Ghostbusters: A Movie About Nothing

What is Ghostbusters really about? What's the theme? Does it even have one? Let's find out!

______________________________________

______________________________________

Music by Epidemic Sound
______________________________________

SEND ME SOME MAIL:
Patrick Willems
P.O. Box 380333
Brooklyn, NY 11238

[thepickles]

*_"Sometimes, shit happens... somebody's gotta deal with it... and Who Ya Gonna Call ?"_*

There ya go. That's what this movie's about. You're welcome.

[derektaylorkent]

I would say the theme is Teamwork -- putting together the best possible team and supporting one another in order to achieve a goal. The team members go through personal failures at the beginning and only by coming together as one and fully supporting one another are they able to find success. At the ending, this is dramatized when Ray commits the fatal mistake of summoning the Marshmallow Man. The team is upset with him at first, but they don't kick him out or alienate him. They still work together to defeat the enemy and don't hold it against him. They also go along with Egan's rule-breaking idea of crossing the streams instead of negating it. So it's about supporting your friends' ideas, forgiving their failures, and working together to overcome obstacles, find success, and defeat evil.

[MarshalTennerWinter]

In interviews, I've literally used the line "If there's a steady paycheck in it, I'll believe anything you say."

[muddypalmsera]

"Ghostbusters" is about making a successful movie *without* _Eddie_ _Murphy._

[marcsavage]

At the start of the movie Venkman is only interested in money but by the final act he’s ready to lay down his life - ‘I love this plan, I’m excited to be a part of it’ - there is growth there.

[JacksMovieReviews]

Interesting discussion. I always took it as a movie about success. What happens when the world turns your back on you, and what you need to do get on top.
It starts out with them as "losers" kicked out of Columbia, going nowhere (think of Peter not doing any real research, just trying to get with the blonde.) They then start working hard, doing the dirty work nobody else wants to do, saving the day, and by the end of the film the whole city loves them.

You could argue that comedy at time gets in the way of that message, but when you boil it down, it is there from scene 1 to the end of the movie.

[MichaelsShortFilms]

It's about one thing: how busting makes you feel.


Good.

[Abraxas]

It's about building a business. They start from the bottom, struggle and achieve little success ("last of the petty cash fund, " taking out a third mortgage, etc), face regulations from the government, start gaining attention and finally fame/ success.

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

Does Odysseus grow as a person throughout the Illiad? Does Väinämöinen grow throughout the Kalevala? Does James T. Kirk Grow throughout Star Trek? No. Because these characters are iconic and archetypal. Their function as characters isn't to provide a hook through which we can tell a story; they _are_ the story. They're manifestations of universal narratives built into the structure of the human brain, and it feels good to watch them do their thing because it grounds out potent emotional loops, producing existential catharsis.

There's a difference between stories and epics. The epic doesn't try to forge new pathways through the collective unconscious, it _fulfills_ the well-trodden paths by manifesting archetypes to walk them. The Ghostbusters don't need to change because they are already perfect. They're essentially demi-gods like Theseus or Hercules, each with their own sphere of mastery. The reason Ghostbusters II doesn't work is because we _know_ these characters intuitively; their arcs ring untrue because the archetypes they manifest don't change, ever.

[futurepig]

I always felt the theme of Ghostbusters was "nerds can also be cool, save the world and get the girl". Most scifi movies have a hero who does all the action/fighting and a goofy scientist who is there just to talk expository techno babble and build the gadgets. In Ghostbusters the "nerds" themselves are the action heros. This a movie about how intelligence and heroism can go hand by hand.

