Talk:Ghostbusters (2016 film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Charles Dance

Hello, I edited the page twice saying that Charles Dance would be in the movie. It was deleted twice. As I wrote when I edited, Charles Dance said HIMSELF in the This Week In Marvel podcast ( http://marvel.com/news/comics/25556/download_this_week_in_marvel_episode_215.5_with_charles_dance ) that he was in Boston to film Ghostbusters. IGN is also saying so : http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/12/14/game-of-thrones-charles-dance-will-be-in-the-ghostbusters-reboot Rabcra (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)rabcr

Citing sources

I'm here to just say the cast list needs to be cited accordingly. Even though the actors and actresses are sourced in the 'casting' section, they also need to be cited and sourced in the Cast section as well. Also, the plot needs a source for its inclusion as well. Npamusic (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Bill Murray

I read that Bill Murray declined his cameo role in the movie. i'll delete his name until i read otherwise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumerwritter (talk • contribs) 20:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Incoming backlash

As you may known,the trailer is getting quite a backlash on YouTube.I humbly suggest to semi-lock the page because this page is surely going to attract vandals now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.8.230.231 (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Good idea, the trailer has received considerable criticism to say the least. Update: Done, Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Ghostbusters_.282016_film.29 regards. Twobells (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
This needs to be redone as someone undid the edit, though I cannot undo their edit due to the article being protected. Just thought I'd raise alarm bells, without it the article is unbalanced. Truthdefender2015 (talk)

Not a Reboot!

The trailer begins with the words "30 Years Ago, Four Scientists Saved New York." If it was a reboot, then it would have no connection to the previous films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.222.82 (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Ya been duped - the e-mails shown in the Sony hack clearly establish that Paul Feig envisioned this as being the first time the world has dealt with an major ghost-related catastrophe. Feig has since come out to say that no, it's not a sequel. They're only selling it from the "30 years ago" angle to appeal to nostalgia. 2605:6001:E7D1:6C00:6D03:9A38:7F25:422C (talk) 04:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

New record?

The trailer received more than 300,000 dislikes and the users discuss more the many deletions of negative critisms by Sony than the trailer. This looks like an negativity record and should be mentioned. --89.0.94.244 (talk) 00:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Every review of the trailer that I came across shows that the trailer sucks and that there is a good chance that the movie will bomb. 173.86.6.17 (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I concur. I believe we should add some statement like "The trailer release received many negative response, with one-third of the ratings being 'thumbs down'." OttselSpy25 (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
At the moment the trailer has over twice as many dislikes as likes, and loads of negative comments have been deleted. Also, most of the positive comments come from bot accounts, and as Sony has received VERY strong criticism for this, I believe it should be mentioned. MegaSolipsist 4:42, 9 March 2016 NZ time

Ghostbusters 3

Given that this redirects here I think some mention should be made of the film being referred to as this way sometimes in the media, even if it is technically a reboot. Otherwise it might serve better as a disambig for this and Ghostbusters 3-D instead. Examples:

Reese, Aisha (27 February 2016). "'Ghostbusters 3' Spoilers: Slimer Is Coming Back For The Reboot". EnStarz.com. Good ol' Slimer's going to be back in the house for Ghostbusters 3, according to new reports.
O'Callaghan, Lauren (3 March 2016). "Ghostbusters 3 gets its first full length trailer - watch it now".
David Garrett Brown (7 March 2016). "The World Is Revolting Against Hollywood's Awful Feminist Remake Of Ghostbusters". Return of Kings. Ghostbusters 3 is waking people up to the issue of feminist propaganda in movies

Even though this is not the official title, enough sources are calling it this that we should include a note about it in the introduction. 184.145.18.50 (talk) 10:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Comicbook.com (source 24) used incorrectly?

The source does mention the poor reception to the comedy, but it says nothing about the writing. Maybe that part should be removed? Source: http://comicbook.com/2016/03/05/someone-took-the-funny-out-of-the-new-ghostbusters-trailer/ --80.222.39.97 (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done--McGeddon (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The movie hasn't even come out yet. Why is there a reception section? 174.16.28.98 (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

It's the reception of the WP:TRAILER. "Trailer" would probably make more sense as a heading, though, I'll change it. --McGeddon (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Another criticism of the trailer and the movie as a whole bassed upon the trailer is that it basically is an unwanted remake. I've heard a plethora of people say that this is a remake that many did not want to happen at all. I've also heard ultra feminist nutjobs saying that the dislike ratio is due to sexism and misogyny. I refer to them as nutjobs because they say that about lots of things. (hence also why i refered to the as ultra feminists or feminist extreamists.) Others have responded to the feminist claims by stating that the trailer would be just as disliked even if the women were to be replaced with men due to how the film is changed from a smart whitty comedy into essentially a slapstick comedy film. (again all based upon the tariler.) Somewhere these points should be noted about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.101.62.73 (talk) 14:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:NOTFORUM. This is not Conservapedia. 65.128.3.208 (talk) 06:00, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

So because i'm not feminist i'm all the sudden from conservapedia? that nutball place where ultra-conservatives hang out? I'm talking about how people didn't want this remake to happen because they felt that a sequel to the second ghost busters movie would have been much more ideal. You need to recognize that not everyone who disagrees with sarkeesian is a conservative idiot or a womanhater. and I'm not treating this like a forum. I'm saying that the article should note that some backlash comes from the fact that it is a "remake" of a beloved classic film as in the 1984 ghost busters film. You sight policies to back yourself up, but you don't read why I posted, and automatically assume because i mention ultra-feminists that I'm some how viewing this place as a forum. I think that the point about people not wanting another "remake" should be noted for a reason for the trailer's hate. If we go with a feminist side, we must also include the non-feminist side too. We can't do one side just because it's PC or because it looks "good'. also f*** conservapedia, I have no interest in that place.

Eric Ramus

199.101.62.73 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Incredible. A "discussion" between anonymous and unsigned editors which amounts to exchange of insults and stereotyping of the other side. If you want to quote a Wikipedia policy, I would suggest Wikipedia:Civility: "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." Dimadick (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's talk a little about the Marketing section.

The marketing section currently read:

"The first official trailer was released on March 3, 2016 and was negatively received by audiences. "

In fact over the past few weeks there have been three different variations of that phrase. I feel like the reaction to the trailer is almost irrelevent for the article. I understand that the original is considered a classic and some people have very negative reactions to the very idea of the movie, but if you look at similar articles they don't list reaction in the "marketing" sections at all. I think the best way to make this fair is to take out all references to reactions about the trailer from the article.

Agree, disagree?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathawk (talk • contribs) 11:57, 10 March 2016‎

I'd agree that the "negative reaction" to marketing seems out of place, particularly compared to existing standards. I'd second omitting this.
That said, if someone with experience currating films can provide precedence for "marketing reaction", a "mixed" or "mixed to negative" reaction may be more accurate. While the negative social media reaction (particularly Youtube votes) has received some press, there have been positive and negative reactions from critical publications and media outlets. Nerd2thend (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why there is a reference to Screencrush claiming the negative response to the trailer is part of a 'concerted campaign to downvote it into oblivion', as this comes across as fairly paranoid. Other trailers have received very negative responses immediately upon release as well without any claims of deliberate, organised large-scale action by detractors. MegaSolipsist 12:46, 6 July 2016 NZ time

Trailer

Thought I'd open a discussion about the trailer section. Trying to be non-biased and neutral as much as possible here.

I've seen a trend on a lot of Wikipedia pages to just put in any news media controversy as if it warrants merit. Now I've been under the assumption that controversy sections are now largely a thing of the past on Wikipedia as they typically don't warrant encyclopedic (or factual) merit. NPOV somewhat correctly I'd argue says we should avoid them.

