In-movie reason for Ghostbusters II logo

[Turd Ferguson]

I've always been a huge fan of Ghostbusters. It ranks as my all time favorite movie. I never really cared for Ghostbusters II and I've maybe seen it seven times, whereas I've literally seen the first one over one hundred times.

Anyway, I recently watched them back to back. I hadn't seen the second one in probably ten years. Not as terrible as I remember, it has a few scenes that make me chuckle "And you don't want us exposing ourselves!" and some that are downright creepy "WIIIINNNNNNNNNNSSSSTTTOOOONNNNN!"

But, rewatching it, I started wondering about something I'd never given much thought to before. The GBII logo is pretty awesome. I might even like it better than the logo from the first movie. But, why do the Ghostbusters have this logo in-movie? It's on their uniforms, the firehouse, the Ecto-1A and the hot beverage thermal mug. When they went bankrupt, did they change Ghostbusters, Inc. to Ghostbusters II, Inc? Sort of like when the movie company Carolco went bankrupt they became C2 Pictures?

I'm probably overthinking it but was kind of curious what your explanations are for the GBII logo being in the movie

 

[starfox]

That always bugged me, too. It's kindof breaking the fourth wall.

 

[Kronos]

This never bothered me, but I did live near a book store which named its 2nd store 'volume 2' with a giant II on the sign.

 

[Christopher]

Maybe in-movie it's actually a V-for-victory sign?

 

[Ethros]

I always thought it was just a way of them telling the public (as Ray after the Court scenes declares) "we're back!"

I can see your point that it doesn't really make sense, but... shrug



I've always liked GB2 anyway, I think it was the first film I ever saw at a cinema thinking about it, I would have been about 5 years old. Yeah the first one is a classic and this probably isn't, but its still a really fun movie, and that's how I look at it anyway.

 

[Set Harth]

"You're scaring the straights" is one of the best lines ever.

 

[Dart]

I love the court scene and the digging the road scene Ray is really funny as the foreman. "Not as bad as I thought" is a good way of describing the movie.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Maybe in-movie it's actually a V-for-victory sign?

That's what I thought when seeing the movie, too. It also works with Jthe "we're back" line, and it's easier to explain in-movie than the "2" sign.

 

[ToddKent]

Maybe in-movie it's actually a V-for-victory sign?

Yeah that's what I thought as well. They were gone (defeated) but now they're back (victory)!

Also, as a sidebar, the summer of 1989 was the first year I started going to see a lot of movies in the theater: Ghostbusters 2, Indiana Jones & the Last Crusade, Star Trek V and of course, Batman!

 

[Timby]

But, rewatching it, I started wondering about something I'd never given much thought to before. The GBII logo is pretty awesome. I might even like it better than the logo from the first movie. But, why do the Ghostbusters have this logo in-movie? It's on their uniforms, the firehouse, the Ecto-1A and the hot beverage thermal mug. When they went bankrupt, did they change Ghostbusters, Inc. to Ghostbusters II, Inc? Sort of like when the movie company Carolco went bankrupt they became C2 Pictures?

I'm probably overthinking it but was kind of curious what your explanations are for the GBII logo being in the movie

The logo, like the car itself, is like the avatar for the confused mess that Ghostbusters II was, both "darker" and more action-filled than the first one, while heading into cartoon territory at the same time.

Ecto-1 is sleek, just uses blue lights, very plain bodywork and looks much more like an emergency vehicle. It works as a believable prop, but, more importantly, it's a brilliant punchline. Ghostbusters does a good job of delivering you something ridiculous and then being all "deal with it" about it. See also: The Stay-Puft reveal. Reitman's direction is so happy to stand back and laugh at what it's just shown you, which is one of the things that makes the film so much fun to watch, really.

Ecto-1A is about twenty feet taller, has these garish purple and green lights, scrolling digital message boards, hazard tape decals all over the bodywork, as well as that ridiculously meta logo. Design-wise, I think it's terribly cartoonish, and it loses the statement that the original car had, in being a tremendous contrast to the nuclear-powered hucksters driving it around. I totally get why it was done -- in that the marketing department had its paws all over Ghostbusters II from the very beginning -- and when I was a little kid, I thought it was awesome, but ... it's really just a toy.

It's strange, really. Bo Welch has done some really good stuff, like Men in Black and Batman Returns, but the look of Ghostbusters II is almost universally wrong. (Michael Chapman's cinematography didn't help, of course, and his subpar work is possibly even more bizarre than Welch's, given his pedigree.)

