Jump to content

Talk:Ghostbusters/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Possible change in table of contents

• I propose a change in the format of the table of contents. Although I don't have all the required knowledge I think this new layout would be better:

1 Plot 2 Themes 3 Production—Development, Casting, writing, Filming, Cinematography, Visual effects 4 Release 5 Reception—Box office and Critical response 6 Legacy—Recognition and Music 7 Trivia 8 References 9 External links —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stellios88 (talk • contribs) 18:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


bass progression in the score

Sound identical to Pop Muzik, an earlier hit song.

Added further information to this (22/08/2009); as the song does oddly sound similar to Raven classic "The Ballad of Marshall Stack". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sxgdayd-mxI (for those who are unfortunately yet to hear this slice of pure awesome). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.57.195 (talk) 11:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"Ghostbusters" and Mozilla?

The Mozilla team apparently were inspired by the Ghostbusters movie when they worked over their browser. For example:

As the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XUL page already talks about this link, I believe the section should not be repeated here, but perhaps a link that could be something like:

  • Ghostbusters was a source of inspiration for the Mozilla team when they created the XML language XUL (pronounced like Ghostbuster's Zuul), and Venkman, their JavaScript Debugger.

Paercebal 14:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


"Ghostbusters" logo backward?

I remember reading somewhere, many years ago, that there was an error during the production of the UK video artwork for the first film which meant that the Ghostbuster's logo was printed backwards (an image google of "ghostbusters" will easily provide an example)... this lasted for a number of years.

I'd like to add this to the trivia section... does anyone have a more detailed encyclopedic, um... thingy.


I've heard an alternate theory that it was flipped in the UK for better readability... it's a believable theory, and the only 'error' I'd heard about concerning the Ghostbusters II logo, where the original final design was lost and when it was re-drawn, the ghost's second leg got left off by accident. -Kingpin1055 23:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Bloody well justify!

If you're going to peform such a substantial pull apart of the article, discuss it here first before doing so. I reinstated the full cast list (Which will have more members added to it) because it's removal was pointless, and a lot of the other removals were equally unsunstantiated or justified. Discuss these changes here before performing them.Kingpin1055 08:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

(Should 134.74.186.20 be couragous enough to stop by, instead of simply rediting the page he, or she feels the need to vandalise... here's a few pointers.
Three unemployed parapsychology professors (recently kicked out of Columbia University in New York) start a business called Ghostbusters, a spectral investigation and removal service armed with technology of their own design that can track down and capture supernatural entities with unprecedented ease. - They're three lecturers, who are part of a Parapsychology Department. Hence, 'Parapsychology Professors' (Even though 'professor' isn't really the right term. Parapsychologists explore and investigate unusual things, that's what Egon, Ray and Peter are doing. I hope you can work out the conclusion I'm coming too.
Dr. Raymond "Ray" Stantz (Dan Aykroyd) is an expert on paranormal history metallurgy, Ray Stantz isn't an expert in experimental physics. He's an engineer, which would likely come with a knowledge of metallurgy... Egon's the one who dealt with the experimental physics.
The final edit, on Columbia University is a minor one... but seeing as no name was dropped in the film, I think it's fair game just to label it as Columbia. Knock off the inaccurate edits, which frankly show you off as the vandal you appear to be.Kingpin1055 15:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

skiddz

Lex Says that vandalising Wiki Articles for YTMND's is WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just photo edit or at least fix it once oyu've got you're screen cuase by the time most of you're viewers see you're site is gonna be fixed anyway. yoyokidinghostbusters.ytmnd.com

Pointless, and in the end you'll be forgotten. Thanks for contributing nothing.Kingpin1055 09:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Supposed 'Taglines'

I admit that my memory from the mid 80's is a little shaky, but most of these 'taglines' sound like someone pulled them out of his (or her) ass. Ok, 'who ya gonna call' is certainly a legitimate tagline, as is 'I ain't afraid of no ghost', but the rest of the lines on the list (especially given the odd wording...'THEY ain't afriad of no ghost'??) sound like they were snagged from trailers, promo spots or movie posters. If you were to quote any of them out of context, excepting 'I ain't afraid...' and 'who ya gonna call', I promise you that nobody will know what the hell you're talking about. -Grammaticus Repairo 06:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


I think you are confusing the meaning of "tagline" with that of "cathphrase". A tagline is a short, easily remembered phrase used to promote a film, and is usually featured in trailers or on movie posters. My memory of the '80s is certainly no better than yours, but if these phrases appeared, at one point or another, in trailers or on movie posters or advertisements, than they are defintely legitimate taglines. 210.216.45.65 15:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Anonymous, 21 October 2006


Okay, I can accept that. However, in that case, I have to say that since they were likely just promotional garbage spit out by the studios to sell more tickets, the taglines do not really deserve a place in the article, as you really don't see that sort of thing in many other wiki movie articles, and CERTAINLY not located just above the table of contents. This isn't to say that Ghostbusters is not worthy of extra content, having become a major pop culture icon. I feel that a section with pop culture 'catchphrases' would be an appropriate replacement, albeit further down in the article. Just a thought. -Grammaticus Repairo 06:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Christopher Herbert? Who?

Christopher Herbert is only mentioned once in the article, and no information is given about him accept that "he has withstood the test of time" and is still crazy about Ghostbusters. Did some foolish fan place himself into the article just to show himself off (sorry, but I calls 'em as I sees 'em), much to the chagrin of those trying to make a REAL and serious encyclopedia article, or is this a person that deserves actual recognition? If so, then anyone that knows anything about Christopher Herbert should post what FACTUAL data they can in the article. Otherwise, this bit at the very end of the article's last paragraph (before the links), should be deleted. It is the only mentioning of Christopher Herbert at this, and will not be hard to find. Cartoonist Will 22:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Never heard of him. Obviously a fan attempt at fun.

Character Stubs

Someone appears to be creating stubs of all the characters... may want to revert back to the version with links. I've been following xem around trying to wikify and stub-tag what I can... ESkog 23:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I've been replacing them with redirects. There is no need for stubs for movie characters. Kelly Martin 00:05, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll un-revert back to you. ESkog 00:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Material from Gozer the Gozerian

The following is from Gozer the Gozerian, which I've changed to redirect. Some of this is plot summary and should be merged into the main article with the appropriate spoiler tag.

Gozer the Gozerian also known as Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildorohar and The Traveler is the name of a fictional Sumerian god who is the major supernatural enemy in the film, Ghostbusters. The character may have been an in-joke being one of the Hebrew names for a surgeon who performs circumcisions.
He is assisted by two dog-like minions called Zuul (The Gatekeeper) and Vinz Clortho (The Keymaster). Gozer the Traveller appears in one of his pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Valdranaii the Traveller came as a very large and moving Torr. In the third reconciliation of the last of the Meketrex supplicants they chose a new form for him, that of a giant Slorr. Many Shubs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slorr that day, I'll tell you.
After World War I, an insane surgeon called Ivo Shandor, a leader of an secret apocalyptic cult, designed a massive apartment building in New York City specifically to gather psychic energy that would power a portal that would allow Gozer and his minions to enter the world and destroy it.
By 1984, the building had gathered enough energy to pull the minions through with plans of possessing suitable humans to open the portal on top of the building to allow Gozer through. If one supposed that a Twinkie represents the normal amount of psychokinetic energy in the New York area, based on Dr. Spengler's reading, the energy gathered in 1984 would be a Twinkie thirty-five feet long, weighing approximately six hundred pounds. As a byproduct, numerous ghosts were revived and became active throughout the city as they waited to join their new master.
Unfortunately for them, an unforseen development occurred that created a powerful opposition to Gozer. Three unemployed parapsychology professors had coincidentally formed a business called Ghostbusters, a specteral investigation and removal service armed with technology of their own design that could track down and capture the entities with unprecedented ease. Unaware of the cause of this sudden spike of paranormal activity, the company had brisk business capturing numerous ghosts to the point where they were concerned about the capacity of their containment grid.
When an overzealous EPA inspector, Walter Peck, ordered the grid deactivated against the advice of the Ghostbusters, a massive break out of the ghosts occurred which caused widespread haunting that immediately sparked chaos throughout the city. The Ghostbusters managed to convince the authorities to let them deal with the crisis and they confronted Gozer as he emerged from the portal on top of Shandor's building.
After an initial skirmish, Gozer demanded that Ghostbusters choose the form which the Destructor would take. Ray Stanz reflexively choose an innocuous corporate mascot, the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man. The result was the bizarre sight of a giant marshmallow man in a sailor suit with an insane smile stomping through New York toward the building. The Ghostbusters eventually stopped the god by crossing their proton pack streams as they fired at the portal. This created total protonic reversal which caused an explosion that apparently closed the portal and destroyed or at least neutralized Gozer and his minions and returned the possessed humans back to normal.
00:10, 3 May 2005 ESkog

