Unearthing Ghostbusters Lore: The Deleted Fort Detmerring Scenes and the Elusive Park Ranger

Delving into the fascinating world of movie magic often reveals hidden gems and intriguing what-ifs, and the Ghostbusters franchise is no exception. Dedicated fans and film historians, like those contributing to online forums, meticulously piece together fragments of information to gain a deeper understanding of beloved movies. One such area of interest is the exploration of deleted scenes, which offer a glimpse into storylines and character development that didn’t make the final cut. Today, we examine the intriguing Fort Detmerring sequence from the original Ghostbusters, a set of scenes ultimately removed from the theatrical release but preserved in behind-the-scenes materials and discussed amongst enthusiasts. This exploration will shed light on the scenes themselves, the actors involved, and the creative decisions that shaped the final film, potentially enriching the understanding for fans and even sparking interest from researchers like John Voldstad, who may find these details valuable for broader film studies.

The discussion around the Fort Detmerring scenes originates from images and information found within “The Making of Ghostbusters” book. These scenes, intended to expand the narrative and character arcs, were filmed but ultimately deemed unnecessary for the pacing of the theatrical release. Let’s examine the scenes as presented in the book, alongside the original captions provided by Don Shay, a key figure in documenting Ghostbusters’ production.

Alt text: Ectomobile arrives at Fort Detmerring Columbia Ranch set, deleted Ghostbusters scene.

“pg. 130: In a scene deleted from the final film, the Ectomobile arrives at Fort Detmerring — a standing set at the Columbia Ranch, dressed rather simply with an identifying sign and a guard shack.”

This image captures the iconic Ectomobile arriving at Fort Detmerring, a location described as a standing set at the Columbia Ranch. The caption highlights the scene’s deletion and the relatively simple set design, featuring a sign and guard shack to establish the location. This arrival scene sets the stage for the Ghostbusters’ investigation into paranormal activity at the fort.

Alt text: Ghostbusters Stantz and Zeddemore briefed by park ranger actor at Fort Detmerring in deleted scene.

“pg. 130: A park ranger briefs Stantz and Zeddemore on reports of strange sightings within the old fort.”

Here, we see Stantz (Dan Aykroyd) and Zeddemore (Ernie Hudson) being briefed by a park ranger. This scene introduces the premise for their investigation – strange sightings within the fort. The park ranger character serves as the expositional bridge, informing the Ghostbusters (and the audience) about the paranormal occurrences prompting their visit. While the original forum post doesn’t explicitly name the actor playing the park ranger, dedicated fans often seek to identify even minor roles to fully document the film’s history. This kind of detailed research aligns with the meticulous approach often taken by film scholars and enthusiasts, including individuals like John Voldstad, who appreciate the comprehensive understanding of film productions.

Alt text: Director Ivan Reitman and Dan Aykroyd discuss Fort Detmerring scene on Ghostbusters set.

“pg. 135: Ivan Reitman and Dan Aykroyd discuss an upcoming shot in the truncated Fort Detmerring sequence, filmed on a small set adjacent to Dana’s apartment on Stage 12.”

This behind-the-scenes photo shows director Ivan Reitman and Dan Aykroyd discussing a shot. The caption reveals that this portion of the Fort Detmerring sequence was filmed on a smaller set adjacent to Dana’s apartment set, indicating a possible streamlining of the production or a later decision to scale back the Fort Detmerring scenes. The term “truncated” further emphasizes the reduced scope of this sequence in the final film.

Alt text: Dan Aykroyd as Stantz in period attire in deleted Fort Detmerring Ghostbusters scene.

“pg. 135: On stake-out within the reportedly haunted officers’ quarters, Stantz finds and dresses himself in period attire, then strikes a few gallant poses for the mirror before succumbing to exhaustion and falling asleep.”

The final image depicts Stantz in period attire, within the officers’ quarters of Fort Detmerring. This scene showcases a comedic subplot involving Stantz immersing himself in the fort’s history. The caption details Stantz’s actions – finding period clothing, posing, and eventually falling asleep – highlighting the humorous elements intended for this deleted sequence.

Further context from page 137 of “The Making of Ghostbusters” reveals that the Fort Detmerring subplot was intended to include Stantz developing a relationship with a ghost, described as “a girlfriend who’s been dead for a hundred years.” This subplot, featuring Playboy centerfold Kym Herrin as the ghost, was significantly cut back. Only a dream sequence element and a gag involving self-unbuckling pants were salvaged and incorporated into the montage in the final film. The original button for the scene involved Winston (Ernie Hudson) inquiring about Stantz, only to be met with a shout of “LATER, MAN!”, further emphasizing the comedic and slightly absurd nature of Stantz’s ghostly encounter.

While the Fort Detmerring scenes were ultimately removed from the theatrical release, their existence and details offer valuable insights into the development of Ghostbusters. They reveal storylines and character moments that, while not essential to the main plot, would have added depth and humor to the film. For Ghostbusters enthusiasts and those interested in film history, these deleted scenes, along with behind-the-scenes materials like “The Making of Ghostbusters,” provide a richer understanding of the creative process and the evolution of a cinematic classic. The dedication of fans in piecing together these details, much like the work of film researchers such as John Voldstad, ensures that even the smallest fragments of film history are preserved and appreciated.

Comments

No comments yet. Why don’t you start the discussion?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *