Ghostbusters (1984)

[popcorn]

Stay-Puft isn't a real brand? Give my hat a cigarette

Yeah I always assumed it was a real American brand too, much like the mysterious Twinkie they mention in the film. The art department did an incredible job on creating a plausible product there.

I could have sworn there was a deleted scene where Dana watches a Stay-Puft ad on TV, but I can't find it anywhere now. I think it would have been a good inclusion because... well, it's hard to imagine a time when we didn't all know what the Stay-Puft Man is, but when you think about it it's kind of a weird thing for the audience to learn about for the first time by Ray trying not to think of it. It would have been nice to set it up first so we recognise it. (And IIRC the commercial was nicely inserted into the scene because it came before the Ghostbusters ad... I think? Did I just dream this?)

Dana has a bag of Stay-Puft marshmallows in her fridge which is cute but it's more like an easter egg for you to notice on Blu-Ray 30 years later than something that teaches the audience about anything.

Also, about that Twinkie line.

Egon: I'm worried, Ray. It's getting crowded in there, and all my recent data points to something big on the horizon.

Winston: What do you mean "big"?

Egon: Well...

[Egon takes a Twinkie]

Egon: ...let's say this Twinkie represents the normal amount of psychokinetic energy in the New York area. According to this morning's sample, it would be a twinkie... 35 feet long and weighing approximately 600 pounds.

Couldn't it have been a marshmallow instead? Foreshadowing and that.


EDIT: Oh I missed the Limmy tweet that triggered all this chat.

[phantom_power]

Twinkies used to fascinate me when I was younger because they were meant to be this tasty cake treat but looked like they were made of plastic, something you would get in a kid's playset

[Chedney Honks]

Bullshit popcorn you screenwriter handbook chod. I already addressed this. You can have something just happen that people will immediately understand that hasn't been foreshadowed. I'm gonna foreshadow eating Pink Panther for dinner by putting the Pink Panther music on in the afternoon to stimulate my taste buds. When I eat Pink Panther it will feel like the closing of a circle which began in my subconscious.

[popcorn]

yeah and you can also make good things slightly better. you wanker.

it's not just about understanding, it's about re-using elements in a way that's satisfying, making economic use of the ingredients in the stew. Everyone loves noticing the marshmallows in the fridge when they watch the film again.

[Chedney Honks]

I personally think that's enough.

I do appreciate your point, but not everything has to follow the tick box of 'how to write for the telly and movies' and I think Limmy is wrong here. I love a well prepared, richly balanced stew as much as the next wanker but I like it to be served with the odd, rougher edges of individuality and imperfection.

There are two subtle elements of foreshadowing which people will notice on the rewatch, as you say. I think the surprise and absurdity would be lost on the first watch if the idea of the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man were already in the conscious mind of the audience. It would be 'oh, that thing from before' instead of 'what the fuccckkkkkk?!'

[popcorn]

not everything has to follow the tick box of 'how to write for the telly and movies'.

it doesn't???? but this is the basis of my entire argument

not sure what to do now.

[mothman]

Again, time and exposure probably goes towards explaining a lot of it. All we, of a certain age [nb]Kids, basically.[/nb]at that time, knew of contemporary American culture came from Knight Rider & The A-Team & Dallas & Dynasty, and Entertainment USA with CaB's very own[nb]Satire.[/nb] Jonathan King. So at the time I found it quite easy to accept that Stay-Puft Marshmallows were just this popular thing there that we in the U.K. had never heard of. I can't even remember if/when I even found out it wasn't a real brand. Maybe it was today!

EDIT: I personally don't necessarily agree with Limmy's take, I just thought it was an interesting perspective and wanted to share it with the group. It's not meant to become this great divisive issue!

[Chedney Honks]

it doesn't???? but this is the basis of my entire argument

not sure what to do now.

I'm sure you understand the point I was making, even if I was being reductive. Past a certain point, refinement erodes individuality.