[blackshard]

Dude, you are way off about Peter. His arc is very clear. He starts as a huckster because he isn't invested. Nothing grounds him or commits him, and he spends most of his time making fun of people who take anything seriously. The subtext is that he is afraid of emotional investment - in people, in causes, in anything. He is, in a sense, pure ego. That's why the Slimer bit is funny. It knocks him down a peg. His arc is about becoming comfortable with the vulnerability that comes from admitting that you care about something. Look at how he reacts to Dana's possession - one the first times he starts to drop the jokey act. Her transformation freaks him out. The stakes are suddenly real. He can't escape the fact that he cares about her. Watch how over the course of the film, the targets of his mockery shift from being his friends (fear of being emotionally vulnerable as a friend) to people who hurt his friends. When Egon suggests they cross the streams, who has the courage to agree to something that seems like suicide for the sake of saving New York? Who says "nobody steps on a church in my town"? He openly cares by the end. Peter's got an arc, man. It's just not spelled out in exposition like most films.

[FancyGeeks]

It's about busting ghosts, clearly.

[superbrownbrown]

This is what Ghostbusters is all about:

Good, draped in sarcasm, humor, innuendo, and New York grit, defeats evil.

Also, when someone asks you if you're a God, you say, "YES!"

[catwhowalks]

Despite having watched this film dozens of times, this had absolutely, positively never occurred to me... but that may be why the first and second are so very different in terms of success. I would suppose that while writing the first, Ackroyd and Ramis were so swept up with how much fun the concept and characters were that they probably didn't notice the 'flaws'. The simple pleasure of watching the guys navigate their way through their adventure was enough to sustain the film. Then, when asked to write a second, they may have unknowingly (?) fallen back on conventional dramatic arcs without realizing it was the joy of celebrating the concept and characters that had fueled the first film. The best evidence for this may be in a point you mention -- that everyone in the film already believes in ghosts. I remember reading in interviews in Starlog magazine years ago that Ackroyd and Ramis set the film up so that ghosts were taken for granted as existing in the film's world from the get-go. This seems like an odd choice in conventional screenwriting terms, and today's equivalent might look like Spielberg making Jurassic Park in a world where dinosaurs already exist. By acknowledging that ghosts exist, any other narrative themes are a bit deflated -- outcasts/working men/anti-establishment triumphing over those that didn't believe in them. On the other hand, though, it sets the viewer up to enjoy a more playful story that wanders into storytelling spaces where just about anything can happen.

[elitefitrea]

It's about how losers can be winners

[TheCultivatedMind]

"Ray accidentally determines the form that Gozer takes"

I may be wrong, but don't believe Ray accidentally chose the form of Gozer. In my eyes it was 100% intentional. Remember, Ray said he _tried_ to think of the most harmless thing. The thing that could never possibly destroy them, Mr. Stay Puft. To me, this is why the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man appeared rather than J Edgar Hoover when Venkman had just mentioned Hoover seconds earlier.

Remember, Gozer said "Choose and perish. Choose. Choose the form of the Destructor."

I take this as meaning for the Destructor to appear there had to be conscious intent...it had to be a conscious choice of what they wanted the Destructor to be. Just my take on it.

[Bonesph]

It's about following your dreams or interests the best you can while keeping close friendships and helping people. Venkman wants to make money but ends up helping someone out of love (originally lust). Ray and Egon seem driven more by their interest in science. They would work for free if they could afford it.

[MAMoreno]

Ghostbusters is about the plight of the small businessman. Peter does have an arc: compare his first scene (in which he grooms a female student with the intent of eventually manipulating her into sleeping with him) with the scene with Dana-Zuul (where he refuses to take advantage of a possessed woman who is offering to sleep with him).

[seancoyote]

I think the movie is about a business, starting, facing obstacles, faltering, hiring more, gaining enemies, losing trust, being misunderstood, until being needed, and gaining trust. The business had an arch. It isn't so much about the people, and their development, but a business.

[MrZkinandBonez]

I've always seen Ghostbusters as the most unrealistic "social-realism" film ever made. Ok, "social-realism" isn't the best label to use, but it's the closest comparison I could think of. It's essentially a "going into business" story, told in a surprisingly realistic fashion, but focused on a completely unrealistic business. I think that's why it's so interesting, it treats an extraordinary idea in the most mundane and ordinary way possible while still managing to be a comedy film. It lacks that Hollywood hyper-realism, everything from the campus, to the library, and the GB firehouse building, feels like real places in the real New York City. It's even shot in a very realistic and mundane way.