Putting aside personal feelings on the trailer, I don't really think the page warrants it's own section for it. Most of the section just contains stuff that would typically go in the 'Reception' section.. but it's not actual reception to the movie, just the trailer.

I think at the least it could probably be merged to Release as a sub-section.

Personally I can't stand the trailer, but this isn't very neutral to give the trailer reaction it's own section. I might be a lone voice here but Wikipedia is garnering a reputation these days for lacking neutrality and promoting subjectively selected information.

On a more personal appeal, Wikipedia isn't here for simply regurgitating the media's opinion in a concise paragraph, it's for factual information. I've had this issue on other pages, mostly video game pages, where editors have added or written in outrageously biased and unbalanced sections then fought tooth and nail to keep them in there for no other reason other than "it's a reliable source".

Anyway all that said, thoughts anyone? 86.42.120.185 (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

It seems fine to mention it given the amount of coverage and thinkpieces it has got. It may turn out to fail the WP:10YEARS test, or it may be the only thing that anyone remembers about the film in ten years' time. --McGeddon (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
There needs to be a link to the trailer right at the start of that section. Something like "The first official trailer[1] was..."

Grammatical Errors

Sorry to bother someone, but could someone fix the errors in the last sentence of the first paragraph? I would do it myself, but the page is locked. It currently reads: "In the film, A group of science women and a subway worker ,are becoming a special team known as "the Ghostbusters" ,inventing powerful weapons and set out to a war against demons and a powerful evil demon that threatens on the world."

It should read: "In the film, a group of science women and a subway worker, are becoming a special team known as "The Ghostbusters," inventing powerful weapons and set out to a war against demons and a powerful evil demon that threatens on the world."

Preferably, the following sentence should be used, as it is much clearer: "In the film, three female scientists and a subway worker form a special team known as "The Ghostbusters." They have invented powerful weapons and have set out to fight against demons that threatens the world." Laike (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Reception

Outrageous NPOV-trolling has hijacked the article. The film has received decidedly positive reviews. The "mixed reviews" should be changed to reflect this. It should read "generally positive reviews." As a hater of the Ghostbusters reboot I'm surprised it has performed this well with critics. But MC and RT reflects the reality whether we accept it or not. Irrational haters can not be allowed to take over the article. Begrudgingly we need to correct the article to convey the truth.184.96.160.15 (talk) 08:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Just made an account to say this

Right, box it up. WP:DNFTT. clpo13(talk) 21:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Mixed to Positive is crap and putting a spin on the real critical response.

It makes no mention of this

http://chicago.suntimes.com/entertainment/ghostbusters-reboot-a-horrifying-mess/

Where it's called a horrifying mess and other negative reviews.

And that's coming from Roeper.

Why can't it just say "Mixed"?

I hardly see as many positive as you guys claim.

Just my two cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HandsomeFrog22 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The film has a 77% on Rotten Tomatoes. If that's not an indication of at least some positive reaction, then I don't know what is. clpo13(talk) 21:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether there are positive reviews or what RT says.

It's a question of there are negative reviews as well.


Which means "Mostly Mixed" is what would fit best.

Mixed to Positive pushes an Agenda and Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HandsomeFrog22 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


Also, alot of the positive reviews were bought.

http://i.imgur.com/RQu6Tiz.jpg

"Mostly Mixed" is the most unbiased statement and fits the film's page better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HandsomeFrog22 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I was going to write out an explanation of what mixed versus favorable means on Wikipedia, including links to other movies, but then you posted that Reddit screenshot and you lost all credibility. clpo13(talk) 21:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
TL;DR: anyone who actually uses the phrase "SJW feminist shills" is not worth listening to. clpo13(talk) 21:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

TL:DR Anyone who uses the phrase Mansplaining Reddit Trolls Trigger Me is not worth listening too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HandsomeFrog22 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Cool, who said that. clpo13(talk) 21:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh wow. The Pee-Wee Herman Response.

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2016

IMDB rating of the film is currently at a 3.8/10 score. This should be mentioned.

LovaG (talk) 15:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Audience_response: "Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew." --McGeddon (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Then why does the article include Rotten Tomatoes score? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.67.240.208 (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The Rotten Tomatoes score used on Wikipedia is compiled from professional critic reviews. The user score on RT is ignored. See Wikipedia:Review aggregators and [2]. clpo13(talk) 23:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


once the semi-protection lock ends please add this review as well:

Mara Reinstein - "If there’s something strange in your neighborhood, you already know to call the Ghostbusters. Heck, everyone knows. That’s why any remake of the 1984 paranormal classic is destined to disappoint." (2.5 out of 4 stars)

http://www.usmagazine.com/entertainment/news/ghostbusters-remake-is-not-ready-for-slime-time-w212383

JD 81.183.181.111 (talk) 03:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


oh variety also was underwhelmed

http://variety.com/2016/film/reviews/ghostbusters-review-melissa-mccarthy-1201810318/ -124.188.232.125 (talk) 10:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

UK release date

The UK trailer gives the UK date as 11th July. Generally earlier releases in major markets get added to the lede and infobox. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Darrenhusted: I can't find anything to explicitly support mentioning it in the lede, but WP:FILMRELEASE supports "the film's earliest release" plus "the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film", so I've gone ahead and done that. --McGeddon (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Sony's treatment of Bill Murray

Shouldn't there be some mention in the marketing section about sony's threatening legal action against bill murray if he declined to be involved in the film?

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Sony-Might-Sue-Bill-Murray-Playing-Ball-Ghostbusters-68651.html

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/sony-hack-bill-murray-almost-threatened-with-legal-action-over-ghostbusters-3-20141216-128372.html

http://www.thewrap.com/sony-hack-attack-studio-considered-legal-action-against-ghostbusters-star-bill-murray/

-124.188.232.125 (talk) 07:44, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


All these articles appear to refer to the same source: leaked Sony emails from 2013 where they discussed talking to legal counsel . Unless there have been additional sources since, I see no verifiable support for the claim legal action was threatened. WP:NOTSCANDAL WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE Nerd2thend (talk) 13:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Secondary sources use primary sources. We wouldn't use the email but if it was covered by reliable secondary sources, there is nothing wrong it. All stories start from primary sources. --DHeyward (talk) 03:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Replace the plot summary section with a full plot section

Given the film has been out for two days in cinemas here in the UK, isn't it time to remove the Plot Summary section and replace it with a proper Plot section? Gistech (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead. DonQuixote (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Sources from article (Critical response section)

At the time of this writing, the current version of the article has nine, count them, nine sources cited next to the "mixed" summary statement in the opening line. While many of these are good sources, I've decided to move a majority here to reduce the clutter. I believe the best were left behind, and at some point, these may find a place back in the article once it is expanded further. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The source from "themarysue" needs to go. They are not a notable film reviewing publication and tend to be a political outlet. Better aggregate is here for cultural reference: http://www.vulture.com/2016/07/ghostbusters-review-roundup.html. --DHeyward (talk) 21:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "'Ghostbusters': Reviews Agree That Funny Ladies Save Uninspired Reboot". Variety. July 10, 2016. Retrieved July 10, 2016.
  2. ^ "'Ghostbusters': What the Critics Are Saying". The Hollywood Reporter. July 11, 2016. Retrieved July 11, 2016.
  3. ^ "Why Critics Are (Mostly) Loving the Ghostbusters Reboot".
  4. ^ "Sorry Fellas: 'Ghostbusters' Opens to Favorable Reviews". 11 July 2016.
  5. ^ "Ghostbusters Is Getting Good Reviews, and Angry Fanboys Aren't Here For It". www.themarysue.com.