I say pop a threatening PM in the outbox and we're probably ready to shake on it! Cheers.

[Replies From View]

Again, the fact that audiences presumed that Stay Puft was a mascot for a real American product shows they did not need to explain this concept within the film.  Limmy was arguing that the latter should have taken place even though the former had already happened.  It would have been perfunctory storytelling.


Maybe your point will be proved in the new film when the supermarket scene with the baby Pufts roasting themselves cleverly succeeds in signposting that a massive one might happen later, in a way that really helps comprehension of the narrative.  Chekhov's Pufts or whatever.

[Dex Sawash]

ARE THERE ANY OTHER SUPERNATURAL PRODUCT MASCOTS IN THE FILM

[badaids]

ARE THERE ANY OTHER SUPERNATURAL PRODUCT MASCOTS IN THE FILM

Of more pressing and alarming note, there is no disclaimer or text anywhere in the credits that no supernatural beings were harmed in the making of the film. Can't hurt a beagle, oh no, but no one bats an eyelid when a Class IV phantasmal manifestation gets a plasma bolted in the face. A disgrace.

[Avril Lavigne]

I could have sworn there was a deleted scene where Dana watches a Stay-Puft ad on TV [...] Did I just dream this?

Yes

ARE THERE ANY OTHER SUPERNATURAL PRODUCT MASCOTS IN THE FILM

No

Again, time and exposure probably goes towards explaining a lot of it. All we, of a certain age [nb]Kids, basically.[/nb]at that time, knew of contemporary American culture came from Knight Rider & The A-Team & Dallas & Dynasty, and Entertainment USA with CaB's very own[nb]Satire.[/nb] Jonathan King. So at the time I found it quite easy to accept that Stay-Puft Marshmallows were just this popular thing there that we in the U.K. had never heard of. I can't even remember if/when I even found out it wasn't a real brand. Maybe it was today!

The thing with that is, Stay Puft was specifically designed to evoke both the Pillsbury Doughboy and the Michelin Man, both of which were well known & easily recognisable in the US and the UK at the time.  If he reminded you of either of those things, the film did its job. Whether or not anyone thought it was a real mascot / brand was beside the point.

[Replies From View]

HAS THERE EVER BEEN A YELLOW TAXI IN A FILM

[Glebe]

HAS THERE EVER BEEN A YELLOW TAXI IN A FILM

Are you crazy, there's loads!

Are you crazy, there's loads!

Are you crazy, there's loads!

Are you crazy, there's loads!

[Replies From View]

list them all then please

[Blumf]

HAS THERE EVER BEEN A YELLOW TAXI IN A FILM

Taxi's are generally brave, so it's unliekly.

[popcorn]

Again, the fact that audiences presumed that Stay Puft was a mascot for a real American product shows they did not need to explain this concept within the film.

It doesn't necessarily show that though. Another possible explanation is that non-American audiences assumed their own ignorance was the cause of some small but unimportant storytelling disconnect in the film, shrugged, and went along with it. That's not necessarily the ideal outcome.

It also assumes that, even if it's a "problem" per se, that the film is unimprovable. It's like saying a car that drove from A to B without exploding could not possibly benefit from a slightly more efficient engine.

It's not just about comprehension anyway. Of course audiences will just go with things, and I doubt anyone was actually very confused. It's about finding opportunities to make things more satisfying/enjoyable/whatever. I honestly think it would be a funnier and more satisfying reveal if we recognised the character.

In a parallel universe where the Stay-Puft Man is established (in a fun and unobtrusive way) earlier in the film, no one is writing on Twitter that it shouldn't have been set up. It wouldn't bother anyone and it wouldn't make any sense not to set it up.

[popcorn]

I could have sworn there was a deleted scene where Dana watches a Stay-Puft ad on TV, but I can't find it anywhere now. I think it would have been a good inclusion because... well, it's hard to imagine a time when we didn't all know what the Stay-Puft Man is, but when you think about it it's kind of a weird thing for the audience to learn about for the first time by Ray trying not to think of it. It would have been nice to set it up first so we recognise it. (And IIRC the commercial was nicely inserted into the scene because it came before the Ghostbusters ad... I think? Did I just dream this?)

Yes

Here we go, not a deleted scene but a discarded idea. From the GHOSTBUSTERS WIKI:

Shay, Don (November 1985). Making Ghostbusters, p. 49 annotation. New York Zoetrope, New York NY USA, ISBN 0918432685. Michael Gross says: "The Stay-Puft marshmallow man appears several times in the film, because we wanted to build a continuity of his presence. In fact, at one point, we considered either ending or beginning the Ghostbusters commercial with a Stay-Puft spot -- complete with a little stop motion countertop like the Pillsbury doughboy. We discarded that idea, though, as being a bit of overkill.

[kalowski]

list them all then please

I'll start.
1. Ghostbusters
2. Taxi Driver.

[Chedney Honks]

Pop

Glad the gang behind GBs realised that would have been unnecessary level of foreshadowing which would have made it less funny overall.

It's not a case of the film being unimprovable, it's that one specific decision they made was better than what Limmy thought they should have done. You agree with Limmy perhaps and I agree with the makers of the Ghostbusters film for the reasons I didn't even know they had given.

I have absolutely no interest in an argument about Ghostbusters or any pop culture whatsoever, so I'm happy to draw a line before anyone gets threatened.

[Pavlov`s Dog`s Dad`s Dead]

HAS THERE EVER BEEN A YELLOW TAXI IN A FILM

You'd have been on safer ground if you'd said sitcom.

[popcorn]

It's a shame, it could have been a successful film.

[Glebe]

Has there ever been a Big Yellow Taxi in a film?

[Famous Mortimer]

I didn't care in the slightest that there wasn't foreshadowing of the Stay-Puft man. It feels like we're arguing a weird hypothetical when we all have experience of the thing.

[Replies From View]

You'd have been on safer ground if you'd said sitcom.

HAS THERE EVER BEEN A SITCOM IN A FILM

[Replies From View]

Twinkie was definitely the weirder concept.  Could have done with some foreshadowing of what the fuck they were talking about.

[popcorn]

I didn't care in the slightest that there wasn't foreshadowing of the Stay-Puft man. It feels like we're arguing a weird hypothetical when we all have experience of the thing.

It's definitely possible yeah. It's kind of a criticism after the fact where you think "hmm I know at this point that I appreciate certain structural forms in certain kinds of storytelling and now I look at this it's missing here" but for all I know it would make fuck-all difference really.

On the other hand the opposite attitude is the kind of thing that sometimes bothers me in such discussions too, where people already know something extremely well and it's like "well I didn't have a problem with it" and it's very hard to get them to imagine a universe where it's slightly different.

[Kelvin]

I do appreciate your point, but not everything has to follow the tick box of 'how to write for the telly and movies' and I think Limmy is wrong here. I love a well prepared, richly balanced stew as much as the next wanker but I like it to be served with the odd, rougher edges of individuality and imperfection.

This is so true, and I almost wrote something similar in the Batman 89 thread. I simply cannot stand the way that people now expect everything to follow a strict, rigid formula, often coming at the expense of personality, distinctiveness and off-beat little indulgences. The number of times I've heard people comparing Batman 89 unfavourably with Marvel films because it's not comic book accurate or lacks a neat plot. I'd take a messy, charming clusterfuck like Ghostbusters of Batman 89 over 90% of the beige, coiffured Disney films. Sometime being a bit messy adds far more than it detracts. 

[popcorn]

Yeah man, if anyone demands tired formulaic structures at the expense of personality, distinctiveness or off-beat indulgence it's Limmy.

[Glebe]

Ever watched a film in a yellow taxi? Okay that's enough.