I have merged this matter into Ghostbusters. Anthony Appleyard 13:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Twinkies and Spengler's estimate

Egon Spengler said "If one supposed that a Twinkie represents the normal amount of psychokinetic energy in the New York area, the energy gathered in 1984 would be a Twinkie 35 feet long, weighing approximately 600 pounds.".

  • Going by size (see Twinkie), the scaling is by 105 each way, being a volume scaling 1053 = 1157625 = say a million.
  • Going by weight, Twinkie does not state weight, but say a few ounces: that gives a weight scaling of a few thousand.

Which was intended? What the script writer needed here was a Twinkie and a lab-type weighing weighing scale and a ruler and a bit of arithmetic. Anthony Appleyard 06:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

At first glance, the weight and volume estimates seem contradictory, since a 35 foot long Twinkie should weigh 60,000 pounds, not 600. Perhaps, however, psychokinetic energy is a 2-dimensional vector quantity, not a scalar quantity. One aspect of psychokinetic energy is a million times greater than normal, while the second aspect of psychokinetic energy is a few thousand times greater than normal.

"600 pounds" in unambiguous. However, "35 feet long" is. Is the twinkie just stretched (meaning it's just a longer twinkie with the same diameter)? Or perhaps all three demensions are increased. While you point out that this doesn't work, consider that a twinkie is not homogeneous: it has an outer shortcake with an inner vanilla fillling (presumably with different average densities). If one were to start in the centre and move outward radially, you would find that approximately half a twinkie is shortcake and half is filling. However, if all three dimensions where increased, then perhaps this ratio would change. Also, there's no telling how thick the ends would be with shortcake.
In the end, what the writer was going for was for the audience to go, "Holy cow! That's one big twinkie!", not, "I want to get out my calculator and see if that makes sense." I'm sure you could find a LOT of other more important things in Ghostbusters that defy physics than the size of the twinkie! Mustard 21:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the information about the twinkie is a must. Given the uncertainties about the physics involved with PKE and related twinkie-size calculations, I believe that no greater authority can be assigned on this matter than to the writers of the movie itself. Thus, in order to explain what it means for the PKE to be "a few thousand times normal", the example must be supplied. Allen p 12:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Under the Gozer section, it says that the original god chosen for the screenplay was Tiamat, a real Mesopotamian god. Where is this written? Are there references for that?

citations

"Gozer's temple was the biggest and most expensive set ever to be constructed at that time[citation needed]. "

The region 4 dvd "The ultimate collectors pack" of ghosbusters 1 and 2 flipcover states it as, " Sixty feet high and covering an entire soundstage, the set was surrounded by a 360 degree panorama of NYC. It was so large infact Columbia had to shutdown other sets to power it's 50,000 amps power requirement." It does not mention it being the most expensive set at that given time in history, which being quite impressive probably would have been included in the packaging.Atirage 12:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Character pages

I'd really love to make pages for each of the Ghost Busters and perhaps Tully and Dana too. Janine and Slimer have their own pages so why not give the others pages too? (user:HannuMakinen)

