Corrected entry: When Peter and Dana meet at the fountain, there is a shot of Nerd-boy sitting on the fountain. Next, Peter tells Dana, "Sigourney, but I like you as an artist." Peter mentions the actress's name, not the character name.

Correction: He doesn't say "Sigourney". He says "It's corny".

Greg Dwyer

Corrected entry: At the end when they cross the streams, Stay Puft is looking at them at their level. He was nowhere near that tall.

Correction: He was climbing the building.

Phaneron Premium member

Corrected entry: After the Staypuft Marshmallow has been blown up we see everyone covered with marshmallow (except for Bill Murray). When we see them leaving the building, everyone has suddenly been cleaned up.

Correction: Submitted and corrected before. The Ghostbusters have had plenty of time to clean up on their way down the building, especially since they were covered in marshmallow at night, and when they reach the street, it's morning.

Corrected entry: After Ray's dream sequence, when we see all three 'busters lying in bed: after he finishes tossing and turning Bill Murray appears to sit up, as if expecting the end of the take.

Correction: Actually, this whole scene was meant to be 'real'. It was, however, edited because it was too long, and turned in to a 'dream' sequence. As a result they filmed extra shots of Ray sleeping (and dreaming), and the joke was that Ray was groaning with pleasure while dreaming of the ghost/oral sex, and his moaning and falling off the bed woke the others. If you look carefully, Bill Murray (Peter) is actually looking at Ray, having just been woken up by him....

Corrected entry: The Ghostbusters cross their proton pack streams which results in a tremendous explosion. The next scene shows the blast pushing Mr. Sta-Puft away from the building. A second later another scene shows the explosion radiating outward from the roof. The only part of him shown over the edge of the building is his head and his right hand. To get all over the Ghostbusters, marshmallow would have to be blown in the opposite direction against the force of the blast. It makes sense that there was marshmallow all over the street, but how did it land on the Ghostbusters?

Grumpy Scot

Correction: That is part of the joke. Just like part of the joke is that all of the Ghostbusters are covered in marshmallow except for Venkman, and that the explosion should have killed all of the Ghostbusters, along with Dana and Lewis in the first place. It doesn't make sense because it is not supposed to.

The movie has many more and better jokes than the fact that its climax does not make logical sense. Of course, they didn't study the ballistics involved in a few tons of marshmallow being heated by heavy radiation shot by an imaginary device, but we're here to nitpick, after all.

Sammo Premium member

Correction: The dream ghost was Kymberly Herrin - Playboy playmate of the month for March 1981.

Thomas Norris

Corrected entry: In the scene after Dana's orchestra rehearsal, when Dana sees Venkman skipping by, she asks the "stiff" to wait there a moment. The "stiff" replies with "What? Oh, sure", however his lips do not move.

Correction: He indeed does say the words. What he says doesnt actually need much mouth motion at all (try it yourself) but watch his throat/adam's apple to see the motion that matches his words.

Corrected entry: In the sequence where the ghosts go berserk in New York, one ghost shoots itself into a taxi cab through the muffler. Right after that a man goes into the taxi, and we see the ghost at the wheel, in the form of a live corpse. The taxi then proceeds to drive off. However, it is now being driven by a regular guy, easily visible in the shot for a second or two.

Correction: We have no idea if this is an actual ghost driving the car (if so, this is the only instance in the film where a ghost manifests itself in a solid form), or if it's a possession, giving the driver the momentary appearance of a corpse.

JC Fernandez

Corrected entry: Scene where Venkman gives Egon the candy bar and says, "You've earned it": in the original film version, Venkman gives Egon a Nestlé Crunch bar; in the VHS/DVD versions, the candy bar is a Payday. I'm guessing there was a contract dispute with Nestlé sometime between the film release and the video release of the movie

Correction: It's always been a Nestle Crunch bar. In the theater and on DVD. It was too small to see on VHS.

Corrected entry: In the scene in the hallway at the hotel with the green ghost, the ghost goes through a wall right above a vase of ferns, and about a second later, a cart crashes into the table with the ferns on it. The ferns go up into the air and out of the shot, but they never come back down. (00:33:14)

Correction: This scene is in slow motion, which is why they don't come back down.

