the villain to at least get out of the house once in a while.

[–] 5535 9 years ago

Great ideas ns1crr!

That's original thinking that's lacking in the film industry today!

The only area I'd disagree with, is that I wouldn't want their original equipment destroyed, only confiscated.

[–] Doomy_McDoomerson 9 years ago

We're supposed to buy that the people of New York had become convinced they were the victims of an enormous hoax, even though a crack appears in the road outside Dana Barretts apartment building, and people are left covered with marshallow after the destruction of Mr. Stay Puft and that's just for starters.

I don't think that the people of New York believed they were victims of hoaxsters. I think it was THE JUDGE at their trial who had that idea. If you remember, at the trial scene, after Venkman gave his rousing little speech, people in the gallery actually started cheering for him until the judge silenced them.

The reason the Ghostbusters were driven out of business was, as the dialogue in the movie stated, because of lawsuits. As you pointed out, large portions of that street were ripped up, they blew off the roof a New York City high rise, plus add in any destruction Stay Puff caused. That and the destruction done to their HQ when the ghosts escaped after Peck shut off the machine.

As Ray stated, they were sued by multiple people, and later Venkman stated the Mayor stiffed them on the bill (basically pointed the finger at them and didn't come to their defense) which, I assume would have led Ghostbusters to having to file for bankruptcy, and, like criminals, were banned from any Ghostbusting duties.

I'm not saying I agree with the direction the movie took, as an (amateur) screenwriter myself, I can think of plenty of other directions the sequel could have taken. But, it did explain in-movie why the Ghostbusters were in that predicament.
"I'm gonna show you something beautiful: Everyone screaming for mercy."