[RichardLess]

Ok. So we’ve all probably read GB2 criticism on the internet before. Even on this here website. And if you think about it what’s the one thing a lot of that criticism usually mentions—beyond the movie being a carbon copy of the first film?

“Why doesn’t everyone believe in Ghosts after the first movie. Didnt they see Mr stay Puft”

It’s a common complaint. I’ve even addressed this before on other threads here where this pops up from time to time. But as GBfans you all are out there on the front lines of GBfandom. So the next time someone comes at you with the “why doesn’t everyone believe in Ghosts” criticism of GB2, hit them back with this.

How many people in the movie actually say they don’t believe? Think about it. How many characters actually say the words “I don’t believe”? There’s the Judge. Hardmeyer, the kids dad. And…maybe the doctor at the psyche ward?

4 characters? One of whom we don’t meet. And one of which…doesn’t say either way. He’s just holding them as a political job. But I think it’s safe to say he’s a non believer. You think think the prosecutor but nope. She doesn’t say anything of the sort. In fact she brings up the supernatural.

But then we have all the multitude of fans and crowds that show up cheering them on in the court room and in at the end. They clearly believe. So it’s thousands of people Vs 4 and the take away is that somehow people don’t believe? And let us not forget Mr Bass Masters himself.

Shit, Hardmeyer is a political hack so who knows what he really believes? He probably doesn’t even know. He’s a politician! And the judge is literally insane. Insane. He threatens to burn men alive for…digging a hole and causing a black out. Does that seem reasonable to you? Not to mention he becomes a believer in no time once his old pals pay him a *shocking* visit(I’m sorry).

How this whole criticism got started…I don’t know. But it seems to have taken hold. But it’s non sense.

For Christ sake there are people in the world right now, as we speak/type(A lot of them) Who think with every fibre of their being that the earth is flat. Or that we didn’t go to the moon. So even if it was a plot line that most people didn’t believe…is that really surprising? Given the world we live in?

[ghoulishfright]

Plus, even in the first film, you had people -- at least Walter Peck -- who refused to believe in ghosts, even after he saw the containment unit explode with his own two eyeballs, and the denizens of hell unleashed upon the city, he just doubled down and said, "Oh please, it's a fake electronic light show." Some people are just too thick-headed to accept reality.

(Incidentally, I think it would be funny if Peck is still a hardcore denier in the new film, even after getting clobbered with Stay Puft goop. It would totally be in character.)

[Kingpin]

How many people in the movie actually say they don’t believe? Think about it. How many characters actually say the words “I don’t believe”? There’s the Judge. Hardmeyer, the kids dad. And…maybe the doctor at the psyche ward?

4 characters? One of whom we don’t meet. And one of which…doesn’t say either way. He’s just holding them as a political job. But I think it’s safe to say he’s a non believer. You think think the prosecutor but nope. She doesn’t say anything of the sort. In fact she brings up the supernatural.

But then we have all the multitude of fans and crowds that show up cheering them on in the court room and in at the end. They clearly believe. So it’s thousands of people Vs 4 and the take away is that somehow people don’t believe? And let us not forget Mr Bass Masters himself.

I think those four-or-so confirmed sceptics do speak to the broader trend present in New York City. They acknowledge the existance of the Ghostbusters, but they probably regard them either as a joke or an eccentric curiousity... Manhattan shows no signs of having become a place of pilgrimmage for those who believe in the paranormal, and the implications are that ghost sightings have dropped back to the baseline, which is not going to help convince the wider public that the Ghostbusters weren't frauds.

Which seems reflected in their post-Ghostbusters careers. Egon is the most successful in that he's gone back to academia at Columbia, though it's not in a field directly related to his work as a Ghostbuster. Ray's career is more directly linked, but his bookstore isn't treated as a shrine by those who believe, nor does he appear to enjoy much status as a celebrity (not that he'd seek it out like Peter would).

Even at their trial (which seems more like it was supposed to be an arraignment hearing, rather than a full-blown trial - maybe that's what it was supposed to be until the slime fed into Wexler's anger), the only witnesses the guys have to speak to their defence are Louis, Peter (and presumably Egon and Ray)... I appreciate the court action was rushed, but none of their former clients were willing to speak in their defence?