Bias

For legal purposes...In my “opinion” Sony Pictures manipulated the public. The movie studios like controversy sometimes, like with the new Ghostbusters movie. They deleted non-sexist, well thought out opinions. On the other hand, wildly sexist and illiterate remarks were being left untouched. By stirring this pot, Sony made it a huge media frenzy, and everyone on both sides of the controversy have fallen for it.

In other words….Sony Pictures (In my “opinion”)created a gender conflicted to help sell this movie.

The Atlantic characterized the public fanbase's overwhelmingly negative reception as seeing the movie as a piece of "reverse-sexism" which utilizes women as a "marketing gimmick", thus tokenizing and diminishing the starring actors. Fans were noted as stating that the moviemakers "tried to shoehorn in a PC ideology instead of just telling a good story" and went "backwards 30 years in time [while] calling [the movie] progressive".

CITATION NEEDED. CITATION NEEDED. CITATION NEEDED.

The film's prerelease publicity campaign has included statements issued by Sony's executive and directorial personnel, and by individual cast members. These statements are generally notable for their openly hostile, combative, retaliatory, mocking, and stereotyping tones against their critics and in defending the film and each other from criticism.

CITATION NEEDED. CITATION NEEDED. CITATION NEEDED.

mixed reviews

In Rotten Tomatoes currently the All Critics category giving it 73%, Users are giving it 48%, IMDB has rated the movie 4.5 out of 10 stars.


Agreed, the article is a mess right now, not neutral or properly sourced. Popcornduff (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
This was WP:BOLDly added wholesale by User:Smuckola overnight, and does seem to be a lot of straight WP:SYNTHESIS and cherry-picking, particularly the "Publicity" and "Public reception" sections, which I've cut. If everyone involved in the film has dismissed all criticism in a consistently aggressive and mocking way, that's worth mentioning, but let's find a source that's actually drawn that conclusion. Piling up quotes and summarising in Wikipedia's voice that "These statements are generally notable for..." is WP:SYNTHESIS. --McGeddon (talk) 11:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I think that to a point, it might be best to address it as a strong difference and note evenly both sides of it. There is both a strong pro-film group, and anti-film group. Devilmanozzy (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. From what I have seen on Youtube, a majority of the popular film critics on the site have outright blasted the film as absolute trash. The Angry Joe Show in particular spends almost a half hour ranting about how bad he thought the film was (Joe himself is a dedicated fan of the original movie) in one of his videos which i'll drop the link here for everyone to see.

Personally, I think the youtube critics are going after the show fairly and should at least be mentioned in the WIkipedia article. Also, a few of them have been quoted in newspaper articles on the subject. Comic Book Girl 19 (aka Danika Massey) was quoted in this NYT article, per example.67.81.213.223 (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

"The original cast including..."

I can't access the source at the moment, but is this accurate? It is incorrect to say "including" before giving an exhaustive list, and if the source used that word then we should treat it as an accidental misprint. If the list is not comprehensive, then is it taken from the source? If so, would it be possible to access the original source (the Kimmel episode) to check exactly who appeared and just list them all? The wording "The original cast including Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson, and Annie Potts" gives the impression that the entire surviving cast appeared (inluding actors less worthy of specific mention than Potts), but if this were the case why Potts and Hudson but not Weaver? It seems likely to me based on these circumstances (operating under a not great mobile signal at the moment) that this is actually a comprehensive list, and that what is meant is "Several members of the original cast (namely Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson and Annie Potts)", but is this the case? If so, we should just word it in a similar way to how I have just done it. If in fact the source did randomly decide to list these four names but in fact a fifth or sixth name would have made the list comprehensive, then we should just list the fifth and sixth names. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

"Answer the Call"

The film title card, as well as the poster and trailer, feature the subtitle, so should this be reflected in the article? TropicAces (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

It's very clearly a byline, so no.
Peter Isotalo 11:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Actually, it's not a tagline. [3] Apparently, the film was given a subtitle late in the development process. (See the link for more info.) As the original poster indicated, the title card in the end credits identifies the film as "Ghostbusters: Answer the Call." For what it's worth, anyhow. 98.5.61.207 (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Richard Roeper's review

Richard Roeper is a critic of the Chicago Sun-Times who is a top critic on Rotten Tomatoes. Danratedrko removed Roeper's sourced negative review of the film for no apparent reason other than a person conflict with Roeper or his opinion. His grounds for removing the review is that it's "nonsensical whining by random online idiots". This seems like a case of POV to me. κατάσταση 23:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Danratedkro removed it in this edit with the summary "Definition of "notable critic" is entirely opinion based", which was a response to Katastasi's restoration of Roeper's review here.
Anyways, Roeper is a notable critic, and, what's more, his review is so scathing in comparison to most other reviews that I think it deserves a mention even if only as an outlier. clpo13(talk) 23:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
There is no argument here that Roeper is not notable, but I am concerned by the sentiment that we should include him because he is an "outlier". I think reception sections generally work best when they exclude outlier sentiments because they are supposed to convey the typical views. Including outliers could potentially violate WP:DUE. If other critics can be found to share his sentiments then you have an argument that those sentiments should be represented. Betty Logan (talk) 03:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Maybe its less a problem with video games in that we have about ~12 typical works that we identify as appropriate important and reliable for reviews that as long as they have done a review for game - positive or negative - it is included, as to avoid cherry picking. I do not know if the film project has similar, though it seems that if we were talking someone like Ebert, his review would have been included in that same fashion, regardless if it was positive or negative. Without Ebert not, Roeper would seem to be one of those "always include" reviewers. But again, I'm not familiar as much with the film project's choice for reviews.
That said, just considering the scores of reviews as assigned by MC, I wouldn't call Roeper's an outlier in terms of general disappointment and dislike for the film: major sites like Variety, New York Magazine, and the Village Voice all express equivalent concerns. The question is of those, who gets their point across better (That's why I go back to our VG approach in that we always include the same works so we don't have to play this cherry-picking game which particularly is difficult on this specific film). --MASEM (t) 00:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it's notable though most reviews seem to get negative about half way through anyway. We're cherrypicking a lot of the positive and ignoring the negative which skews it a bit. A lot of reviews condensed here [4]. --DHeyward (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Roeper's notability is almost entirely inherited from his now several years dead former co-host, who was the father of modern American film criticism and whose reviews, as a result, were quoted in virtually all of Wikipedia's articles on films he reviewed. The fact that he has passed on, though, does not mean we should automatically provide undue weight to the opinions of his former co-host and successor at the Chicago Sun-Times; Roeper is not the father of modern American film criticism, and his opinions should only be quoted if they are meant to provide balance to a critical reception section (here, it is likely to have the opposite effect) or if they have already been quoted in numerous other reliable media outlets for whatever reason (Bob Chipman is certainly less notable than Roeper, but his opinions of last year's Pixels arguably meet this second criterion). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Slimer "cameo"?