I've never once understood why Slimer, Stay Puft and Janine had their own pages... I thought they'd get explained enough on the source pages (Film(s) or cartoon(s)). Kingpin1055 22:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Go for it. It's the norm on Wikipedia for each significant fictional character to have a page of her/his own, so I think there should definitely be a separate article for each individual Ghostbusters character. I'll make them myself eventually if no-one else does. Mosquitor 22.49, 27 June 2006 (GMT)

Murphy and Candy

from the article:

"neither Murphy nor Candy could commit to the movie due to prior conflicts"

Conflicts, or commitments? The way it's written it could be inferred that Murphy and Candy had prior conflicts with *one another*, rather than that they had prior commitments which conflicted with Ghostbusters. Does anyone know which it is?

I'd say 'prior commitments', although I'm sure I read that Eddie Murphy never applied to the role, and that in fact he turned it down and regretted that decision ever since. Kingpin1055 16:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Disney

'* In 1937 the Disney Company released an cartoon short titled "Lonesome Ghosts" which had Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, and Goofy in the ghost extermination business. In one scene Goofy is looking around in a bedroom and uses the phrase, "I ain't afraid of no ghost." some 47 years before it became a catch phrase.'

Somehow I doubt Goofy would've said that in 1937.

May I ask why not? Grammaticus Repairo 05:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Because to be perfectly honest, it sound anacronistic for 1937... it almost sounds like someone trying to give the Disney short more attention then it deserves. However, if anyone has seen this animation recently then please put this to rest.Kingpin1055 11:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

He does say it, but with a trembling "g-g-g-g-ghost" at the end. Like he's trying to convince himself. Still, I see no reason to include it in the article.

'proton pack' Vs 'Proton Pack'

I don't know... what's the common consensus? I always considered them capitolized as that was their full name... Kingpin1055 12:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Ben a Proton Pack should be like a proper noun or someting. It is always capitalized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.49.230 (talk) 04:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Recnetly, an issue came up concerning the external links. Apparantly, the following pages weren't considered reliable sources mostly as they're pretty much fan sites. The links involved were:

Spook Central: The home of a lot of in depth information and behind the scenes photographs of both films. Material which can't be found elsewhere. I'd consider this site worth keeping within the external links as it provides behind the scenes material not available to a site kept in such high regard such as IMDb.

GBProps: I suppose the worth of this one is up for debate... however it (and the not mentioned www.gbpropject.com) provide information for replicating the props from the movie, and for where to find reference material. An item surely to come in handy with people with Halloween approaching.

Ghostbusters.net: Sadly part of it's draw... the online episodes has thus since been removed. But it was never about drawing traffic to the site. Ghostbusters.net is one of the oldest fan forums around, one of the main fan forums around which... under rhe rulw "Links to be used occasionally: 3. On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such."

This effectively justifies the inclusion of at least one major fansite.

Proton Charging: A manjor GB news outlet which has helped to break down the recent rumours where people believed Ghostbusters 3 was being made. The site also contains interviews with people involved with the films, cartoons and other materials which are not a part of the Wiki article.

Ghostbusters HQ: Similar to Ghostbusters.net in regard, it is a major fan site which contains a number of interviews and media for the cartoons and films.


I can understand the reasoning to keep the external links clean and controlled, and to vet some of the entries which get put in as some are only out there for the visitor numbers.

If you feel the links should once again be removed, please consult this section and add to the discussion before removing them again.87.113.86.247 22:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"Trivia"

I can appreciate some people wanting to do away with 'Trivia' sections, although I don't feel the justification is really valid in this case as I don't feel the 'Trivia' section applies to: 'If a section ("trivia" or otherwise) has grown so large as to over-balance an article, consider:'

It doesn't seem to over-balance the article in my mind, and the only entries I think could be easily justified for removal are points #2, #5 and #7 (DVD details, test screening and army regiment respectively) I don't think many of the entries in that section can be easily worked into the main article... hence their place in a separate section of the article. If you're able to fully justify why a 'trivia' entry has to go, please state so here.Kingpin1055 09:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Confusing plot section

The plot section has been marked as confusing because the description leaves out important parts of the storyline, leaving a great many plot holes in the description that won't make sense for people who haven't seen the film. --Ppk01 11:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It's something I wonder about... should we put in the whole plot, regardless of whether everyone has seen it all... but only a brief synopsis so that people can still discover stuff? Kingpin1055 16:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

88MPH Studio?

