Well, I'll start by saying that I've never seen Ghostbusters, so obviously the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man never came to my mind in the movie theater. Having said that, I think I'll agree with you that: #1 the reference to Ghostbusters was unintentional, and #2 the filmmakers should have known about this scene from Ghostbusters and done their best to avoid comparisons. Ghostbusters is a pretty famous movie, after all.

I remember this scene. I don't know if VDT referenced/ripped off this Ghostbusters scene intentionally or unintentionally but no doubt the screenwriters and director had seen the movie. Everyone's seen Ghostbusters - just about. What is the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man anyway? Is he from an ad for marshmallows or something? (I'm an Aussie).

In Ghostbusters Universe, it is the mascot of the fictional Stay Puft Marshmallow Corporation (much like the Pillsbury Doughboy mascot, which it resembles).

Link: Wikepedia Stay Puft Marshmallow Man

I saw Ghostbusters when it came out and laughed about as hard as I could at that scene. I do wish they could have come up with something better or more original than that rather obvious connection.

Like maybe following the book a bit more closely.

It's supposed to be "The Voyage of the Dawn Treader" and not "The Journey Back to Movie Scenes and Lines We Hope People Have Forgotten or Won't Notice".

Ah, cheers, GlimGlum! Huh... he's based on the Pillsbury Dough Boy - not familiar with him but have heard of him in TV and in some movies, and the Michelin tyre man - whom I'm very familiar with). As a boy, I thought he was the Michelin man!

Isn't a weird how the one part of the movie that is paced well, isn't even part of the book (well mostly) and therefore seems rather long in comparison to everything else in the movie? Although it may be naughty of me to say this, the sea-serpent scene is one of the better parts of the movie. I really enjoyed it. The Dark Island less so.

I remember this scene. I don't know if VDT referenced/ripped off this Ghostbusters scene intentionally or unintentionally but no doubt the screenwriters and director had seen the movie. Everyone's seen Ghostbusters - just about. What is the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man anyway? Is he from an ad for marshmallows or something? (I'm an Aussie).

Well I'm glad you remember the scene, because quite frankly I don't. And, being an Aussie, just like you, I don't remember the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man either. Is he something to do with Puff the Magic Dragon and the Asthma Foundation?

And no, although we own a VHS copy of the film, I don't agree that 'everyone' has seen this movie, not even in USA. If you look at the Ghostbusters box office you will see that whilst it was a relative success in its time, it did considerably worse than VDT in ratings, especially overseas. Moreover, whilst my children saw this movie, repeatedly, whilst I prepared dinner etc, I doubt that I saw any point in seeing it right the way through, even when I was able to watch it for myself.

Haha! Okay, so yes, it was a generalisation but the Ghostbusters movies have still done substantially better on video and DVD than they did in the cinemas.

If you look at the Ghostbusters box office you will see that whilst it was a relative success in its time, it did considerably worse than VDT in ratings, especially overseas.

You realize you can't compare box office totals from almost 30 years ago to present day totals, right? There's something called inflation and once the box office totals for Ghostbusters are adjusted for it, it has a total of $538,260,000. Thus making it the 32nd highest grossing film in the U.S. inflation-adjusted box office. It's also 26 years old, spawned a sequel, a cartoon, video games, has played countless times on television, and is available on home video. It's not exactly obscure; far from it, it's an iconic film of the 80s. Considering the length of time Michael Apted has been active in the film industry, it boggles the mind that he would not be familiar with the film. So either this was supposed to be a "witty" pop culture reference, or M&M got careless and no one cared enough to correct them.

Like a lot of movies. I did take a look at Ghostbuster's statisics which I don't think are anything to rave over. And really, I am surprised, Bookwyrm, that you know what I was about to post before I even had the chance to do so properly. Especially as my posting the post was interrupted with the washing up.