I just removed the words "TBA as Slimer" from the "Cameos" list as cameos are typically made by actors and not characters, and in this case it was being jumbled in with the original actors returning to play completely different characters. However, a couple of reviews I read appeared to indicate that the film features a cameo by a practical effects puppet as Slimer. Is this the case? Is it "the original"? If the answer to both of these (or even just the first)is "yes", then I would support readding it as simply "Slimer" or perhaps "Slimer (voiced by TBA)". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

By the way: I haven't seen the original film in several years -- am I right in recalling that Slimer was a puppet? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

According to Making Ghostbusters by Don Shay, yes, Slimer was a puppet; a foam latex suit was constructed for puppeteer Mark Wilson to wear, along with cable mechanisms for facial expressions. Some optical photography and compositing was done, and then tada, Slimer. –Matthew - (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2016


After the last sentence in the introduction, should add that it got mixed to negative reviews from critics and has grossed over 65 million

2601:641:101:785C:C090:3C11:71D0:ABFF (talk) 02:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Your proposed edit would cause tthe lead to contradict both the article body and the external reliable sources, which say reviews were mostly positive. No comment on whether the lead should specify that it got mostly positive reviews. Or the current box office figures which will be immediately outdated. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2016

Change the plot description FROM "Dr. Erin Gilbert and Dr. Abby Yates are co-authors of a book which posits the existence of paranormal phenomenon such as ghosts. When the book proves unpopular, Gilbert distances herself and eventually becomes a teacher at Columbia University...." TO: "Dr. Erin Gilbert and Dr. Abby Yates are co-authors of a book which posits the existence of paranormal phenomenon such as ghosts. When the book proves unpopular, Gilbert distances herself from Yates, pursues a successful career in particle physics* and eventually becomes a professor at Columbia university...."

[*Footnote: http://www.wired.com/2016/07/ghostbusters-mit-physicists/]


Ccplainview (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Is this information really vital to the plot summary? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

"Downvote into oblivion"

The way this sentence is worded suggests that the only reason it has so many dislikes is because of a campaign. Also I believe the source is not very reliable because it is a quote from an external website (BBC). On Wikipedia we strive to maintain a neutral POV, but this sentence is bothersome on many levels because it aims to invalidate the dislikes and sends an even stronger message that "people are only disliking it because it stars female leads", which is a bias in itself. Since User:McGeddon keeps reverting my attempts to maintain neutrality, can we get a consensus here to remove or keep? TJD2 (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I took a look at this and don't see a problem. The phrase "downvote into oblivion" is a quote, not the opinion of Wikipedia, and looks like it's sourced appropriately. It's not a bad thing that the quote comes from an external website; in fact, Wikipedia completely depends on external sources. Popcornduff (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
It's not the quote itself, it's how it is used. It seems like it was put there to project the idea that the only reason the dislikes are there is because of the campaign. It is biased because of that fact. McGeddon also changed the reception from "negative" to "mixed to negative". This leads me to believe that the editor is pushing their own POV and trying to suppress the legitimacy of the negative reception the trailer has been receiving. It wouldn't be bad if it didn't come immediately after the quote about the dislikes. The way it is worded now makes it seem like that IS the reason for the dislikes. TJD2 (talk) 06:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I understand your concern. But we can only report what (reliable) sources are saying. The source does say "mixed to negative" reaction, so it would distort the source to change this only to "negative". If you think other reliable sources have different takes, can we report their perspective, too? Popcornduff (talk) 09:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Alternate perspectives are exactly what's needed. As is, "organized campaign" does look like the only suggested reason why these trailers are getting such a negative backlash, and that simply isn't the truth. Ellen Killoran of Maxim, for example, blamed the backlash on the notion that the first trailer implied that the film was going to be a sequel rather than a clean reboot, and was ultimately misleading in that regard. Joethetimelord (talk) 06:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Overall, culturally folks out the gate like Gavin McInnes pretty much discredited the film based on a picture and cast list. The trailer in March had little chance to pass based on criticism that pretty much was unfair from the get go. Folks pro 2016 (like myself) and true fans against the film (because its a reboot, not cause women star in it) are not the ones behind this wave. It is straight forward politics from the right. So address these critics for who they are and stop acting like the campaign is run by fans, because it is not. Devilmanozzy (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
As there's no sourced evidence of there being a campaign at all that I know of, or at least one successful enough to involve hundreds of thousands of Youtube downvoters, we only have (and likely will only have) speculation from the media that the dislikes are the result of an organized group. I was only proposing that that other sourced reasons why the masses would dislike the trailer be listed (such as your own example), to avoid any potential implications of bias. Considering the sensitivity of this issue, we must all work hard at maintaining a neutral perspective of events as they unfold. Joethetimelord (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Some good arguments are raised against the number of downvotes in this example, but overall this debate for or against has pretty much went nuke at this point. In a month the film comes out, and then the ticket sales will dictate who won this. The downvoting thing is only a footnote, and in a month will likely be forgotten about. Devilmanozzy (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
If the alleged campaign and its consequences is as unimportant as you say, then its suggestion should be omitted entirely. I'm still unconvinced that there's any "winning this" or that there's even a "this" at all aside from a vocal minority mixed in with a large number of people who simply don't like what they see due to poor production quality, disconnection to the source, claims of racial stereotyping, or the simple notion that people are tired of seeing yet another remake on the horizon. Internet bickering only has so much influence, especially to the horde of casual moviegoers that neither knows nor cares about any flamewar, no matter how overblown, regarding production. The only reason I'm seconding alterative reasons is to end the neutrality dispute in question. All we have is circumstantial evidence at best of any organized downvote campaign. Unless a group publicly comes forward or is otherwise outed, all we'll have is speculation and conspiracy theory. I say we either remove the quoted speculation entirely and wait for something more concrete to come around, or to offer alternative speculations alongside the quote.Joethetimelord (talk) 04:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
If we include the massive dislike of the trailer, we include the reasons given by the sources. Anything else is clearly an attempt to sweep the issue under the rug. This is pretty similar to Gamergate and a whole bunch of other recent examples of hate and negative reactions to attempts to assert the position of women in popularculture. This stuff is pretty well-attested and there's plenty of sources to back it up. Suggesting it's just a bunch of speculation or even conspiracy theories is ridiculous.
Peter Isotalo 11:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
The point was that the "reasons" given are baseless. The original poster questioned the reliability of the source as well as the ability of said source to actually ascertain the extent to which the dislike could be attributed to some great conspiracy against the film. So no, including the dislikes does not dictate that the unfounded speculations be included as well. If they are, why not include the complaints of all the commenters who gave non-sexist criticism and found their criticisms summarily deleted? At this point to my knowledge there's no more or less evidence of this than the supposed conspiracy. Including the speculation the way it's been done is indeed biasing things and encouraging the view of this speculation as proven fact, so either the source should be changed to one more reliable, or it should be questioned, or it should be omitted.98.197.193.213 (talk) 13:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
It was not downvoted because of a campaign, but because of it´s style-.-77.11.181.249 (talk) 13:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Biased

Funny that the massive racism and bad plot in the film aren't mentioned here e.g. been deleted. Meanwhile, this film had the most dislikes on YouTube in the history of mankind. And both feminists and black activists criticize the film for being racist and not funny.--Élisée P. Bruneau (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The accusations of racism were decided to be WP:SENSATION and/or WP:NOTSCANDAL and negative critical reactions are being included. If you have sources and reasoned arguments not already discussed above, join the conversation. (see:WP:PUS and WP:SOAP) Nerd2thend (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
P.S. It has the most dislikes of any movie trailer. "Baby" by Bieber takes the top spot and COD: Infinite is the most disliked trailer. Nerd2thend (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @Élisée P. Bruneau: This film's trailer got the most negative reactions, not the film itself. The film itself has received mostly positive reviews. The "history of mankind" is irrelevant -- YouTube has only existed for about a decade. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The movie is NOT racist. But the misogyny and insecure internet troll fan-hate is horribly stacked against this movie. It's a lousy D.O.A. film for sure. But it doesn't deserve THIS kind of online harassment.71.218.140.156 (talk) 03:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the article includes an explanation for the massive downvotes to the trailer if you're only going to present one side of the issue. Why not add Ivan Reitman's response to the downvoting to keep things impartial? Just trying to cover our own ass here. 101.160.31.80 (talk) 02:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you can provide a reliable source that mentions the "other side". DonQuixote (talk) 02:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Do you consider this reliable? http://mashable.com/2016/06/30/ghostbusters-ivan-reitman-reboot-backlash/#wocj0qs8auqo 137.147.12.29 (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
@IP: The people who downvoted are not trolls or mysoginic. They hate the movie because they don´t like the style.77.11.181.249 (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Anti-feminist bashing?