Linking back to the aforementioned-arraignment hearing bit, as we see some criminals being led into the courtroom... And also some cops sat in the public gallery who weren't involved in the arrest on 1st Avenue, it seems logicial to assume some... Maybe even many of the people in the courtroom that day weren't there specifically for the Ghostbusters' case.
Some may be fans of the Ghostbusters, or curious members of the public who saw they were due in court... Others are likely witnesses for the other cases that were on Wexler's docket for the day (and at least two court sketch artists, which I never actually noticed before!)

As for the response from the gallery, that doesn't automatically mean they're all ghost believers. Peter won a lot of them over with his quip about the condition of 1st Avenue, and his heart-felt speech about helping those in a situation that isn't handled by the normal emergency services probably also resonated with them.
I bet some even cheered because they view the Ghostbusters as the underdogs in a case brought by the city, and it was nice to see them get another match point in... Though I know you're not a fan of that kind of speculation.

I think you can make a stronger argument that the public gallery supported the Ghostbusters because they looked like they were being treated harshly by the city for an accident, than that they were being supported because the majority of the gallery believed in ghosts (at least until the Scoleris come along, of course).

I think we can conclude Hardemeyer doesn't believe in ghosts, based on how he treated Peter at the TV station.

Ultimately a lot of this stems from the issue not being addressed/as fully explained in the film as it could've been... Of all the things we've talked about that could've been explained on-screen but weren't, this is definitely one of the things that should've had a few moments of exposition... Egon and Ray could speculate that the mind's coping mechanism convinces you the stuff wasn't real, or that less of the city than you might think actually witnessed the ghosts in person, or saw what was happening at Central Park.

[RichardLess]

How many people in the movie actually say they don’t believe? Think about it. How many characters actually say the words “I don’t believe”? There’s the Judge. Hardmeyer, the kids dad. And…maybe the doctor at the psyche ward?

4 characters? One of whom we don’t meet. And one of which…doesn’t say either way. He’s just holding them as a political job. But I think it’s safe to say he’s a non believer. You think think the prosecutor but nope. She doesn’t say anything of the sort. In fact she brings up the supernatural.

But then we have all the multitude of fans and crowds that show up cheering them on in the court room and in at the end. They clearly believe. So it’s thousands of people Vs 4 and the take away is that somehow people don’t believe? And let us not forget Mr Bass Masters himself.

I think those four-or-so confirmed sceptics do speak to the broader trend present in New York City. They acknowledge the existance of the Ghostbusters, but they probably regard them either as a joke or an eccentric curiousity... Manhattan shows no signs of having become a place of pilgrimmage for those who believe in the paranormal, and the implications are that ghost sightings have dropped back to the baseline, which is not going to help convince the wider public that the Ghostbusters weren't frauds.

Which seems reflected in their post-Ghostbusters careers. Egon is the most successful in that he's gone back to academia at Columbia, though it's not in a field directly related to his work as a Ghostbuster. Ray's career is more directly linked, but his bookstore isn't treated as a shrine by those who believe, nor does he appear to enjoy much status as a celebrity (not that he'd seek it out like Peter would).

Even at their trial (which seems more like it was supposed to be an arraignment hearing, rather than a full-blown trial - maybe that's what it was supposed to be until the slime fed into Wexler's anger), the only witnesses the guys have to speak to their defence are Louis, Peter (and presumably Egon and Ray)... I appreciate the court action was rushed, but none of their former clients were willing to speak in their defence?

Linking back to the aforementioned-arraignment hearing bit, as we see some criminals being led into the courtroom... And also some cops sat in the public gallery who weren't involved in the arrest on 1st Avenue, it seems logicial to assume some... Maybe even many of the people in the courtroom that day weren't there specifically for the Ghostbusters' case.
Some may be fans of the Ghostbusters, or curious members of the public who saw they were due in court... Others are likely witnesses for the other cases that were on Wexler's docket for the day (and at least two court sketch artists, which I never actually noticed before!)