I don't really want to digress from the 'everybody must have seen Ghostbusters' theme of this thread, but have you looked at a lot of famous Australian films on BOM, or even IMDb recently? Just check out movies like Looking for Alibrandi, that weren't even shown in USA, as far as I can see. The book on which the film is based is still a set text for NSW HSC English. I know it was a most enjoyed and beloved book and movie, unlike other literary monstrosities inflicted on students.

What about Playing Beatie Bow? According to JB Hi Fi there are only 22 copies of this movie available for sale in the whole of Australia of this much discussed book and movie. But Ruth Park, who was born in New Zealand, and who wrote the book on which the movie is based, only died recently, and others of her works, like Harp in the South, have been standard HSC and School Certificate items in Australian English literature for ages. Just like her husband, D'arcy Niland's work, The Shiralee, which was also made into a movie picture.

I doubt that Aboriginal studies standbys like Rabbit Proof Fence or even Charles Chauvel's 1950's masterpiece, Jedda , were ever shown in USA, let alone in much of the rest of the world. Let alone movies like Ten Canoes, Walkabout or Storm boy. It doesn't mean that these movies weren't worth watching, thought-provoking, relevant to our daily lives and therefore really worth having around.

The trouble is, was Ghostbusters also such a movie? With me forced to crack the whip over homework, I seriously doubt it. Unlike Michael Apted's 1980's work in the Seven Up series, a long-term study in UK child development which is still relevant to studies in Nursing, Child Care and Welfare to this day. And getting back to the Ghostbuster's reference, it isn't a good idea that even film directors would be as familiar with favoured movie references as what you or I might think. If there really was a genuine link to a Ghostbuster reference, I am sure it was entirely unintentional.

Looking for Alibrandi was a decent effort, certainly better than much of the depressing pap that is taught in English in many/most/all? Australian high-schools. Still it's very much a book aimed at girls. Playing Beatie Bow was never a favourite of mine but it was well-written. I had to do it in both Year 7 English and Year 9 English (different schools).

And that has absolutely nothing to do with the present conversation concerning VDT. Apologies!

As gP clearly laid out in his opening post, this is about whether people think the Ghostbusters reference was intentional or not. Trying to drag threads off-topic just because you don't agree with what's being said is a rather tiresome tactic. This isn't a thread for bashing the quality of the Ghostbusters franchise. Though if we're going to go down that rabbit trail, I could always point out that Ghostbusters received a better critical reception than VDT did and, as I already stated, earned more money once adjusted for inflation than PC or VDT did. But that's irrelevant to discussion of whether or not it was an intentional reference.

Can I just say that Ghostbusters wasn't trying to be anything more than an entertaining movie? It wasn't attempting to portray some deep message or be thought-provoking. It was simply meant to be fun. I'm quite certain Apted has seen the movie. The actual Stay Puft Marshmallow Man scene is very King-Kong or Godzilla-like.

Yes I agree with you W4J that Ghostbusters was just for fun. It originally came out in 1984, just like 28 up, one of Apted's Up series, a series of documentaries about a group of children growing up. I don't necessarily agree that Apted would have even seen Ghostbusters, being otherwise occupied at the time, let alone made an intentional reference to the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man in VDT.

As I was demonstrating in my last post, unlike VDT, which has been shown world-wide in many translations, Ghostbusters was not shown in a lot of countries, and even in those countries where it was screened, people might simply have been too busy to have taken much notice of this movie, however popular and worthy you insist it might have been.

By the way, Looking for Alibrandi was included in English courses for its references to multiculturalism, how difficult it can be to cope with the attitudes of two different cultures, and the biased attitudes the chief character of the film was meeting, rather than because it was directed at girls. Ghostbusters, unlike VDT, which I still think did much better than Bookwyrm wants to give it credit for, was just a fun movie that what I saw of it wasn't particularly memorable.

i definitely dont think this reference was intentional, but maybe just a coincidence?!

I have never seen Ghostbusters, but I wouldn't be suprised (as someone has said before) if the screenwriters and Apted had seen it before. I think that sometimes, without realizing it, we take things from something we've seen and use it. Not that I'm right at all, but I'm hopeful that it wasn't intentional.