Corrected entry: The Ghostbusters 'frost' the inside of the Statue of Liberty and are shown dousing it in a rather wasteful, abundant way - with just two backpacks of slime. That's just a comically small amount of produce for such a huge monument. And they even have plenty left for the battle with Vigo. (01:27:30)
Sammo
29th Jan 2022
Ghostbusters 2 (1989)
Correction: As shown with the toaster, you don't need to completely cover something in slime to animate it. Remember, a small drizzle made the toaster dance. They seem to spray a comparatively scaled-up amount inside of the statue. You also have to factor in the fact that emotions are shown to have an effect on the volume of slime - strong emotions cause more slime to generate. (Which is why there's so much in the first place. We also see this happen during the courtroom scene.) Chances are, the backpacks are constantly being "refueled" by their emotions or the positivity they are generating.
For the 'small drizzle', Ray made sure to pour the thing back and forth through the whole length of the slit, effectively coating its interiors, and they splooge that thing all over the place in, a randomic and wasteful way, which we see before any of it expands because of the goodwill of people - which by the way never happens, at least it's never represented in the shots of the Statue; if at any point they showed the statue bubbling with power, charging because of the positivity or something, we'd never have had the conversation about the museum either. It's not that I missed what the film said, it's just that it's more often than not contradicted by what it is shown.
I literally just loaded up the scene - it was a small drizzle, in no way do they "effectively coat the interior" of the teaser. And how precisely can you say it's a "random and wasteful way"? Do you have personal experience bringing statues to life with slime? At no point does the film contradict itself. It shows early on that a certain volume of slime can bring a small object (the toaster) to life, and then pays it off later with a larger object. (The statue). Also, they do indeed show energy flowing through the slime in the statue when the music starts... you literally see like bolts/electricity/energy moving through it.
The 'energy' part was referred to the properties of the slime to increase in volume and such, you don't see that going on even in the scene when it flashes activating because of the music. I haven't had experience bringing statues to life with slime (at most applying gels in cove joints), but I had experience talking with other people about the movie, and we all laughed at the fact that they had a seemingly unlimited amount of slime, but hey, you can always meet other people with a different view and it was just my little bubble.
TedSixton makes an excellent point that I forgot, the slime increases in volume when more positive energy is added. You can go many ways with this theory, even so philosophical as to say the statue of liberty is such a positive symbol that the slime that was sprayed on it started to grow immediately simply because of what the statue of liberty represents or perhaps in a way has already gathered all positive energy of the city into itself, which is why it came to life. Not a mistake in any case.
29th Jan 2022
Ghostbusters 2 (1989)
Corrected entry: The whole plan of the Ghostbusters relies on the fact that the Statue of Liberty, being the symbol that it is, will rally the population of New York drawing their positive energies out. Forgetting the fact that a giant statue trampling things in the middle of the city is quite likely to inspire negativity, let's go with the movie's theory; it's not what it is shown. The people start singing, disturbing Vigo, at a random moment that has nothing to do with the statue showing up and in fact happens when it is already just lying on the ground.
Correction: Did you somehow miss all the shots of the people cheering as the statue walks through the streets? Watch this clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpyvDWfK9qs They literally show the crowds cheering as the statue walks through the streets, thus supplying the positive energy the Ghostbusters need. The moment you're referring to where they start singing does indeed happen later, but it's a different scene entirely. Maybe you watched an edited version of the movie or something? Because they definitely show the statue bringing out the positivity in the crowds in every version I've ever seen.
Oh dear, no, I don't watch edited down versions if possible, especially when I submit the timecodes. If you watch the video you yourself posted -but I hope you didn't, since it's edited down and misses the one moment when you actually see the slime move from a single spot-, you'll see that not the statue nor the crowd cause the slime mass to move or do anything. So the statue brings the positivity out in the crowd at its best only when it's limp on the ground, just as I said.