As for the response from the gallery, that doesn't automatically mean they're all ghost believers. Peter won a lot of them over with his quip about the condition of 1st Avenue, and his heart-felt speech about helping those in a situation that isn't handled by the normal emergency services probably also resonated with them.
I bet some even cheered because they view the Ghostbusters as the underdogs in a case brought by the city, and it was nice to see them get another match point in... Though I know you're not a fan of that kind of speculation.

I think you can make a stronger argument that the public gallery supported the Ghostbusters because they looked like they were being treated harshly by the city for an accident, than that they were being supported because the majority of the gallery believed in ghosts (at least until the Scoleris come along, of course).

I think we can conclude Hardemeyer doesn't believe in ghosts, based on how he treated Peter at the TV station.

Ultimately a lot of this stems from the issue not being addressed/as fully explained in the film as it could've been... Of all the things we've talked about that could've been explained on-screen but weren't, this is definitely one of the things that should've had a few moments of exposition... Egon and Ray could speculate that the mind's coping mechanism convinces you the stuff wasn't real, or that less of the city than you might think actually witnessed the ghosts in person, or saw what was happening at Central Park.

Yeah the trial has always been problematic for a realism POV. That’s just not the way things happen.

The trial is a movie trial. It’s not at all suppose to reflect the real way the Justice system works. It has nothing to do with the slime. The prosecution is already prepared and ready to go. If we got a realistic trial it wouldn’t really work so it’s one of those weird things some movies do where it just gives the basic idea. Again the idea here is to present our heroes as underdogs with the system coming down on them. That’s a constant theme in these movies.

The people cheered at the who ya gonna call line. That’s not a quip I don’t think. They cut to the audience showing those two dudes nodding. I mean these aren’t mutually exclusive ideas. Venkman made a quip about holes, sure. People laughed. The Ghostbusters are underdogs( can you clarify what you mean about the speculation here? Are you referring to when I said they weren’t everyday joes? That’s hardly the same as underdogs. Plenty of smart people can be underdogs. Look at the life of Nicola Tesla. I said they are heroes but that doesn’t mean they can’t be underdogs. Not really sure what you mean here).
If the audience didn’t buy the ghostbusters as legit, it means they are frauds, right? and no one is going to cheer for a fraud because he makes a quip in court. For that he has to run for President of the United States first. But the audience could cheer and laugh both because it’s a quip, the Gbs are underdogs and they support them. There’s nothing to indicate this isn’t the case.

The audience is with them because they view them as legit. That’s my read. But let’s say you are right. They cheer only because of the reasons you mention. Ok. That still doesn’t do anything for the “why doesn’t everyone believe in ghosts” criticism.

This is about how “how many people say they don’t believe in ghosts”. The movie by far shows us more people supporting the ghostbusters than being against them. Support and approval tends to mean people are in line with the thinking of who you are supporting and approving. Most times. And given that this is a movie, and not a documentary, I think the idea here is to show us: Everyday people are for the Ghostbuters. Government and people in positions of power? Not so much. Except when they(government) needs them.

So the criticism is “why doesn’t everyone believe in ghosts after the first movie”. And that just doesn’t hold water. If everyone went around calling them frauds, this criticism would have merit. We only get people in position of power doing this and one kids dad.

Let’s keep in mind it’s been 5 years since Gozer. Your point about the pilgrimage doesn’t mean people don’t believe. This is New York. The city of apathy. In real life would Central Park west become a shrine and have people coming to see it from all over. Of course.
But the absence of that in a movie doesn’t mean people don’t believe. We don’t see it, it doesn’t mean it’s not happening. Doesn’t mean it IS happening either. We can only go off what the movie provide and so again, do we see the ghostbusters at a low point to start the movie? Forgotten about? Brushed aside? Definitely. But “New York Minute” is a phrase for a reason and it’s been 5 years, that’s a lot of New York minutes . Look at what we see when the first movie ends. People cheering. We see the same thing in this movie.



I think your POV is if people believed in ghosts the Ghostbusters would be constant celebrities, there would be fan clubs and the Central Park west case would be treated not unlike the Roswell UFO incident. Would that be correct?

The movie is wise to keep focus on New York & not really mention the ramifications of anything beyond that. So Ghostbuters is really a local thing. Venkman is the only one of the GB’s to really seek out celebrity which is within character and he, well, he has a TV show. Ray and Egon are perfectly happy to do what they do. With Ray and Winston being famous enough to do parties and appearances.


But as far as going by just what the movie show us? We do not see people doubting them beyond the examples given. So the REAL non BS answer is this:

We don’t know who believes and who doesn’t. Which works just as well.

[Kingpin]

can you clarify what you mean about the speculation here?

Are you referring to this bit?

Though I know you're not a fan of that kind of speculation.

-If I may suggest, if you break the post you're quoting into sections like I do, it makes it easier to answer the questions you bring up about something I, or someone else has written.

In (hopeful) response to your question, I'd just noticed on past occasions when we've been discussing scenes that you sometimes reject outright someone's interpretation of a scene because there isn't direct evidence to support it, even though it is one of the likely interpretations of the scene. I was just remarking, based on past experience, you'd probably reject my idea that the guys were being supported by the public in the court because they were underdogs in the legal system... Rather than neccesarily because they were the Ghostbusters.

The movie by far shows us more people supporting the ghostbusters than being against them.

It doesn't show us them categorically stating they believe them.
A stage magician can claim his magic is real, and he might prove popular with the audience... But that doesn't mean they believe for a second that what he's doing is anything but smoke, mirrors, sleight of hand and misdirection. You can root for an underdog while also acknowledge there's no chance in hell, or you think there's no chance in hell they'll succeed in what they're trying to do.

We only get people in position of power doing this and one kids dad.

Yet that "one kid's dad" can suggest that it's not just people in positions of power who thought the Ghostbusters were full of crap, but people on the lower levels of the societal/power sliding scale as well. The ConEd guy is plausibly another example, in that he was much more convinced that the Ghostbusters had put the slime under the street than it was the product of something supernatural.

We don’t see it, it doesn’t mean it’s not happening.

It can't be said that it is happening though. There's nothing suggesting New York is any different spiritually in 1989 than it was in 1984.

I appreciate that we're grappling with things that Dan and Harold likely never considered when they were writing the script... I wish they had considered if New York would've become a paranormal holy sight in the wake of the Gozer case.

Either way, I feel the version of Ghostbusters II that eventually made it into the cinemas suggests (intentionally or unintentionally), that the guys aren't taken seriously even after they saved the world.

If the majority of New York had believed and supported the Ghostbusters, then surely Mayor Lenny and his administration wouldn't have been able to get away with refusing the pay the Ghostbusters for the Gozer job...
The negative response from the Ghostbusters-supporting majority of the public would've run the strong risk of harming Lenny's future career prospects if the news ever got out.

And going back to the post-Ghostbusters careers of Ray and Egon, they clearly weren't taken seriously as paranormal investigators by their peers at the university... If the university regends/department heads had believed in them and what they were doing, wouldn't the university have brought them on to fund a revitalised Paranormal Studies Department?

I believe the suggestion/evidence is there that the Ghostbusters weren't believed or taken seriously by the majority of New Yorkers... It frustratingly requires us to read between the lines, but there's too much stuff present in the film to convince me otherwise.

I think your POV is if people believed in ghosts the Ghostbusters would be constant celebrities, there would be fan clubs and the Central Park west case would be treated not unlike the Roswell UFO incident. Would that be correct?

Maybe... I'd imagine that had New York become a paranormal pilgrimage spot, that Ray for instance would probably get groupies turning up at his shop, and Peter might be dealing with autograph hunters... While also taking advantage of any impressionable ladies who wanted to know more about the famous Ghostbuster... The kinda stuff we saw at the height of their fame in the first movie.

As I said in my previous reply, I believe they are the victims of a lot of the population convincing themselves that what they saw wasn't real... I can especially believe this because it happens all-too-often in the world we live in.

[RichardLess]

can you clarify what you mean about the speculation here?

Are you referring to this bit?

Though I know you're not a fan of that kind of speculation.

-If I may suggest, if you break the post you're quoting into sections like I do, it makes it easier to answer the questions you bring up about something I, or someone else has written.