There seems to be have been quite a lot of anger directed at this film that has been directly related to anti-feminist sentiment, or even outright misogyny. Here are some web sources:

And here are sources that are already cited in the article for other criticism:

This is something that seems perfectly worthy of inclusion in the article, especially considering there's an entire paragraph just on the race criticism.

Even news articles are having to acknowledge that Sony is deleting the non-misogynistic criticism in an attempt to do a PR-spin and blame all criticism on sexism. http://www.inquisitr.com/3294139/ghostbusters-reboot-receives-mixed-reviews-critics-called-sexist/ MegaSolipsist 13:34, 22 July 2016 NZ time

Peter Isotalo 21:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Why has Ivan Reitman's response to these claims been removed from the article? As it is the article only presents one angle, which isn't particularly neutral or unbiased, and the response of the director of the original two movies to the controversy seems significant enough to be included, at least in my opinion. MegaSolipsist 10:17, 22 July 2016 NZ time

Can we please remove the claim that most of the criticism stems from anti-feminism or the fact that the movie has an all-female cast? For every criticism based upon 'because it stars women' there are ten based on 'this is unnecessary and does not look funny at all'. The sources given for that claim support themselves by cherry-picking the worst comments and ignoring all the rest. They have already been called out on this by many people, so there is no reason to include them on this page, as they are clearly unreliable. MegaSolipsist 01:20, 16 July 2016 NZ time

Re:MegaSolipsist While there are definitely a myriad of criticisms leveled against the trailer, I feel like the misogyny discussion has been repeatedly singled out as a notable component in all of the publications listed above. While the content of these articles may be open to rebuttal and dissection, this would be WP:OR. What's notable is the discussion itself, not the discussion's validity. Since many (though not all) of these links come from publications of significance, this would be covered under notability guidelines WP:NEXIST. The article currently doesn't attempt to claim this *is* the only reason for criticism, just that it has been reported as a significant discussion point. If you feel this isn't the case, or if there are rebuttals addressing this very issue from similarly notable sources WP:RS, please discuss. Nerd2thend (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Re:Nerd2thend The article does claim that the criticism is *mostly* due to misogyny, which is incorrect. I'm not denying that some people dislike it simply because it has women in it, but the criticism has overwhelmingly been focused on the unfunny trailers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MegaSolipsist (talk • contribs) 23:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Is anyone going to mention that Sony deletes all negative comments except for those that contain sexist or misogynist remarks? Or that most of the positive comments came from channels that had only been created in the previous few weeks? The whole idea that all of the criticism comes from misogyny is one that Sony has carefully cultivated by removing all criticism that was aimed at the humour or editing of the trailer. This has been noted by numerous groups and loudly criticised for several months, yet no mention of it has reached the wikipedia article. MegaSolipsist 11:48, 15 July 2016 NZ time

I'm not a Sony employee. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I was referring to Sony deleting all legitimate criticism from the trailer on Youtube extremely quickly, unless the comment is sexist, in which case it gets left up for much longer. This has been noted and criticised by practically everybody since the day the trailer dropped. MegaSolipsist 01:14, 16 July 2016 NZ time

None of the hate came from anti-feminism.

It came from the fact that is a two hour SNL skit that completely trashes the original. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HandsomeFrog22 (talk • contribs) 14:20, July 11, 2016‎

Well, this is Wikipedia and we go by what sources say about article topics because we have a policy called Wikipedia:Verifiability. The massive amount of dislikes is directly linked to the female cast in multiple sources.
Peter Isotalo 02:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


Big media got also doped by some pro-GB movie supporting troll:

https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/4sduxx/ethics_list_of_writers_and_publications_that_were/

https://www.reddit.com/r/moviescirclejerk/comments/4sdx9y/tfw_youre_the_posterchild_for_reddits_misogynist/d58ko81

JD 81.183.181.111 (talk) 03:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Pretty much the same situation as with Gamergate. Fans are attempting to fight what they perceive as a politically biased cultural elite by cherry-picking oddball examples to support their far-fetched conspiracy theories. There's really nothing we couldn't deny if we allowed random forum threads as sources on Wikipedia.
Peter Isotalo 11:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

It seem the media coverage alone warrants the elephant in the room be addressed. There's been a huge discussion of the roles feminism and misogyny have played during the marketing and online reaction. Unfortunately, this article has been subject to the same push and pull. IMHO, the actual wiki page has stayed impressively neutral most of the week. Adding this section will be like shaking a hornets nest. Is there some seasoned, robotically scholarly mod up to adding/editing "Discussions of feminism and misogyny in critical media"? Nerd2thend (talk) 13:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

A separate section on misogynist reactions and feminist (mostly the former) defense doesn't appear to be justified. Glossing it over would not be neutral in any way, especially when it's the explanation given by most sources for the online fam campaign against the film. The far less notable criticism of racial stereotypes is explained in some detail, so I see no reason to pretend that it's super-sensitive to mention other forms of debates regarding discrimination.
The wording I added simply sums up the position of several sources, some of them already cited for insignificant, like accusations of censorship by Sony.
Peter Isotalo 13:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
All good then. Apologies, missed your earlier edit. Nerd2thend (talk) 14:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Knowing that the reception around this film is a heated situation (thus avoiding BOLD editing problems), I saw this article from Polygon that actually gets to the meat of the situation [5] - in that there definitely is some misogynistic backlash against the film, and there is some backlash against the film that has nothing to with gender but caught up in this mess (specifically calling out the AVGN situation) and noting that "in an increasingly toxic and polarized social media atmosphere, assessing a work feels like picking a side". (and a few other choice quotes). I think that more needs to be said here, which subsequently is important to understand how to summarize the reviews given the issue with RT described elsewhere on this page. It also appears appropriate to note that Fieg claims the backlash subconsciously shaped how he wrote the film [6]. I am sure we'll see more commentary on the critical nature of this film in a few days as it gets to full release. --MASEM (t) 21:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


I don't think I've seen a single person I know dislike the movie because it contains women. The majority of people who dislike it do so because they don't like the humor. In fact, many have said that the female cast is the only *positive* attribute. These news articles like to paint a polarized, sexist and misogynistic culture because it gets views - the same as saying that the entire country is unsafe because of a shooting, or that your children are going to be kidnapped and murdered, or that everyone who supports Trump is a racist or that everyone who supports Clinton is a corporate shill. Painting polarizing atmospheres works to gain views and money. At the very least, include a small blurb from the other side - just something like a "However, many have claimed to dislike the movie not because of the female cast but because of the low-brow humor.[source][source]" There are definitely sexist aggressors against this film, but the amount of people who at least claim to dislike it because of the humor is a large enough portion for a mention of it to be necessary. It isn't a fringe group that is saying this, it's a very large portion - I'd argue larger than the misogynists, but that's up in the air. An inclusion of one side, and not the other, is quite biased, in my opinion. 2602:306:3266:3000:71EA:E32:C2AC:4A0C (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

We'll include "the other side" as long as it's supported by reliable sources. We're not going to be a mouthpiece for outspoken minorities who happen to be very good at publicizing their views in various types of online forums.
Peter Isotalo 22:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
People don´t like the movie not because of the all-female cast but because it seems to promote feminism. That might be anti-feminism, but feminism itself is an ideology.77.11.181.249 (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The sources used to claim misoginy all cherry pick YouTube comments and/or Twitter comments. You can find literally everything in YouTube comments and none of the citations have demonstrated that this is more than a very small number of commenters.2A02:C7D:5035:2400:2559:F6BA:96E2:44DD (talk) 08:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Tribute to Harold Ramis?