This tidbit is not clear. 88MPH Studios may continue their ongoing series. Huh? Who are they? What series? Is it a cartoon? A movie? A TV series? I've never heard of this. Of course, after a bit of reading I see that it's a comic book series, but it should be rewritten to be more clear. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.107.219.211 (talk) 03:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

88MPH Studios is a Canadian based comic publisher (There actually was an article... however those in support of it's removal said that 88MPH wasn't a notworthy corporation... regardless of the likely trouble the deletion would cause). The series was an ongoing Ghostbusters comic series.Kingpin1055 20:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Trivia and Cast

I took the liberty of scooting the Trivia section over to it's own page so it doesn't get bigger then the article.

I also shifted the Plot and Cast sections so that the page format would work with the column formatting someone put on them.Kingpin1055 16:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, the result of the deletion debate of the trivia article was merge. So I have to add the trivia section again to article or the information are lost. ---89.51.122.202 18:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Something we might consider to add: according to the script of the first movie available online somewhere (i dont have the url right now), there was supposed to be the ghost of the guy who built the building, instead of Gozers female form, with essentailly the same action going on (the whole "are you a god?" bit". What do you think? 81.201.224.13 14:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
As I recall, Paul Rubens was originally considered to play 'Ivo Shandor', the building's designer, and I'm pretty sure that appeared in both the script and some storyboards in 'Making Ghostbusters', the behind-the-scenes book. I'd say it's a worthy entry. -Kingpin1055 09:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
You wouldn't happen to have a full citation for that would you? I would like to use it in Ivo Shandor, which I am trying to expand enough for GA. IvoShandor 10:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Films which explore Libertarian themes?

202.82.33.202 10:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)See above discussion, "Get a Life!" The film IS bonehead Libertarian.

Is that an appropriate category? The film has little political content at all; other than making fun of vote-hungry politicians and imperious bureaucrats (Walter Peck in particular). The film's treatment of the Environmental Protection Agency isn't at all serious. There are many in the world who like to make fun or complain about the government, but who would not consider themselves Libertarians...

--EngineerScotty 04:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it smells of someone editing it to try be funny. I vote delete. Kingpin1055 19:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Not fussed either way, but there is the manner in which they are thrown out of the university to be considered. bert 20:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ivo Shandor

Hello all. Thought I would mention I have done some significant expansion of the Ivo Shandor article. I still need a reliable source for the Paul Reubens claim. Also, I regularly review stuff at GA and I think with some minor expansion it could qualify as a short GA, any ideas would be helpful. The expansion led me to create an article for 55 Central Park West, which lo and behold, is popularly known as the Ghostbusters Building according to New York Magazine. Preferably respond on the talk page there but here is fine too. IvoShandor 10:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll try dig out my book, if I can't find it there's an inverview over at www.protoncharging.com with Slavitza Jovan where she mentions them wanting to get Paul Reubens (although I bet you someone will come along and say that's not a reputable source). -Kingpin1055 00:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Uncomfortable Wording

It might be nitpicking, but i didn't feel comfortable with this sentence:

"When Ernie Hudson took over it was decided that he be brought in later to indicate how the Ghostbusters were struggling to keep up with the outbreak of spooks"

I changed "spooks" to "ghosts" because I think someone may have been trying to sneak in a racial slur about our dear old Winston Zeddemore.

One Word or Two?

I'm just being abit pedantic here, but shouldn't it be Ghost Busters (two words) rather than one?