In (hopeful) response to your question, I'd just noticed on past occasions when we've been discussing scenes that you sometimes reject outright someone's interpretation of a scene because there isn't direct evidence to support it, even though it is one of the likely interpretations of the scene. I was just remarking, based on past experience, you'd probably reject my idea that the guys were being supported by the public in the court because they were underdogs in the legal system... Rather than neccesarily because they were the Ghostbusters.

The movie by far shows us more people supporting the ghostbusters than being against them.

It doesn't show us them categorically stating they believe them.
A stage magician can claim his magic is real, and he might prove popular with the audience... But that doesn't mean they believe for a second that what he's doing is anything but smoke, mirrors, sleight of hand and misdirection. You can root for an underdog while also acknowledge there's no chance in hell, or you think there's no chance in hell they'll succeed in what they're trying to do.

We only get people in position of power doing this and one kids dad.

Yet that "one kid's dad" can suggest that it's not just people in positions of power who thought the Ghostbusters were full of crap, but people on the lower levels of the societal/power sliding scale as well. The ConEd guy is plausibly another example, in that he was much more convinced that the Ghostbusters had put the slime under the street than it was the product of something supernatural.

We don’t see it, it doesn’t mean it’s not happening.

It can't be said that it is happening though. There's nothing suggesting New York is any different spiritually in 1989 than it was in 1984.

I appreciate that we're grappling with things that Dan and Harold likely never considered when they were writing the script... I wish they had considered if New York would've become a paranormal holy sight in the wake of the Gozer case.

Either way, I feel the version of Ghostbusters II that eventually made it into the cinemas suggests (intentionally or unintentionally), that the guys aren't taken seriously even after they saved the world.

If the majority of New York had believed and supported the Ghostbusters, then surely Mayor Lenny and his administration wouldn't have been able to get away with refusing the pay the Ghostbusters for the Gozer job...
The negative response from the Ghostbusters-supporting majority of the public would've run the strong risk of harming Lenny's future career prospects if the news ever got out.

And going back to the post-Ghostbusters careers of Ray and Egon, they clearly weren't taken seriously as paranormal investigators by their peers at the university... If the university regends/department heads had believed in them and what they were doing, wouldn't the university have brought them on to fund a revitalised Paranormal Studies Department?

I believe the suggestion/evidence is there that the Ghostbusters weren't believed or taken seriously by the majority of New Yorkers... It frustratingly requires us to read between the lines, but there's too much stuff present in the film to convince me otherwise.

I think your POV is if people believed in ghosts the Ghostbusters would be constant celebrities, there would be fan clubs and the Central Park west case would be treated not unlike the Roswell UFO incident. Would that be correct?

Maybe... I'd imagine that had New York become a paranormal pilgrimage spot, that Ray for instance would probably get groupies turning up at his shop, and Peter might be dealing with autograph hunters... While also taking advantage of any impressionable ladies who wanted to know more about the famous Ghostbuster... The kinda stuff we saw at the height of their fame in the first movie.

As I said in my previous reply, I believe they are the victims of a lot of the population convincing themselves that what they saw wasn't real... I can especially believe this because it happens all-too-often in the world we live in.

I hear ya I know but I’m far too lazy to do that quote business. I’m doing this from my iPhone and that’s just…yeah. It’s a pain in the ass. Unless there’s an easier way? Every quote I want to respond to I have to copy and past, do the quote thingies. If there a way to do that’s easier, I’m all ears, or eyes.

I write these posts in a stream of consciousness way. I’m sure that sucks for those reading sometimes but that’s just how I roll baby. No in all seriousness it can be very…trying for me to copy and paste with my fingers on my iPhone. My hands shake pretty aggressively when performing certain tasks.

And I’m all for speculating. What I’m against is what you kinda just did. The “likelihood of it being correct interpretation”. Careful with that. You might think it’s the correct or right interpretation. Doesn’t mean it is. Likelihood or otherwise. For example I love Mr Michael T’s theories. How involved they are. I don’t agree with all of them but I love the thought he puts into them and I’m fairly confident the majority of the time it’s more thought than the filmmakers put into it. So I guess it’s a difference between calling head canon canon. (A lot of these issues revolve around GBA and the mini pufts. They don’t make sense and I’ll die on that hill lol)

It doesn’t show them categorically saying they believe in ghosts? I think the magician thing is a poor analogy. This is a court of law not a magic show. You applaud a magic show and show support because you are seeing a cool illusion. You get what you paid for. Venkman says who ya gonna call and the people cheer. Why? Because they agree with him. Sometimes shit happens, someone has to deal with and who ya gonna call. We hear audible “Yeah’s” from the crowd. If cheering for that doesn’t indicate you buy what that person is selling, I don’t know what to tell ya. Seems pretty clear to me. What does the prosecutor say? She references supernatural. As their “exclusive province”. They cheer to Venkman’s response to that. That’s as clear as it gets I think


The kid telling Ray his dad says they are full of crap is a meta joke. I don’t think it’s indicative of anything other than what the movie tells us. Frankly, we don’t know if his dad holds a position of power. We don’t see the dad. So it’s more of a “Look at how far they’ve fallen, they are taking shit from a snot nose kid”.

Now don’t get me wrong. There’s definitely regular folk that wouldn’t believe them. But this is about the unfounded criticism.

See the con Ed guy is a separate issue and his stance is not known. He catches the GB’s lying. So his skepticism would be warranted. But if he believes in ghost isn’t hinted at one way or the other. Just that he doesn’t buy the slime, which as far as he knows, has nothing to do with ghosts.

Something to consider…how long would you say the GB’s were active for? As a business? In the first movie. 4 months? If that?

I’m glad the movie doesn’t get bogged down with stuff like showing Ray with groupies or anything that’s not really important to the story. Showing Ray and Winston slumming it doing Birthday parties and then dealing with groupies, having Venkman signing autographs after his TV show…the movie wouldn’t work as well. It might be more in line with that might happen in reality but we need to see them down and out. That Venkman has resorted to pretending to be a psychic on TV. That sort of pathetic nature would be undone if you have Venkman’s ego satiated by groupies or autograph seekers, right?

As I said in my previous reply, I believe they are the victims of a lot of the population convincing themselves that what they saw wasn't real... I can especially believe this because it happens all-too-often in the world we live in.

Ok. Here’s another thing to consider. What is the population convincing themselves isn’t real? Again you are assuming things not found in evidence. Did anyone besides those present at CPW see Mr. Stay Puft? You see a camera but we don’t know what it captured or didn’t capture. We don’t know if the PKE forces messed with the TV signal or that even stuff like that can be captured on camera at all. In GB2 they have to do all sorts of technobabble to “see” Vigo on the film, right? So we just don’t know what others saw or didn’t see and the movie is smart not to address this I think.

Also check out that quote action? Lol. No I’ll try and take your advice and use quotes when I can but it’s just such a hassle sometimes. It’s a bitch for me to copy and paste things. My hands tend to shake when I perform sma,l focused actions. I’d be an awful surgeon. Can’t even play guitar anymore.

[deadderek]

This thread will absolutely do exactly NOTHING to stop/end any criticism of Ghostbusters II.

[RichardLess]

This thread will absolutely do exactly NOTHING to stop/end any criticism of Ghostbusters II.

Well not with that attitude it won’t! And it has only the potential to do away with a certain specific criticism. It’s up to the rest of you to take my hard thought wisdom out into the streets and spread the good word.

[Alex Newborn]

Trying to change the public perception about Ghostbusters is a mostly thankless task. I've been fighting the persistent urban myths for years now. I've likened it to deciding to be the pebble altering the course of a raging river. Or fighting a hydra. Cut off one head of misinformation, two more spring up.

Every once in a while, though, you get validated.

One these rare occasions, it's usually on social media. Someone new will make a cliche'd post about a Ghostbusters topic, and either I'll get tagged in the comments or someone will actually just drop in the link of one of my YouTube videos covering it in detail.

And it's mainly just one small cadre of folks doing this, most of whom I've never met in person.

So hang in there. Sometimes the traction is slow to take effect.

Alex