Does anyone know if the movie will be paying tribute to the late Harold Ramis, who played Egon Spengler in the original and its sequel? 216.114.124.227 (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. And if reliable sources can be found to corroborate it, we could potentially add mention of it in. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 20:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I saw the film last night, there is a "For Harold Ramis" in the closing credits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottrb (talk • contribs) 12:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
There also is a bust of him outside Erin Gilbert's office much like you might have a bust of Einstein in a physics hallway.Brant Gurganus (talk) 16:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Avoid Edit-Warring

Given the large number of disputes and unilateral edits, I'd like to remind everyone of WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. While I haven't seen a direct violation of WP:3RR, it's probably occurred in the last week. Let's avoid escalation and use this talk page to reach consensus before editing.

Remember: An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense. Nerd2thend (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Twitter details

While copy-editing the Controversy section, it appeared that the information regarding Leslie Jones' experience on Twitter seemed unnecessary. Many celebrities experience problems like that from time to time, and while this is occasionally reported in the media, I feel the details of the incident don't belong here. If someone wants to try inserting them into the Leslie Jones (comedian) article, feel free to do so, but they are consuming too much real estate in this article leading to concerns of WP:UNDUE. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

While I'm personally unable to compile the all the necessary resources to for inclusion at the moment, I think some mention of the Twitter/Leslie Jones event may be relevant. Actual details would be better servered under her Wiki page, but there's little doubt the entire sequence was stemmed from a review of this film[1][2][3]. The tricky part will be adhering to WP:PERSISTENCE WP:SENSATION. Let's try hash this out here to avoid a WP:EDITWAR. Nerd2thend (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
In context of the larger controversy on the film, the twitter stuff is very relevant since it launched to the degree it did after the film's premiere, with the negative comments reiterating what was said by some at the release of the trailer (which is already documented). Thing is that there is a lot more going on in the controversy presently included (eg the situation around Rolfe), and as the controversy is less directly about the reception of the film, it should be its own section as to not take away from what people normally expect to see in the reception section. --MASEM (t) 13:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
With Dan Aykroyd stepping in to the controversy over the Leslie Jones incident, this is certainly notable news now. And the press has not picked this up in a BIG way. WP:DUE demands we include it here in some sense.71.218.140.156 (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. I restored the content. I would still caution that we try to keep this section's length proportional to the overall coverage of the topic. That's really what this comes down to. While the controversy is certainly important, it is just one aspect. Per WP:BALASPS, we need to be careful of recent news that may have the appearance of being very significant now, but not so much months or years later. Let's keep the most essential details that aid in the understanding of the topic. One or two sentences may suffice in areas that have ballooned into entire paragraphs. Long-winded, compound sentences can often be trimmed much shorter for conciseness. This will likely be a work in progress until long after the dust settles. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Lunchina, Fisher (20 July 2016). "Twitter Suspends Commentator After Leslie Jones Reports Online Harassment". ABC News. Retrieved 21 July 2016.
  2. ^ Romano, Aja (20 July 2016). "Milo Yiannopoulos's Twitter ban, explained". Vox. Vox Media. Retrieved 21 July 2016.
  3. ^ Conger, Kate. "Harassment of Ghostbusters' Leslie Jones shows Twitter needs to change". TechCrunch. Retrieved 21 July 2016.

Location in article

The Reception section contains film critics' reaction, as well as box office performance. The question raised above by Masem is whether or not it belongs in its own section as opposed to a subsection under Reception. I'm leaning in favor of keeping it under Reception. While these aren't reactions by professional critics or analysts in most cases, they are reactions nonetheless. Box office performance, for example, is included here, because it helps explain the public's response to a film. The Critical response section is reserved for professional criticism, but that doesn't necessarily mean the entire Reception section is. My 2¢. Interested to hear what others think... --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Thing is that this is more than just a "reaction" or "reception". Right now the amount of text relative to how much controversy this has generated is really small and it needs expanding (within policy) and when it does, it will be much more than just "reception". --MASEM (t) 02:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Do you agree, however, that in its current state, the section is only covering reaction to the film and its casting? If it evolves into something else, then by all means we should move it and/or break it up into separate sections (one covering reaction, and another covering everything else). --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Breaking Even

I think it should be stated in the article that the film needs to make at least $300 million to break even, according to Sony insiders.[1][2][3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C40D:5E90:6488:C59F:E636:6355 (talk) 09:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://variety.com/2016/film/box-office/ghostbusters-box-office-2-1201816038/
  2. ^ http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/box-office-analysis-why-ghostbusters-911836
  3. ^ https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/jul/18/ghostbusters-fails-to-top-us-box-office-46m-opening-weekend

Expanding the Leslie Jones Twitter Controversey

Shouldn't there be a mention of Jones own use of racial slurs during and prior to the exchange? -124.188.232.125 (talk) 06:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

No. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that issue should be worth mentioning in that section. It caused a lot of reactions and Twitter even took matters into their own hands by suspending Milo Yiannopoulos' account. De88 (talk) 06:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Well personally I am not totally convinced any of this actually relates to the film itself and might be better off on Jones' own article. But if it is noteworthy enough to be reported, I don't see why recording the actions of one of the two parties involved in the exchange would not be worthy of noting in the article, especially if the conduct of said party ostensibly would be categorized as the actions they decried when directed against themselves.

-124.188.232.125 (talk) 07:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I used direct links to jones twitter feed rather than a screenshot so there is no chance it could be mistaken for a photoshopped image.
Prior to the exchange

During the Exchange
  • http://archive.is/FjX6U - Jones telling her followers to "Get (Her!)" another twitter user
  • https://twitter.com/Lesdoggg/status/755250525948547072 - Jones claiming someone hacked her twitter account right in the middle of the her argument with Yiannopoulos and retweeted a racial slur aimed at african americans who are perceived as 'traitors' in relation to Yiannopoulos' conservative political views and then claiming someone hacked her account, then seemingly contradicting herself claiming there was no hack.

-124.188.232.125 (talk) 07:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

This is trivial drama, not worthy of our energy. Popcornduff (talk) 08:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree but if it was important enough to make it onto the article, we might as well do it right. I personally think the entire section about the twitter situation should be removed since it seems entirely peripheral to anything the article is intended to cover.

-124.188.232.125 (talk) 09:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, I would nominate the events on Twitter warrant mention since they're repeatedly tied back to Ghostbusters. The details and causes are increasingly less relevant to Ghostbusters. If they need to be addressed, this is not the place to do it (perhaps in Leslie Jones). As User:GoneIn60 stated earlier a very brief acknowledgement would be most fitting. Before anyone unilaterally edits again, can the community come to a consensus on the following:

  • Harassment of Jones occurred following Yiannopoulos reviewing Ghostbusters. This merits mention as it contributed to the larger discussion of Twitter policy and online culture in general.
  • The details are of decreasing relevance to the film, and consequently should not be addressed within this page. If it merits WP:EVENT then it can be documented elsewhere on the Wiki.
  • Keeping it concise will reduce the burdens of WP:LASTING WP:BALASPS etc.
  • WP:OR and WP:WEIGHT should be moot, since the issue isn't being examined here, just mentioned as relevant to the film.