 

[Turd Ferguson]

But, rewatching it, I started wondering about something I'd never given much thought to before. The GBII logo is pretty awesome. I might even like it better than the logo from the first movie. But, why do the Ghostbusters have this logo in-movie? It's on their uniforms, the firehouse, the Ecto-1A and the hot beverage thermal mug. When they went bankrupt, did they change Ghostbusters, Inc. to Ghostbusters II, Inc? Sort of like when the movie company Carolco went bankrupt they became C2 Pictures?

I'm probably overthinking it but was kind of curious what your explanations are for the GBII logo being in the movie

The logo, like the car itself, is like the avatar for the confused mess that Ghostbusters II was, both "darker" and more action-filled than the first one, while heading into cartoon territory at the same time.

Ecto-1 is sleek, just uses blue lights, very plain bodywork and looks much more like an emergency vehicle. It works as a believable prop, but, more importantly, it's a brilliant punchline. Ghostbusters does a good job of delivering you something ridiculous and then being all "deal with it" about it. See also: The Stay-Puft reveal. Reitman's direction is so happy to stand back and laugh at what it's just shown you, which is one of the things that makes the film so much fun to watch, really.

Ecto-1A is about twenty feet taller, has these garish purple and green lights, scrolling digital message boards, hazard tape decals all over the bodywork, as well as that ridiculously meta logo. Design-wise, I think it's terribly cartoonish, and it loses the statement that the original car had, in being a tremendous contrast to the nuclear-powered hucksters driving it around. I totally get why it was done -- in that the marketing department had its paws all over Ghostbusters II from the very beginning -- and when I was a little kid, I thought it was awesome, but ... it's really just a toy.

It's strange, really. Bo Welch has done some really good stuff, like Men in Black and Batman Returns, but the look of Ghostbusters II is almost universally wrong. (Michael Chapman's cinematography didn't help, of course, and his subpar work is possibly even more bizarre than Welch's, given his pedigree.)

I totally agree with everything you just said. I too found it odd that Ghostbusters II was trying to be dark and cartoony at the same time. As a kid, I always thought it was cool that Slimer helped Louis to get to the museum. Now, I wonder why he would. I guess if Vigo took over, then maybe it might diminish the number of hot dog carts he could raid. I just think it's odd that Slimer would help anybody dressed as a Ghostbuster, given the events of the first movie.

The Statue of Liberty was always odd to me too. Like you said, the first one seemed a tad more realistic, but the idea that shooting pink slime all over it can make it move around with a Nintendo Advantage just doesn't agree with me at all. Not to mention, it's a good thing the Ghostbusters read the script and knew to build the slime blowers in the first place. The third act would've been pretty awkward without the ability to hose down the Statue of Liberty, Janusz and Ray.

 

[marillion]

Ok.. First the "real-world" reason - Marketing! The new logo with the "II" was plastered on EVERYTHING - T-shirts, mugs, lunch boxes, etc... Having it in the film as well created a brand image.. Had they used the logo from the first movie, there would have been consumer product brand confusion... People would see the original in the film and want that one, rather than the "II" logo...

Second.. In-movie, I do lean toward the idea of it being a message of victory and/or "Hey! We're back!"... But it's also a real world application of the re-branding process.. The Ghostbusters were known as fakes and con-men at that point, so they had to re-image themselves and disassociate themselves from the past.

As for Ecto - 1A and the movie itself.. Typical sequel-itis... Make it bigger, flashier and louder and people will come. There IS a good story underneath all that was overdone, but all the crap with the statue of liberty and the dancing ectoplasm really made it very silly.

 

[Christopher]

As a kid, I always thought it was cool that Slimer helped Louis to get to the museum. Now, I wonder why he would. I guess if Vigo took over, then maybe it might diminish the number of hot dog carts he could raid. I just think it's odd that Slimer would help anybody dressed as a Ghostbuster, given the events of the first movie.

Well, the very name Slimer for that particular ghost comes from The Real Ghostbusters, the animated series, where he was the team's mascot. So I guess they were following that lead, although the sequel is hard to reconcile with the show's first couple of seasons.

The Statue of Liberty was always odd to me too. Like you said, the first one seemed a tad more realistic, but the idea that shooting pink slime all over it can make it move around with a Nintendo Advantage just doesn't agree with me at all.

I don't see how it's any less realistic than turning Dana and Louis into Terror Dogs, or turning a refrigerator into a portal to the netherworld, or having ghosts and demons and elder gods exist in the first place.

 

[Ethros]

I still love the "rescue moment" with the Statue of Liberty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trJ9jlLuB5o
4:40 onwards in that

Yeah maybe its a hokey idea, and the effects may be slightly dated, but I can never watch the bit from 4:50-5:22 without a massive grin on my face, brilliant

 

[Christopher]

I love the climax to Ghostbusters 2. I love the idea of saving the day with pure good feelings, with inspiring the public to come together and embrace their most positive emotions and goodwill. It's not just the Ghostbusters who save the day, it's the whole city of New York, the community coming together in a common cause. And it's a really good feeling to watch that happen. (Not unlike my reaction to the climax of Spider-Man where the ordinary New Yorkers take a stand against the Goblin and help Spidey save the people in danger, or the subway scene in the second movie.)

 

[Ethros]

"Hey, let me tell you something man, I love you."

 

[Trekker4747]

[
I don't see how it's any less realistic than turning Dana and Louis into Terror Dogs, or turning a refrigerator into a portal to the netherworld, or having ghosts and demons and elder gods exist in the first place.

How about the fact that the terror dogs were apparently "shells" over Dana and Louis (as evidence at the end when Dana and Louis are removed from the terror dogs.) The portal to the netherworld and everything else could be all waved off as part of the "world" they are in.

But the Statue of Liberty thing? That's stretching things just a bit given that the Statue of Liberty is an actual, real structure constructed and built out of copper and other soft metals. It's a structure that doesn't have joints, or movable parts, yet, the Ghostbusters were able to animate it and make it walk and move down the street like a person with very minimal modification to the structure.

Sure, the "mood slime" caused the toaster to move and dance as it listened to music but that can all be explained by the slime just moving and shifting the weight of the toaster as it gets excited and maybe with an ounce or two of "sentience" to it to move in a particular way. But if the toaster suddenly sprouted arms and legs and did a jig you'd probably call BS.

How do you use "mood slime" to cause the Statue of Liberty to walk with joints and move limbs it doesn't have?

I agree, fully, with Timby's take on Ecto-1/1A when I was a kid and saw the movie I hated Ecto-1A.

And, yeah, the "2" logo was just overly meta and just dumb. Yeah, you could hand wave it as maybe a "victory" symbol but what do you think the intent behind it really was? The "2" symbol on the car and firehouse was just dumb. And, yeah, the movie also tried too hard to mix both the dark and the comedy/cartoon inspiration.

The movie is just a mess.

 

[Christopher]

^It's a movie franchise about ghosts and gods. It posits the reality of the supernatural and is fraught with magic and mysticism. It's kind of silly to nitpick engineering technicalities, isn't it? If supernatural forces can materialize a giant marshmallow man out of nowhere or open a portal to another plane of reality or animate paint on a canvas as though it were a live person, then it's no more implausible that they could have a shapeshifting effect on the structure of a statue.

 

[Dick Whitman]

Or that there is real scientific ideas behind any of the Ghostbusters equipment.

 

[Trekker4747]

^It's a movie franchise about ghosts and gods. It posits the reality of the supernatural and is fraught with magic and mysticism. It's kind of silly to nitpick engineering technicalities, isn't it? If supernatural forces can materialize a giant marshmallow man out of nowhere or open a portal to another plane of reality or animate paint on a canvas as though it were a live person, then it's no more implausible that they could have a shapeshifting effect on the structure of a statue.

I guess it's just a matter of what one is willing to accept and how much belief one wants to suspend. I can accept gods, ghosts and equipment that can capture them just as much as I can accept transporters and warp drive.

I accept the "animation" and changing of paint on a canvas as it either being an illusion being created by the ghost/god or hell just being able to move oils around on a canvas.

I accept the materialization of stuff (like several hundred tons of marshmallow) out of nowhere as just more "ghost stuff", they've converted PK energy into matter. :handwave:

But moving a stories-tall, tons heavy, rigid structure and getting it to move and behave in a manner that it cannot (the robe was even draping and moving around the statue is if it was really a fabric as she walked) is beyond what I'm willing to accept. The slime is shown to be nothing more than a substance that moves and reacts to the psycho-kentic energy/moods around it and not to be "capable of thought" the same way the ghosts in the movies are. (Not sure what word works there... "alive", "sentient", "sapient...?") It's just a substance that reacts.

If ghosts had "possessed" the materials in the SoL and made it move that'd be a touch different. But it's not what happened, the Ghostbusters sprayed a substance all over the inside of the SoL, hooked a damn Nintendo-control up to it were able to make a rigid structure walk and move like a person. That's... more than I'm willing to hand-wave away.