The IMDb has it as two - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087332/. Eastlygod 19:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Given how many errors plague IMDb it's a supportive source at best. True, in the movie the title at the start was split into 'Ghost' on one level and 'Busters' on another, however... the banner outside of the Firehouse when the Ecto-1 arrives there for the first time, several newspapers, the movie poster, the episode title cards for "The Real Ghostbusters" and the intro to "Extreme Ghostbusters" all have it as one word, so if you ask me the title of the movie is one word, "Ghostbusters". -Kingpin1055 09:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

IMDb considers it this way because it was the first occurance of the name in the movie was two words. Ghostbusters is one word.. and IMDb should have it as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.49.230 (talk) 04:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Ghostbusters 3?

What happened to the article on Ghostbusters 3?

It doesn't strike me as a huge surprise, the implication from Dan Aykroyd in one interview that a game was more likely then a third film... guess somebody decided that "GB3" didn't have enough proof to support keeping the article.-Kingpin1055 10:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
What about this link? http://www.cisnfm.com/station/blog_mike_mcguire.cfm?bid=7500 209.91.61.251 09:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Interesting, but Dan has been saying GBIII is "in the works" for the past 10 years. Let's wait until something actually materializes.--Atlan (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
lol, GBIII looks like "GBill" as in Bill Murray. Hopefully he'll come back too.209.91.61.251 22:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The radio interview's become pretty dated now... regardless of that interview it's not really proof that a new film has been greenlighted, really an article should get made when they're advertising it... at the earliest.-Kingpin1055 23:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Tobin's Spirit Guide

Okay, so it's all fiction, but no mention of this in the article? It was central to how they knew things. Hires an editor 01:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Cast List

I'd like to know the justification for editing out most of the cast list. I don't understand why the details of the cast have to be cherry picked when these articles aren't subject to the length restrictions of a printed encyclopedia. I feel it's worthwhile for an article to list the full cast, even if the primary and seconcary cast are separated because they deserve a mention even if not all of them have enough information to justify their own Wikipedia article.-Kingpin1055 17:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that the reason why Wikipedia articles should only stick to a select cast list is that you can easily access a full cast list at Internet Movie Database. Do we really need to list "Dogwalker #1" on Wikipedia? no. --J.D. 18:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
J.D. is right. We don't need a verbatim copy of the Imdb cast list in the article. Anything that can be found on websites more suited to that particular thing (like Imdb for cast lists), doesn't need to be replicated in the article. Wikipedia is also not an indiscriminate source of information. By adding each and every person seen or heard in the Ghostbusters movie, you're making the cast list indiscriminate. Look at other movies to see how cast lists are handled there.
That doesn't mean the cast list should be left alone as it is. To adhere to the movie style guide, which aims to uniformize film articles, each cast member listed still needs a short summary of the importance and role of the character in the film. I would do it, but I always seem to suffer writer's block when I try to come up with short summaries. Any help would be welcome there.--Atlan (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
When exactly does Bill Walton make a cameo in this movie?:: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.8.157.125 (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge in Ivo Shandor

4 For Merger, 4 Against Shandors notability is limited to this movie, and does not merit a whole article. Any of the useful information is already at 55 Central Park West-- Judgesurreal777 15:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No Merge - The article links directly back to the Ghostbusters and the 55 Central Park West article, and is honest about its "in-universe" POV. It is far too specific for either of the other two articles and would be edited out of both, I'm sure. The article is harmless. Keep it. --Knulclunk 04:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No Merge I agree with the aboveZisimos 15:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok...I'm sorry to say that those arguments have nothing to do with wikipedia policies about notability, the presentation of fiction in an out of fiction perspective, and referencing, which that article fails. Your right, there is some information, but it fits quite nicely in the series article and the 55 Central Park West article, so there is no need to duplicate it and write it here again. Judgesurreal777 18:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikia I found an empty Ghostbusters wiki on wikia [1] maybe someone wants to start copying these articles to that wiki or maybe make a new one?--Torchwood Who? 07:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the merge, although I'd like to see it on the Wikia wiki if possible. It's not that the character isn't significant to the movie - he just doesn't have any significance outside of it. Luatha 01:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge I mean, is there really enough out there on this guy to really merit an article for him? Umbralcorax 03:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No Merge - Article is well-researched and detailed. A merger would be detrimental to the content of this article, and the conciseness of the Ghostbusters article which is already rather lengthy. Keeping the article has benefits for those who want to read about Shandor, while I can't see any disadvantages to anyone else caused by keeping it. Yeanold Viskersenn 23:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No Merge Agreeing with all above pointsTsurettejr 21:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge per nom. We don't really need an article for a character who appears nowhere beyond this film, and who doesn't even actually appear in the film. He is just talked about. Ivo Shandor fails the notability requirements at Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Minor characters and the article would probably not withstand an AfD, so merging is the only way to salvage any of the info in that article. Rob T Firefly 19:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess no merger. Perhaps deletion is a better idea. -- Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge I agree with Umbralcorax's comments. Does he really deserve his own article? --- J.D. (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ghostbusters or Ghost Busters?