After the slime starts to retract, it cuts to a wide-shot showing crowds outside cheering. It makes perfect sense that the closer the statue gets to the slime (therefore bringing the positive energy closer), and the more the crowd cheers them on, the weaker the slime shell gets. Hence, it starts to retract. I don't understand what the issue you're having is. No offense, but it just seems like you're trying to manufacture a mistake where there is none.
Manufacturing mistakes would be a terribly inefficient way to spend time when in the same time you can spot dozens others. We simply get a different vibe from the scene, and the representation works better for you (and other commentators) than for me. It's a fictitious shell and if you tell me that the fact that it parts from that one skylight makes sense because it's weakened, I honestly at this point I don't mind, I wrote "I stand corrected" to the main issue like 4-5 comments ago.;).
Correction: They brought the statue with them to break the slime around the museum, not to rally the people. It was covered in positive slime, which caused it to come to life, like the toaster. It's presence, and the positive slime, had a positive effect on the people around it. It lying on the street helps the positive slime affect the people around it. Just like the negative slime affecting the guys when they come out of the sewer. Apparently it doesn't need to be physically touched.
If the statue lying lifeless in the street were meant to influence people, there'd be any visual representation of it, my main problem with all of this is that they show nothing about the statue 'charging' or 'focusing' the power of positivity. However, you do have a point; the main goal was to break into the museum, after all, and the people chanting to save the day were not part of the plan, so I shouldn't nitpick that. The plan still makes no sense because it's scary as hell to have a metal giant roam the street crushing cars, and we have to fill a lot of blanks, but we can embrace the cheesy spirit of it. I stand corrected.
29th Jan 2022
Ghostbusters 2 (1989)
Corrected entry: The Ghostbusters can get inside the museum when the Statue of Liberty breaks the museum's ceiling light. Good, but the whole museum was surrounded by a shell of slime that extended above it too. The Ghostbusters do nothing to open a hole in the slime, nor they could know it would open, and the Statue has nothing to do with it. (01:31:45)
Correction: I think you somehow completely missed the point of them bringing in the statue in the first place. They animate the statue and walk it through the streets to act as a symbol to bring out the positive emotions/good vibes of the people. The positivity weakens the negatively-fueled slime shell enough for them to get inside. They quite literally show people cheering in the streets and the slime "retreating" from the ceiling windows as a result. Watch this clip, it explains their plan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2wtteHUGjg.
Correction: The positive slime caused the negative slime to retreat. You can see this happening when the statue bends over the museum.
As I said, they do nothing to open a hole, it just happens; the Statue is close to a whole side of the museum that is covered in goop, but does not distance itself from it. Does it react to the music speakers? To the torch's warmth? It's just random stuff that happens. Which is totally fine in a movie like this, but does not prevent from noting it. However, since the whole idea of using the statue comes to them because they need to 'crack' the barrier, I'd say you are right there; they didn't know how and if it would work perhaps, but the idea IS set up. I still think the visual representation of it is inconsistent, since I don't get why the hole would open in that area of all areas.
I didn't think it had anything to do with touching the negative slime first. The negative slime was weakened by the positive emotions of the crowd, and their positive emotions came from seeing the Statue and Ghostbusters coming down the street, and the statue came to life with the positive slime and music. In the weakened state, the negative slime started to retract without the Ghostbusters needing to do anything else. They would have seen the ceiling being uncovered and then broke in that way.
Yup, Bishop73 got it 100% correct. They state in the movie that they need a symbol to bring out the positivity to get through the slime, and the movie shows the slime retreating after the crowds outside cheer for them in the statue. (Not sure where lionhead got the idea that it was the positive slime that did it, since the movie does not indicate that at all).
Positive feedback here. It shows the positive slime is more powerful than the negative slime. That's why they hose Janosz, Ray and Vigo in the end with the positive slime. It thinks all together the positive energy of the crowd caused the positive slime to grow and become even more powerful and the negative slime to retreat. That's how I always interpreted it at least. But you can go several ways here. In any case, it's not random.
