MovieChat Forums > Ghostbusters (1984) Discussion > Things They Couldn't do today

Things They Couldn't do today



Peter is definitely hitting on a female student of his.

reply

[deleted]

While not illegal, definitely creepy and there's no way that isn't against university rules.

reply

[deleted]

Didn't say it wasn't funny. Just saying they wouldn't include that today.

reply

are you saying that in films today , people never do things that are legal , but against the rules of their employers?

reply

They couldn't really do much of anything today. They remade it with a modern agenda and modern humor and it tanked. We live in a pc world where mot much of anything is funny these days.

reply

Yeah, all these raunchy, patently offensive cartoons of recent years sure are tanking badly.

reply

Even then, he lost his job immediately after hitting on the student, because hitting on students wasn't considered acceptable then either.

reply

Actually it was said by the Dean that he was being fired for being a poor scientist.

reply

Of course that was the official reason, and obviously a valid one. There were many firing offenses in that hilarious little scene, including hitting on the girl.

But in terms of filmic narrative, we see Venkman behaving unprofessionally in one scene, and getting fired in the next. The way it's presented it makes the firing seem well-deserved and not worth another thought, which both shows that Venkman's actions are going to have consequences in the narrative, and completely frees up the characters to go into business. If they hadn't been fired for reasons that seem valid to the viewer, then the viewers would always be expecting them to try to get their academic jobs back, as in the remake.

So the progression of events feels like Justice to the viewer, even though we've never seen Ray or Egon do anything wrong.

reply

I couldn't believe they got away with the Ghost BJ scene even back then.

reply

I take they didnt do a roles reversed equivalent in the Girl version then?
What a missed opportunity!

reply

There was no sex of any kind in the remake, not a hint of it.

Which was a tragic waste of Chris Hemsworth.

reply

In a PG movie.

The 80s were awesome.

reply

Jacob, there was no PG-13 rating when this was made so that's why it got a PG rating. The PG-13 rating came out a year after this movie and yet wasn't even used that much. Beetlejuice for instance should have been PG-13 for the F bomb alone yet was PG instead.

reply

be male ..... ?

reply

Yes.

reply

Peter in essence, drugging Dana (while possessed by Zuul) as a means of subduing her. For starters, why does Peter carry that stuff around him to begin with? It isn't like he knew going in that something was different about Dana. Does it always do that "just in case" something goes wrong with one of his female acquaintances?

reply


I think its pretty standard practice to drug the possessed-by-demons. you could definatley do that today.
It is creepy that Peter had the stuff on him though.
I always passed it off as "oh he's a doctor" , but he wasnt that kind of doctor.

reply

Doesn’t help that he was there for a date.

reply

Did Peter assume Dana being possessed would give her inhuman tolerance for drugs before he drugged her? He doses her up with 300 cc of Thorazine, which is 300,000 mg. A lethal dose for a woman of Dana's size and presumed tolerance (if she's been on medication for a while) is 30-40 mg.

reply

"Peter is definitely hitting on a female student of his."

They could definitely do that today, a film about shagging mermaids just won an oscar ffs.

reply

The constant smoking. *That's* what they couldn't do today.
Do i win a prize for first correct answer? :P

reply

It's funny that now it's been changed so a movie can be rated R for smoking. Cause most of the movies I can think of with lots of smoking are already rated R for other things.

reply