I also normally post on the he-man.org forum, and someone recently said “The only Ghostbusters figure I want is Zuul, I swear that the night I saw her in that cinema in 1984 was the day my hormones woke up!! Sad but true!”

My literal response was: “You were turned on by a Terror Dog? Honestly..wow dude; didn't think anyone would ever admit stuff like that, especially here.”

Well obviously he was referring to either Gozer the Gozerian, or Dana Barrett having been possessed by Zuul. But it indicated something else to me:

Ghostbusters, I think, is really beyond most peoples' comprehensions.

When Harold Ramis said it's a “serious comedy”, he was right…but most don't get that.

They get the comedy elements of it, but don't seem to really follow the plot-driven elements, and can't seem to figure out who the bad guys are and all that.

So if that's the case, they shouldn't be talkin' smack about the 2nd movie, cause they obviously don't even get it.

If they want a straight-up pointless comedy, let ‘em hit up the Naked Gun series or something; there’s a lot more to Ghostbusters than people realize..and likely ever will.

I'm not sure I understand the correlation between it being a serious comedy, and finding it odd that someone found Gozer or Dana possessed as Zuul hot…

The IMDB board is filled with “omg, she is so hot!” and etc… Really sophomoric…

My point is they didn't even know which character was Zuul; they just automatically assumed Gozer was Zuul, as they likely weren't even paying attention to the plot.

LordVigo82;155616
My point is they didn't even know which character was Zuul; they just automatically assumed Gozer was Zuul, as they likely weren't even paying attention to the plot.

They were probably referring to Dana/Possessed Dana as Zuul. And yea, she was hot. She was sexy, and that was the point… She was a ghost that was sexy, and almost convinced Venkman to have sex with her… hence “serious comedy”. Its serious in that the subject matter is serious and she's not kidding, and its put in a realistic situation, where the guy isn't thinking straight and almost goes along with it.

but it's not technically Zuul; it's Dana possessed BY Zuul; Zuul is a Terror Dog.


and I know many guys found her kinda hot possessed by Zuul; I just thought it took Sigourney Weaver from unattractive to unattractive and CREEPY.

LordVigo82;155611
Ghostbusters, I think, is really beyond most peoples' comprehensions.

I think it's actually more likely that you've just been talking to casual viewers. Fans tend to forget that it is possible to like something without obsessing over it.

Surely there have been movies that you've enjoyed, but where you didn't pick up on some plot point or detail until the 10th+ viewing?

Of course I've been talking to casual viewers.

But of course casual viewers aren't going to understand the movie as fans will.

Obsessed? Dude, heh, Ghostbusters is my favorite franchise–hands down.

Oh yeah, I'm also mildly Autistic; so when I'm into something…I'm into it.

LordVigo82;155620
but it's not technically Zuul; it's Dana possessed BY Zuul; Zuul is a Terror Dog.


and I know many guys found her kinda hot possessed by Zuul; I just thought it took Sigourney Weaver from unattractive to unattractive and CREEPY.

Ok, so you're saying that people don't get its a serious comedy, but you're obsessing over the fact that they referred to Dana possessed as Zuul as simply “Zuul”?

Let alone the fact that Zuul is clearly not just a terror dog, but has the power to inhabit other beings. Just like at the end when both Louis and Dana are hit by what can only be described as paranormal lightning, and the bodies are reversed… Dana and Louis are now inside the terror dogs.

In any case, your point still really doesn't make sense. You're saying people didn't understand the movie because they referred to a possessed character as the name of the possessor rather than the name of the person they were possessing. That absolutely doesn't mean that they don't understand the plot driven elements of the movie. There's no correlation between those statements whatsoever.

A casual fan, who is discussing the movie on the message board, and doesn't remember every minor detail, and refers to a character in the incorrect way, does not mean they didn't understand the plot of the movie.

I can't believe this thread has even gotten to this length already, and its even short. There's nothing to discuss here. The point doesn't make any sense.

I can see where it could make discussing the movie difficult if two people are using the same character name to describe two different characters, but I wouldn't let that get to you.

Also, I think a point can be made that there was a little confusion over it: Even the original Activision official videogame based on the movie had you enter the “Zuul” building - see the Angry Video Game Nerd's take on that. Good stuff.