Ah I see! You see sufficient visual correlation between the crowd cheering and the slime retracting, I don't see that, so the fact that the slime opens up freeing the skylight doesn't feel visually correlated with the 'mobilization of positive energy' thingy. Later it 'weakens' reacting in a different manner.
10th Jan 2022
Ghostbusters 2 (1989)
Corrected entry: Dana is really worried about her baby throughout the whole movie. She was literally almost eaten by a bathtub of slime less than 24 hours before. So naturally, when the guys show up to investigate, she blows them off to go on a date. (00:58:30)
Correction: Dana asked Janine if she could babysit Oscar for her while she was on her date and Janine said yes.
That's not the point; they are going to check the "slime stuff" (as Peter says) that happens to be the same slime that nearly ate her baby and the reason why she's there and needs a babysitter to begin with, but to her the date with Peter is more important. Like, way more important, she does not even think about it a second.
Peter sees that Dana is stressed out, so he offers to take her to dinner to help ease her. She's reluctant at first until Peter mentions having Janine as a babysitter. After that Dana agrees to use Janine as a babysitter for Oscar as she works for the Ghostbusters and Dana knows how reliable Janine is.
26th Mar 2002
Ghostbusters 2 (1989)
Corrected entry: The film takes a large liberty when portraying the Titanic. The Titanic we see is complete with a huge hole in one side. The real sinking was nothing like this with small gashes made along the front of the ship, which eventually split in two. There was no large gaping hole like that made when she hit the iceberg. The Titanic was found four years before the film was made, so it was known at that time what condition the Titanic was in. (01:20:35)
Correction: It's a ghost ship, so I think we can forgive them for this, just like the ghost train in the subway scene, because it was a steam engine, which never would be in a subway tunnel like that.
This isn't a valid correction. The ghost train appearing on the subway tracks is different and had nothing to do with the way the Titanic ghost ship looked.
They are both ghost vessels, not the actual machines, it is understandable that they will look different on the etheric plane.
They aren't the actual machines sure, but there isn't any reason why a ghost ship would pick a physical appearance with severe damage that is in a different spot from the original. The explanation is not in 'the etheric plane' but in poor research (not that in a movie like this matters) or the fact that it simply is more impactful visually to show that sort of gaping hole. It is a factual error even if we understand very well why it was made - call it Deliberate Mistake if you will.
The people are the ghosts, not the ship. The ship never picked the appearance. One can assume the ghosts made the Titanic alongside themselves, from memory. Since the victims never actually saw the damage, this is what they thought it looked like.
We don't know who picked the appearance of the Titanic or the ghost train and how any of the 'supernatural' works, other than the end result is factually inaccurate. There's no reason to try to find metaphysical justifications for a clear creative liberty the art department took without giving it a second thought. Which is exactly what the original poster said; "The film takes a large liberty when portraying the Titanic."
It's just a matter of opinion whether they are allowed to take that liberty or not. If they did it intentionally, it's not a mistake.
The thing is, 99% of Factual Errors in movies are very likely to be liberties taken for convenience of the plot or better visual impact (like I said, Titanic=big hole in the hull from iceberg, the audience instantly makes that mental association and feels more real than reality). That's why as long as the observation is accurate and not strikingly obvious (such as "ghosts don't exist") I wouldn't try to read the intent in it too much.
27th Aug 2003
Ghostbusters 2 (1989)
Corrected entry: In the final scene where the Ghostbusters are coming out of the Museum, where did their proton packs and slime blowers go?
Correction: As noted by Tully as he proudly put on a proton pack, then ran about 20 feet and had to stop to catch his breath, and saying "this equipment sure is heavy" one can assume the other ghostbusters definitely needed some relief after having them on for so long.
9th Apr 2007
Ghostbusters 2 (1989)
Corrected entry: When the Statue of Liberty makes its entrance in the streets of New York, close observation shows that the statue actually steps on a bunch of people.
Correction: How is this a mistake? The guys cannot see exactly where the statue is going, and she is stepping on cars and other objects, so why not a few accidental people?
