Entertainment desk
< March 6	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 8 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 7

Androgynous woman?

The article List of Ghostbusters characters#Gozer the Gozerian says:

Its base form being of an androgynous woman, Gozer possess numerous abilities at its disposal - its coming preceded by increased paranormal activity and the disruption of natural forces.

Was it ever actually established that the woman (played by Slavitza Jovan) that the Ghostbusters see really was Gozer's base form and not just one of its manifestations? And what does "androgynous woman" mean anyway? JIP | Talk 16:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure is a shit-ton of unsourced material and/or original research in there. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention such incomprehensible terms as "horned houndly quadrupled." --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 00:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"horned houndly quadrupled", so a hellhound? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That may be what they meant, but it sure as heck isn't what they wrote. "Houndly"? Is that even a word? And what is being multiplied by four?

Quadruped spelled wrong. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or it has four houndly heads, one more than Cerberus —Tamfang (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Aykroyd; Harold Ramis; Ivan Reitman (1985). Making Ghostbusters: The Screenplay. New York Zoetrope. ISBN 0-918432-68-5. p. 177: As originally conceived, Gozer was to have been a rather nondescript, kindly-looking man. Finding the approach too conventional, Ivan Reitman opted instead for a malevolent highly-contemporary androgynous-looking female.. --Lambiam 09:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to nitpick, was that intended to be Gozer's true form or just what the Ghostbusters saw Gozer as? JIP | Talk 11:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We can't be sure what the Ghostbusters saw. This was the form that was recorded on film footage. --Lambiam 14:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming Gozer, et al, were added in post-production, the Ghostbusters probably saw nothing of note. --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gozer has no "true form" in our dimension because Gozer is not from our reality. Gozer is a god-like being who has the ability to enter our dimension, taking on a form of choice. Gozer's true form is from a different dimension, likely with physics that make no sense to us. So, Gozer's form would not make sense to us. I think of it as the "super-intelligent shade of blue" from the hitchhiker series. We can describe it, but it doesn't truly make sense. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 15:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

George Burns kind of said the same thing when playing the title figure in Oh God: "If I appeared to you in my true form, your mind could not comprehend it." --←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And Lisa the genie said in the first episode of Weird Science, "This level of perfection doesn't really exist, outside of beer commercials; the human nervous system can't handle it." —Tamfang (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]