Corrected entry: In the scene where Dana gets out of her car with the bag of groceries (just before you see the statue on the roof crumble) all of the cars are driving on the left side of the road. The story, however, takes place in NYC.

Correction: Its a one way street, so all lanes are in the same direction.


The entry is wrong, so is the correction though; it's shown as a two-way street with cars going both ways (it is also not the moment before the statues crumble).

Sammo Premium member

Corrected entry: The movie takes place in the fall of 1984, but when Dana visits the Ghostbusters for the first time, Janine to kill time is intently reading her copy of People Magazine with Cher on the cover. It's the January 23 issue; it's not an absolute impossibility, but it's obviously a magazine they picked up the day of the shooting (which happened late 1983 to early 1984). (00:21:15)

Sammo Premium member

Correction: I'm sorry, but this is highly far-fetched. No mistake is sight in any way. There is absolutely nothing wrong about someone reading a magazine, new or old.


To add to what the others said, I'll also add that most businesses, doctor's offices, etc. don't usually have new magazines on the magazine rack. They tend to keep old ones around for people to read instead. Weirdly enough, there's actually a reason for it - studies/polls show that places that put out new magazines tend to get most of them stolen. So they purposely just put out whatever old magazines they have lying around. Chances are, that's one of the only magazines they had sitting around the Ghostbusters HQ.


Oh absolutely, as anyone who's been to the doctor's or even the barber shop has experienced (newspapers are usually the daily ones instead, it's cheap and makes sense), but it's not as if there is a waiting room or magazine rack there, and their business freshly opened so it's not a leftover. Again, I personally find the justification of the magazine clashing with the fictional timeline but matching perfectly the one of the shooting less straightforward than the explanation, but of course it's my own view and as I said with full disclosure and honesty in the entry, it's not a complete impossibility. We don't see the whole place so there can be a waiting table somewhere with magazines from 9 months prior that one of the Ghostbusters picked up somewhere and I don't deny it.

Sammo Premium member

This is getting a little redundant but again; simple, it's her desk, there are no other magazines or magazines rack nor a waiting room in a place that just opened for business, and I find more believable by a very good margin that they used whatever magazine they had handy when filming, which happens to be the time when that magazine is from, than thinking that it was a deliberate choice coherent with the fictional world to have her read at her desk a random old thing. I respect the objections I have read so far, but I already weighed them before posting and anyone can make their own judgement on that weighing them differently.

Sammo Premium member

I think you need to look up the word mistake before posting something new. Because it makes completely no sense to post this.


Ah, well, I explained more than abundantly why I thought it relevant to post the objectively verifiable detail with a caveat and I wouldn't randomly do it whenever characters happen to read a magazines in movies - the 'meta' explanation is by far more linear, and I say it as someone who had months-old mags in their backpack when I was a teenager. I respect other people's evaluations and I don't mind if the entry is downvoted based on a disagreement about its relevancy on grounds of not being sufficiently incongruous to be a mistake. I think we can leave it at that and refrain from suggestions on what other people need to do.;).

Sammo Premium member

Sure, I said it all in the entry already. There's no law of nature or man-made that forbids a secretary from bringing at work a 9 months old weekly magazine. I think the real (or less far-fetched, if you will) reason is more than apparent, but do what you want with the information.;).

Sammo Premium member

The fundamental problem is that you yourself said it's not necessarily a mistake... ergo, it's not a mistake. Sure, in a meta context, it probably was just a magazine they picked up before filming... but that doesn't make it a mistake in-movie. There're many reasons why someone might be reading an old magazine, which invalidates the mistake. Case in point, we keep old newspapers and magazines at my house to re-read, because sometimes they have good articles, recipes, etc. It's totally possible and even likely she might be reading an old magazine.


Correction: You said it yourself: it's perfectly plausible for her to read whatever she feels like.

Sacha Premium member

Corrected entry: When Peter and Dana are looking in her refrigerator after the Gozer incident, notice the Coke can on the top shelf. In the wide shot, it has "Coca-Cola" written in small cursive letters, but in the close-ups, it just says "Coke" and the letters are large, and in print.


Correction: If you look closely, there are actually two cans of Coke in the refrigerator. The on nearest Peter is the one with the cursive writing, and the one on Dana's side is the one with the big bold lettering. Although if you watch the can with the cursive writing, the can turns to the left just a bit from when the refrigerator was first opened.


Corrected entry: After the battle with Gozer and the Stay-Puft Marshmallow man, if you pay close attention, you can see that the marshmallow goo covering Ray varies in amount, especially after he apologises for the barbecued dog hair comment.

Correction: Just before the barbequed dog hair comment, watch Ray in the lower right section of the screen. He is clearly seen to be wiping marshmallow off of his face, which accounts for the change in amount.

Corrected entry: When Dana returns from dog form she has no foam in her hair. When she emerges from the building at the bottom with Bill Murray she does.

Correction: She had to walk down the stairs through the entire building with a group of people covered in marshmallow. It wouldn't be hard to get some on her on the way down.

Correction: Both shots take place during different time frames: When she becomes human she has no foam, and much later on she walks down the building with foam on her. There's plenty of time for her to get covered in foam for whatever the reasons.

Sacha Premium member

Correction: It is an ellipsis, many minutes in between have gone by. It is not a mistake that takes place in a matter of seconds. She could have hugged any ghostbusters and get covered in foam, for example.

Sacha Premium member

Corrected entry: When Gozar, or the voice of that lady character is telling the Ghostbusters to "choose" the form of their destructor, Peter tells them the example about J. Edgar Hoover and that they need to clear their minds. Well if he was thinking of J. Edgar Hoover at the time, shouldn't he have came out instead? (01:29:41)

Correction: No, because Gozer probably would give the Ghostbusters some time to reach a decision.

Disagree. It's Gozer the Destroyer. Not Gozer the Magnanimous... Choosing is all the break they get. But I can't prove that. Of course neither can you, so I find it a weak argument to stand behind. Luckily, whether or not Gozer the Destroyer would give them time is irrelevant. The choice was not made by the first person/character/being that pops into any of the GB's heads. Their choice is made the first time any of the GB team chooses a p/b/c "as their Destroyer." The line about J. Edgar Hoover was for illustrative purposes only. Peter didn't say, "if it were up to me, I'd choose J Edgar Hoover to be our Destroyer. And then that's who Gozer will appear as to Destroyer us. Does that answer your question, Ray?" (I can't remember who he was explaining to.) No, he's just explaining concept. Ray even says when asked what he did; (paraphrasing here,) I'm sorry. It just came to me. Something from my childhood. Something that could Never Ever Hurt Us... And I remembered Saturday mornings and Mr. Staypuft..." Ray thought of the spmm *in terms of selecting him as a Destroyer* in an attempt to trump the devil's bargain presented by Gozer. That or he went to La-La land and made a dumb choice. That's really the key word there; choice. Or "choose," rather. When you choose something, you don't just act on the first thought it idea that pops into your head. No, you consider a few options, maybe run an informal cost/benefit analysis. Then you pick your course of action, or in this case, Destroyer Avatar. If she had said maybe, "Think of a Destroyer." I could see the argument for the beskirted Director. At least that's always been my understanding.

Ray thought of the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man before Peter said J. Edgar Hoover. Simple.

It doesn't matter if Gozer would give them time or not; Gozer doesn't say "the first thing you mention is what I will assume is your choice." We so not understand how Gozer interprets choice, so we can't say it's done wrong. No mistake.

Corrected entry: At the beginning of Ghostbusters, Peter Venkman says that he studies the effects of negative reinforcement on ESP ability, when, in fact, he actually studies the effects of positive punishment on ESP ability. This can be seen in the fact that he adds an aversive stimulus to the subject when the subject "gets it wrong" in order to decrease that behavior, which is positive punishment. If he was studying negative reinforcement, he would have to make the shock occur at all times unless the subject guessed the right card, at which point, the shock would be removed. Of course, Peter's methods were shown to be less than sound.