Oh so it's not a poorly placed optical effect; the movie wants to tell us that the Ghostbusters are actual mass murderers. Just great.
10th Jun 2014
Ghostbusters 2 (1989)
Corrected entry: Two of the Ghostbusters are examining their evidence, and one of them puts a picture of the man in the huge painting into a device similar to a photocopier. Problem is, the picture comes out the other end of the device before it has entirely finished going in.
Correction: It's a spectral analyzer. Eagon also turns up the roentgens, a unit of measurement for radiation, which presumably makes the device more sensitive. It analyzed the spectral presence within the photograph and printed out a visual representation of that presence. The printout that discharged from the device has nothing to do with the original image that was actually photographed and fed into it, therefore the spectral analyzer does not need to scan the entire photographed image to create this facsimile of the spirit possessing the photographs. In other words, the machine was able to "see" the ghost and print out a picture of it before the entire photo had been scanned. Not out of the question at all, especially for completely fictional technology.
It's a fascinating explanation that proves that you'd be great at writing sci-fi tech for a series or movie (I say it unironically, legit love the write-up), but I don't see any visual or conceptual hint in the movie that supports it? It looks like they feed a picture to a copier and the output comes out before the original picture has gone through the apparatus. Visually the photo rolling in is such a minor detail it's almost unnoticeable.
27th Aug 2001
Ghostbusters 2 (1989)
Corrected entry: In the scene where Ray and Egon are in the dark room analyzing the photos they took at the museum, watch as they run the one photo through the "spectral analyzer". As they put the photo into the machine on the left side, the photo goes throught the machine at a very slow pace. You can see the photo as they are talking about what food they should get. The photo is about halfway through the machine on the left, when the entire photo magically appears on the right hand side of the machine and is finished being analyzed. When they pull the completed photo out of the right side of the machine, you can see the original photo still being analyzed on the left side. (00:56:26)
Correction: They're analyzing all the photos. The machine is obviously capable of scanning another photo while analyzing a previously scanned photo.
23rd Jan 2013
Ghostbusters 2 (1989)
Continuity mistake: When the Judge states his sentence, from Stantz's POV of the front of the table the pink goo in the jar starts bubbling with a tag hanging on its right side. From a wider angle of the front of the table not only is the tag not visible, but the ghost trap next to it is different (check the number of dials and looks of the box), plus the trap is now slightly skewed as to how it was positioned before. (00:31:45)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: I believe the tag is visible at all times, at least the string of it (the tag itself in the wider angle from the defence's table is hidden by the jar itself). Not sure about the mentioned box, you mean the ghost trap? My impression is that the different angle accounts for a perceived different placement, but it's just my perception.
23rd Jun 2004
Ghostbusters 2 (1989)
Visible crew/equipment: When the chairs are flying through the air in the courtroom, if you look closely, you can see the string pulling one of them. (00:34:30)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
Suggested correction: This would need more clarification. I couldn't see any string in the mentioned sequences - and for the record, I don't think strings were used, you can easily find interviews with the production team that mention the different trick at work here (they quite literally 'shot' the chairs up in the air).
31st Oct 2004
Ghostbusters 2 (1989)
Revealing mistake: During the courtroom scene, one of the ghosts grabs the prosecutor and she is hanging upside down. Her dress comes down a little, but when she is about to fly through the door you can see part of the dress is pinned to her panty hose to stop the dress from falling off. (00:33:30)
Upvote valid corrections to help move entries into the corrections section.
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.
Correction: 1. You have no idea how much positive slime they have made 2. You have no idea how much slime is needed to make the statue of liberty come to life. It is only fiction after all, made up by the movie makers, so they are allowed to make the rules. It's not a mistake in the movie, at all.
lionhead
It is indeed fiction! I am merely saying that with two backpack tanks they 'frost' the inside of a 151 feet tall monument, and they have plenty more to spare. I do admit to not having the technical specs of psychoactive slime and what the recommended usage in public monuments engineering is. On a macroscopic scale, it feels a little off.
Sammo ★