Nerd2thend (talk) 13:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Sounds about right. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Only because I've not seen a source, but I've not looked in depth for one, but we should be careful to imply that Yiannopoulus' review led to the harassment without a source; Yiannopoulus is clearly considered an instigator after the matter, but the harassment Jones talked about seemed to start after the movie's release on Friday, not Monday (which is when Yiannopoulus posted his review). --MASEM (t) 14:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
The current New York Times reference states, without any qualification, "Hundreds of anonymous Twitter commenters hurled racist and sexist remarks at the star’s Twitter account, rallied and directed by Mr. Yiannopoulos this week." The article seems to prevaricate compared to the source. —Flax5 14:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Right, he wasn't shy on twitter about his comments, but the question is if his review he posted on Monday led to that. That's not said by the source, and at least one source, The Verge, points out the review didn't state anything towards anyone that followed him into action. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • This debate over a documented "call to action" is moot for the proposed mention within the Wikipedia Article for Ghostbusters (2016 Film). Numerous publications have clearly identified his involvement, thus we can confidently state his reported involvement. If necessary, the wording can avoid describing specific actions (which is what we're debating). Without a clear retraction/correction from secondary sources, this argument against inclusion is firmly WP:OR. Nerd2thend (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • All I'm pointing out is that, as you stated above Harassment of Jones occurred following Yiannopoulos reviewing Ghostbusters may be true but it implies that his review initiated the harassment, which is not either stated by sources or pointed out that didn't happen in sources. Other things that Yiannopoulos all do appear to be taken as inciting harassment towards Jones by followers, no question, just not his review. That's the only fact we can't source. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
If the alleged harrassment campaign cannot be tied to his review of the film, then shouldn't this be covered on Jones/Yianoppoulos' own article?

-124.188.232.125 (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

It's tied to the release of the film, since it apparently started happening Friday night onward, coming to a head on Monday. [7]. I would say that there likely will be more to the story (for example Wikileaks is stating they are going to start a Twitter competitor seeing Yianoppoulos' banning as improper) but that's definitely a different article. This story likely ends with yesterday's return of Jones to twitter. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps then just mention jones racist remarks and inciting her followers to 'get' that twitter user she disagreed with in the context of wikileaks reaction, as they specifically cited jones remarks as part of their reasoning for feeling that twitter's decision was more politically motivated than based on conduct

-124.188.232.125 (talk) 08:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Apparently Breitbart also ran a story on this, specifically linking to jones twitter account and citing the racist tweets in question.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160721124852/http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/07/20/double-standards-leslie-jones-racist-twitter-history/ Archive link because frankly i don't want to visit breitbart, way too much of a statement -124.188.232.125 (talk) 09:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Bias

I think we need to try to make this article as unbiased as possible. For example, the opening sentence of the "Controversy" section claims that "Ghostbusters has been at the center of controversy since the announcement of the female leads for the film in January 2015, with a significant amount of criticism appearing on social media regarding the female cast", conveying the notion that a vast majority of the criticism against this film is related to the sex of the main leads, which arguably is the belief of the "left" feminists, while conversely the belief of the "alt-right", "anti-feminists", or occasionally called "MRAs" or "MGTOWs" may state the direct opposite.

So may I suggest we cooperate and collaborate to make this article as minimally biased as possible? Bitsdotliestalk 08:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

The criticism is largely about the female leads. There hadn't been as strong an objection when male comedians like Seth Rogen were considered as leads. --192.183.219.156 (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The major controversial came on the first mention of the all female cast. While there has been criticism over this being Yet Another Hollywood Remake which mostly came after the first trailer (and which does need to be included), the controversy has been more about the reaction to the all-female cast, and how those arguing against the critics of the all-female cast have also tossed anyone negative about the film (eg Rolfe and Roeper) into the same group. But this needs to be carefully handled , and is not presently in this article. --MASEM (t) 02:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the section is pretty neutral by now, but it still could be more unbiased, I think. For instance, the opening sentence reads: "Ghostbusters received criticism from social media users for its female cast, announced in January 2015". It would be better to change that to "Ghostbusters received criticism from social media users, mostly for its female cast, announced in January 2015" or remove the cast mention altogether. Adding Ivan Reitman's statement about the fan backlash would also help make the section more neutral. κατάσταση 21:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Controversy regarding lead actresses

I know this movie has received much controversy over its decision to cast its leading actors as women so I think there should be a Controversy section included. I think it was wrong to change the reviews to "mixed" when Rotten Tomatoes currently has the movie at 73% but it should be noted that the movie triggered a lot of controversy over how it decided to do its [reboot]. What are your thoughts on this? De88 (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

No. Your proposal lends undue weight to what is clearly a very fringe viewpoint, and it isn't clear what you mean by "its sequel film". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I meant to say 'its reboot'. Including a Controversy section helps to inform readers about how much debate the reboot generated. You cannot deny that. To be honest, this was one of the most controversial films of the year so far, in par with Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice. The trailer itself has made it the ninth most disliked video on YouTube as of today with over 951,000 dislikes. I believe it is necessary to include this section in the article. Don't believe me, here's the link to the trailer: GHOSTBUSTERS - Official Trailer (HD) De88 (talk) 07:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
When most of the verifiable "controversy" was between "Return Of Kings"-type misogynist fringe villains and the rest of western civilization, it should not be given its own section per WP:UNDUE. The pre-release criticism that was leveled against the remake by non-misogynist non-villains like James Rolfe and Bob Chipman came from the mere fact that the film is a remake of a classic, which is inherently a stupid idea. The same was said Burton's Planet of the Apes and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. The fact that Chipman later said that even though the film was an inherently stupid idea it wound being a genuinely good film (as did most mainstream commentators) indicates that if it were Rolfe's professional mandate to watch the film he would agree, as would everyone else who isn't a "Return Of Kings" fringe woman-hater. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Nearly non of the criticism was "misogynist". It was because people didn´t like the jokes and the style. That´s not the same as hating women.77.11.181.249 (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
But they hadn't seen the film yet! By the way, you engaged in your (personal, unsourced) speculation that "people" (who?) don't like the film because of "it´s [sic] style" three times in ten minutes. And whether or not people like the jokes or "style" (again -- what?) is irrelevant to whether the "controversy" (which was driven almost entirely by misogyny -- you need a source to claim it wasn't) merits its own section. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The situation around Rolfe was that his statement that he would not see the film made no allusion to the leads being female; he took issue that they were taking a property he loved and remaking it and the pre-release material made it look like a bad remake so was choosing not to see it). Whether or not his reason has weight, what subsequently happened, documented in RSes, is that several people presumed his reaction was for misogynistic reasons. It's the same thing that happened with Roeper following his review his followup. There's a lot of nastiness happening on both sides here, and a lot of gross over-generalizations that we have to be careful in proper handling of. --MASEM (t) 14:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Speaking as someone who first heard about the misogynistic reactions to the trailer and couldn't believe that that could still happen in 2016, and who then watched the trailer and read a large number of comments, it quickly became very clear that the vast majority of criticism had nothing to do with misogyny and was just focused on the humour and style. The controversy was more over the reboot itself than the female cast. Indeed, this was reported by Wikipedia (with numerous sources cited) until it was removed within the last few days with no explanation. Also, Ivan Reitman's response that the controversy and backlash was mostly due to nostalgia rather than sexist ideals has been removed as well. As it stands, editors on Wikipedia seem determined to present only one side of the issue, which can hardly be considered neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MegaSolipsist (talk • contribs)
The hyperbolic negative over-reactions began when literally the only thing known about it was when they announced it would have a female cast, long before the trailer came out. Look at all the crap they got just for visiting a children's hospital, when they were invited to since they were filming beside it. That was over nine months before the trailer came out. Also many things with equal or even greater nostalgia value have not received comparable backlash, in fact none at all have.219.88.68.195 (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The backlash when the female cast was first announced was relatively minor and was soon forgotten. Most of the fan backlash and controversy arose after the trailer dropped. MegaSolipsist 11:04, 19 July 2016 NZ time
That's incorrect, the response to the trailer was a direct follow on to the already existing hyperbolic reaction to that initial announcement. As per the examples of things like responses to their visit to a children's hospital, also well before the trailer came out. -The hospital itself had to take down some of the pictures from its Facebook page because it was getting flooded with vitriolic attacks from people who tracked it down to attack the film and the cast (and even a few of the patients got caught in the crossfire).219.88.68.195 (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Stop inserting your own personal "take" on Rolfe's review and pretending it's based on reliable sources. The previous language: "The Atlantic accused Rolfe of misogyny, despite Rolfe not mentioning having any problems with the gender of the cast" misunderstands how editorial content works ("The Atlantic" didn't accuse anyone, they published a guy's take,) misrepresents the substance of the take ("misogyny" was not used, the criticism of Rolfe was pretty subtle,) and inserts editorialization that makes no sense (it is not damning that Rolfe "didn't even mention the gender," the Sims article specifically said he "danced around the issue" etc.) TiC (talk) 05:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I expanded more on the Controversy section. Feel free to change some of the edits if they violate NPOV policies. De88 (talk) 06:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I've stumbled upon a YouTube channel that specializes in the coverage of corporate politics of Hollywood film production, Midnight's Edge, and they've made interesting research into this film's controversy. I'm citing the following links for further discussion in case that might help. The first summarizes the alleged troubled production history of the film, the second discusses the sizable non-sexist criticisms of the film's marketing, and the third describes Sony's reactions to the film's ill-received trailers. I don't mean to imply this channel is any more credible than other sources cited in this article thus far, but I think their coverage is extensive and their arguments well researched. This may add clarity and balance to the film's Controversy-section.

