Character mistake: Meeting Dana at the Lincoln Center fountain, Venkman tells her that Gozer was a deity worshipped in 6,000 BC by Hittites, Mesopotamians and Sumerians. There are no historical accounts of those specific populations dating back to that ancient of a date, or writing of any form for that matter. (00:43:40)
Sammo
1st Apr 2022
Ghostbusters (1984)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: Venkman said Mesopotamians, not Babylonians. The Mesopotamian civilization existed in 6500 BC so his information would be accurate in that aspect.
You are absolutely right, I have misquoted the movie there and I just fixed it thanks to your correction. "Mesopotamians" is just a generic denomination, though, so saying that Gozer would be worshipped by the Hittites in 6000 BC, and then list a generic name for the inhabitants of the area and then the Sumerians (generally accepted as the first organized civilization of the area, still much after the proposed date) doesn't seem to be quite accurate.
A valid point of view from both of you, however, it's established that Dr. Venkman is the least knowledgeable in paranormal history so it's possible he listed the groups out of order. As is rightly pointed out, Mesopotamia was a generic listing, like saying Americans, so maybe if he said Mesopotamians first, then the other groups, the quote would make sense?
I completely agree that he's the least knowledgeable of the bunch by far and it is well-established and reinforced in the same scene since he needs Dana's help to read "Hittites." Read, because he's not quoting from memory; he's reading (presumably something Egon or Ray had to write down for him). As you say, "if" he said Mesopotamians first, maybe it would have made sense (but it's not what he says), and even then, using your example, saying "in 1000 BC, Manitou was worshipped by the Sioux, the Americans and the Apache" just sounds wrong. (I know that by 'Americans' we mean generally the US population and feel free to add 'native' to it, then again Hittites established their civilization when the Sumerians were wiped out already, and that's 4 millennia past the date - it is what happens making a word salad in a small sentence that has to register just superficially for the audience).
4th Feb 2022
Ghostbusters (1984)
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)
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.
So why post it?
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.
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.;).
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.;).
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.
25th Jun 2008
Ghostbusters (1984)
Corrected entry: Near the end when the Ghostbusters are talking with the mayor, Ray's hair is flat on his head. In the next scene when they get to Dana's building his hair is full and wavy. Would he have washed and blow dried between scenes?
Correction: Of course he washed and blow dried his hair between scenes. After speaking with the mayor, the Ghostbusters obviously had to go back to the firehouse (which isn't very far from city hall) to get Ecto 1, along with their uniforms and proton packs. While there, he did his hair. The Ghostbusters then drove Ecto 1 back to city hall to meet their escort and head to Dana's building.
Despite the usage of "of course" and "obviously", it sounds convoluted from start to finish, especially considering that they have a police escort at all times. It'd be more believable if you said they used the Mayor's shower or something (the truth is that simply they did not bother with the detail because it would have been pointless and detrimental for the movie's pacing, but that is a meta explanation).
14th Mar 2020
Ghostbusters (1984)
Corrected entry: When Dana comes to the station for the first time, Ray is working on Ecto1 and it's primer gray, no light bars or equipment. In one of the following scenes they are eating dinner and cheering to their first customer. Then the alarm sounds for their first call to the Sedgwick hotel and they get in the Ecto1 that is all tuned up, painted with lights and equipment mounted. The events all appear to happen in the same day. It wouldn't be possible to do all that work to Ecto1 in the perceived span of time. (00:21:50)
Correction: The key word is, "appear." Even if there are just a few days between the events, it makes sense for Ecto-1 to look as it does.
27th Sep 2020
Ghostbusters (1984)
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.
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.
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.
9th Apr 2015
Ghostbusters (1984)
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.
9th Nov 2004
Ghostbusters (1984)
Corrected entry: Who takes 300 cc's of Thorazine with them on a date?
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.
11th Feb 2010
Ghostbusters (1984)
Question: When Venkman is on the phone with Egon, he says that he shot Dana/Zuul up with 300 cc of Thorazine. Since Thorazine is a powerful anti-psychotic drug, it's unlikely that Dana had some in her medicine cabinet. If she didn't already have some on hand, then where did Venkman get it? He said that he has a PhD in psychology, so is he able to prescribe medications for anyone?
Answer: They're all three doctors in that field, so it's not unlikely at all that they could acquire the medication. The question then becomes: why did he have it on him at the time?
Indeed, it's hilarious when you ask yourself that question, and the movie does not have any of the characters question that! Which would have been comedy gold. As the original poster said though; Venkman has a PhD in Psychology, so he can't prescribe the drug, and the other 2 are physicists, so no, I wouldn't say they are doctors in the field?
A Psychologist could have studied medicine. If you have a medical licence you can prescribe medicine to a patient. This doesn't automatically make a Venkman a psychiatrist, but he is more likely more trained in the actual clinical practise. Doesn't make it less unethical though and if anyone finds out he would have his license revoked immediately.
10th May 2003
Ghostbusters (1984)
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.
26th Aug 2003
Ghostbusters (1984)
Corrected entry: In the ballroom scene, when Egon shoots the cake, it explodes seconds before the proton beam touches it. (00:36:10)
23rd Jan 2008
Ghostbusters (1984)
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?
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.
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.