After a quick glance at this Talk page, I'm surprised that nobody seems to have picked up on the difference between the film's promotional title and its actual one. The IMDb lists the film as Ghost Busters, since that is its on-screen title. A similar debate took place regarding Superman v Superman: The Movie (see Talk:Superman (1978 film)#Requested move). The consensus there appears to be that the on-screen title is the one that counts. However, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) states that "Titles of articles should be the most commonly used title..." At the very least, if this article isn't to be moved, I think that the film's on-screen title needs a mention somewhere. Chris 42 17:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

IMDB has it wrong. It was never referred to as Ghost Busters.. EVER. The name was broken up on screen strictly for readability sense. Ghostbusters would have been to wide, especially for Pan and Scan versions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.175.197.100 (talk) 19:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

But the fact remains, even if it was split up to avoid panning and scanning, the title as displayed on the screen is still two words (and not hyphenated at that). The article should reflect this. Perhaps the reason for it could be inserted into the article if a citation can be found? Chris 42 (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Look at the credits. See how the movie is registered at the very end. It's Ghostbusters.. IMDB is not Wikipedia. Fans have been fighting to get that changed for years. Why would they call one movie "Ghost Busters" and the other one "Ghostbusters 2"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.175.197.100 (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Either way, Wikipedia deals with facts. Whether you like it or not, it is a fact that the film's title ended up being displayed as two words on-screen and one word on the poster. You can't choose content for an article a la carte simply because you don't agree with the final product. In any case, both titles are given in the opening paragraph and (since the title Ghostbusters has gained popular currency over the years through its use on posters and DVDs, etc.) the article hasn't been moved, so I don't see the problem. Other Wikipedia film articles that prominently display alternate titles include Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, Superman, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Goodfellas and X2. It is simply good Wiki practice and I have amended the opening line to follow those examples. Chris 42 (talk) 21:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Anon, please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#Alternate titles before reverting again. Thanks. Chris 42 (talk) 22:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Anon is correct. The Motion Picture Association of America has the movie #27436 accredited as "Ghostbusters", one word. The article will remain as "Ghostbusters", with only a brief mention of 'Ghost Busters' suitable with what Chris 42 has placed. The article will not be changed to "Ghost Busters" with only mention of "Ghostbusters" being a promotional title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.49.230 (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction: Box Office

In the introduction, the following statement can be found:

The film grossed approximately USD$240 million in the U.S. and over $50 million abroad during its theatrical run, more than the second Indiana Jones installment, making it easily the most successful film of that year, and the most successful comedy of the 1980s.

However, later in the article, in the section Box office, the following is stated:

Ghostbusters was an enormous financial success. During its first release, it grossed $229,242,989 at the box office, making it the second highest-grossing film of 1984, behind only Beverly Hills Cop.

The source given for the second statement states that Ghostbusters grossed, in total, $229,242,989 ("Domestic Total Gross"), while the "Domestic Lifetime Gross" (I believe this includes other versions (remastered?) appearing in cinemas?) is $238,632,124. For the record, the same source states that Beverly Hills Cop grossed a total of $234,760,478, so in any case it is not "easily the most successful film [of 1984]". Consider removing the first statement entirely, and expand the Box office section accordingly. At present, the statements are very confusing and conflicting. Thanks, 80.203.132.72 (talk) 09:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

What about the original TV series?