Correction: The "negative reinforcement" occurs with the female subject. She sees that the punishment for getting a wrong answer is electric shock. When she gets the right answer (or so Venkman tells her) she escapes that aversive stimulus. *That* is negative reinforcement. The experiment is bunk anyway, because Venkman is lying to them both.

Phixius Premium member

You could just as easily say that she's receiving positive reinforcement because he keeps complimenting her. The only thing that's for sure here is that his experimental design and conduct has a faulty member is poor.

Correction: The shock isn't the only stimulus. He's is also either being overtly obvious that he's helping the woman OR could be that the stimulus is the woman getting all the right answers.

Or that Venkman is a hack and doesn't know the difference between negative reinforcement and positive punishment.


Correction: The same person who would unethically and unnecessarily administer electric shocks to a test subject in an attempt to impress a girl and make her think she is psychic.

I think what the person who submitted this mistake is saying is why would he need it or carry it at all. Peter was going on a date with Dana Barrett so he would have no need to take it with him at all.

I think what the person who submitted the correction was saying is he's a weirdo and a creep; that's why he brings drugs on a date.

The two facts are so not related, though. The fact he'd give painful but ultimately harmless shocks to a male volunteer does not imply in any way that he'd drug his dates. If the movie wanted to tell us that, Egon on the phone would have asked him the same question as the original entry.

Sammo Premium member

Corrected entry: Why did the Gatekeeper and Keymaster (the dogs) have to possess Dana and Louis? From everything we see, the dog statues are at the top of the building, and the demon dogs break through. Then they go and destroy half the building to find people to possess. They wait a while, Louis gets taken to the Ghostbusters, and Dana stays in her apartment. Then even later they go back to the top of the building, and stand exactly where they were standing after changing from the statues where the lightning changes them back into the demon dogs. What was the point of them leaving, possessing people, then coming back?

Correction: This is a question, not a mistake. Just because the whole scenario seems pointless to you, it doesn't make it a plot hole.

Phaneron Premium member

I agree; it's a legitimate question though, so instead of sticking it in the correction section I'd say to move it in the appropriate section.

Sammo Premium member

It actually is addressed in the new movie why it happens, so I thought about adding the reason in, but have held off on it in case I get some of the details or wording wrong.

Phaneron Premium member

Oh! Great, thanks for the heads up, I am going to see the movie this week most likely, I was just rewatching the first two - will edit this comment later.

Sammo Premium member

Corrected entry: When the Staypuft marshmallow man is melting, we see lots of melted marshmallow cover the rear left side of ECTO 1. When the Ghostbusters get in and drive off at the end of the film, the vehicle is clean.


Correction: There are several hours between the time Ecto 1 is covered in marshmallow until the Ghostbusters drive off in it, plenty of time for a good Samaritan in the crowd to clean it off.

Several hours have passed, really? They come out of the same building, and they didn't have a change of clothes or anything. It would be minutes. You technically can't discount the fact that since apparently doomsday was postponed someone might have decided it would have been nice to give a quick sponging to the Ghostbusters' car, but seems frankly the more far-fetched explanation.

Sammo Premium member

Continuity mistake: After the library scene, while the three scientists are walking and talking, a woman in a striped blue and yellow sweater passes by Egon, but disappears in the immediate next angle. (00:21:35)

Sacha Premium member

More mistakes in Ghostbusters

Ray Stantz: Everything was fine with our system until the power grid was shut off by dickless here.
Walter Peck: They caused an explosion!
Mayor: Is this true?
Peter Venkman: Yes, it's true. This man has no dick.

More quotes from Ghostbusters

Trivia: The brief dream-scene in which Ray appears to receive oral sex from an attractive female spirit was originally part of a much larger sequence, but it was removed for both time and ratings reasons.

More trivia for Ghostbusters

Question: The music video for Ray Parker Jr's hit song features several celebrities who lip-sync to the word "Ghostbusters". Is there a complete list of all the celebrities in the video?

More questions & answers from Ghostbusters

Join the mailing list

Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.