There is clear bias here but what do you expect of Wikipedia? The article does not make it clear that Milo Yiannopoulos was at no point racist towards Leslie, merely called her ugly which is a perfectly fine opinion to express, and criticised the film. He did not tell anyone to go after Leslie, however Leslie has called 'white people shit' (racial insult) and has told people to 'go after them' because she couldn't take a joke (actually inciting hatred). She did not get banned because Twitter's biases and selected censoring of freedom of speech clearly work in her favour. This should be brought up here in the interest of having both sides of the argument. Also Paul Feig's misandry (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/paul-feig-why-men-arent-449025) is obviously relevant if you're going to bring up mere supposed misogyny. 86.179.226.238 (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
The most credible theory for the ban is that Milo reacted in a calculated way to false flag accounts that were pretending to be Jones (http://www.vox.com/2016/7/20/12226070/milo-yiannopoulus-twitter-ban-explained). And it's completely disingenuous to say that Jones failed to take a joke. The number of racist messages within less than a day was in the thousands. Even if any given individual from that group just made a minor shitpost which was "no big deal" and "not against Twitter's rules", it adds up to something that is clearly reprehensible and worth covering in this article. And now to address the scope of the section: a movie or trailer being bad is not controversy. For all of the other crappy reboots and sequels, wiki editors give negative reviews the right amount of weight without trying to elevate them into some pointed condemnation of the Hollywood business model. If this article is going to be different by including a controversy section, it needs to focus on what is actually different about the film. And right now that's the misogynistic campaign against it. Connor Behan (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't really think this page needs a "controversy" section. some people were mad. it wasn't anyone of note, just a bunch of people on the internet yelling at each other — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGnerd (talk • contribs) 01:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the argument being put forth in this discussion. There are 19 reliable sources all reporting on the controversy, most specifically referring to it as a controversy including Kristen Wiig herself "the fact there was so much controversy because we were women was surprising to me." Any argument that a controversy section provides undue weight is a complete misunderstanding of that policy. Undue weight does not mean that we, as editors, get to police the information and decide what the mainstream thinks and what's fringe (this would be Synth and Original Research at its worst) it simply means that we have to report on information with the same weight that it appears in reliable sources. Since there is a tangible controversy which is being reported by the BBC, WaPo, the Atlantic, the LA times, and others, there's really no need for Wikipedia editors to put in their two cents over whether or not it's serious. Scoundr3l (talk) 07:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Sony's threat of Legal Action against Bill Murray

Shouldn't there be some mention in the controversy section about sony considering legal action against bill murray if he did not co-operate with promoting the film? -124.188.232.125 (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

See Talk Archive - Sony's treatment of Bill Murray for my previous opinion regarding Sony's "threatening" Murray . Here are my issues with this:
  • The evidence is someone at Sony requesting they talk with legal counsel about Bill Murray. No indication or reporting this occurred, let alone if Murray was even contacted regarding this.
  • I've seen no evidence (and feel free to correct me) that the legal counsel was for Murray's participation in promotion of the new film. Prior to the creation of Ghost Corps production company, the rights for Ghostbusters were jointly held by the creators (Reitman, Aykroyd, Murray, Ramis). This would indicate Sony needed legal to move forward with a new movie (and transferring rights to Ghost Corps).
IMHO, since I don't see any reporting as to which of these scenarios actually occurred, stating anything without more details would be WP:OR and/or WP:NOTGOSSIP. Nerd2thend (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Seconded. This is gossip. Popcornduff (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Especially when even as reported, the email was merely their head of legal talking about evaluating their position and options with the general counsel, with the discussion about it being that it would be a terrible idea.219.88.68.195 (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

'street smart'

In the 'controversy' section, I think this should be qualified. I know that some of the criticism revolved around this perception, but I it wasn't actually in the film. The line "I know New York' from the trailer, was shown to mean she had a lot of detailed knowledge about its history, -a NY city history buff. I didn't see anything that would suggest being 'street smart' in the idiomatic sense was a specific or emphasized aspect of her character. Something like 'and the perception that Leslie Jones' character was to be portrayed as a "street smart" New Yorker'.219.88.68.195 (talk) 21:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Many of us did see it in the "idiomatic" sense. Why is she a woman of color with just street smarts rather than a scientist like the other characters? Why is her character so cliche? "The power of pain compels you" and her stating that she can get them a car? It's a tired played out stereotype that was offensive. Doom guy 83 (talk) 05:16, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Corrections to Plot section, largely nitpicks

"paranormal phenomenon" should use the plural, phenomena

"they open the "Conductors of the Metaphysical Examination"" may read more smoothly as "they open a business as "Conductors of the Metaphysical Examination""

"contacts the Department" should read "contacts the Conductors"

"group investigate" should read "group investigates"

"Gilbert (who resents being labelled as insane or a liar)" could be changed to "Gilbert is desperate to prove the Ghostbusters' legitimacy to the famed skeptic, and

"Times Square, a site with a history of paranormal activity, and discover" could be "Times Square, a site with a history of paranormal activity. They discover"

"her and Yates' book" may be more comfortable as "the book she wrote with Yates" (also appropriate as "Yates's and her book")

Also, I would add Oxford Commas to their appropriate places for consistency.

Furthermore, why refer to the characters by their surnames when they refer to each other in the film by their first names (aside from Holtzmann, who is always Holtzmann. Or Holtzy.) ?

66.206.53.176 (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ghostbusters_(2016_film)/Archive_1&oldid=1148110725"