I know it was obscure, but shouldn't there be at least SOME small mention of the original Ghostbusters TV show? (The one with the guy in the Gorilla suit named "Tracy" and his human partner "Spencer?") Not sure if Dan Akroyd was inspired by this, or simply came up with a remarkably similar concept on his own, but it DID exist.

209.148.101.52 (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

See Filmation's Ghostbusters.
If you read the artical, you will see that show came two years after the film. So the film inspired this cartoon and not the other way around.194.81.189.20 (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The cartoon came later, but there was a TV show before called The Ghost Busters, however, but it is completely unrelated. The cartoon is related in that Filmation owned the rights to the name on TV (hence "The Real Ghostbusters") and released their cartoon to cash-in on the unrelated film. Verbal chat 15:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Learn to spell. It is ARTICLE. And yes it is true that "The Ghost Busters" was released before this film. There needs to be a mentioning about this in the article, or is the 1984 Ghostbusters film so overrated that people are rewriting history?! In-Correct (talk) 13:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I am going to add a "not to be confused with" at the beginning of this article, as The Ghost Busters article contains a "not to be confused with" Ghostbusters (1984 film). In-Correct (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Is there any connection between "The Ghost Busters" and the film? Did the film copy the TV show, did they use it for inspiration, did the TV show sue the filmmakers, etc.? If the only commonality is in name, there's zero need to include the TV show here. Even if the theme (the busting of ghosts) was similar, if no secondary sources noting the thematic similarities, its mere coincidence and we don't include it here. The counterexample is the case of Filmation's Ghostbusters/The Real Ghostbusters since the former was a race to money-grab from the film's success, the later a related media tie in. The hatnote from In-correct above is fine to add, however, to help readers searching for it. --MASEM (t) 14:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Plot too long - by a huge margin

Seriously, this is no intellectual symbolistic art nouveau masterpiece but a fairly succesful pulp comedy. I mean, the plot of 2001 (which could be intepretated for years) is shorter than GB's. 2 paragraphs sums it MORE than enough, the article is too long imho anyway... 80.139.99.107 (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The plot section seems fine to me. Sсοττ5834talk 20:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Website: GhostbustersDay.com?

Someone keeps adding Ghostbustersday.com and lists it as a site coming soon. This page is not to advertise or make hype for a new Website. If you see it in other Ghostbusters related wikis with this website listed.. it should be deleted.

RfC of interest

Please check out Talk:Parapsychology#Ghostbusters and answer the question whether you think this movie is relevant to the topic of parapsychology due to it popularizing the subject. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Imagine...

  • The definitions of the profils are imbedded in a format. Might it be possible that the whole troup is a gang og dreamers? Not so serously scientific profressor they are called.

I think if they imagine ghost's like they do and are connected to people/figures who do believe in parapschychologie either, there is a big fat fun growing in the film. This reality in fiction is possible, because Jean-Jaques Lacan has developed RIS[ real, imaginativ, symbolic]. The topics of Ghostbusters deals with such imaginating stuff and the camera makes it real!--88.77.218.255 (talk) 10:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Where was the original Ghostbusters film shot? Location wise?

Where was the original Ghostbusters film shot? Location wise?

I was just on a trip to Memphis, TN and a tour guide mentioned that a building there was used in the original film but I can't find any mention of it online. The building I am referring to is the one that the Stay Puff Marshmellow man tried to climb before getting fried. If any one knows plese update this posting.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.56.241 (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Took out a lot of unnecesary cluttering links to topics that are easily recognized by any English-speaker (like mayor, business suit, etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petruchi41 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone want to add some info about the Ghostbusters logo? It is one of the most reconizeable logos in the world after all.--Alphapeta (talk) 07:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Columbia U

While some of the opening scenes of the film were indeed shot on the Columbia campus I don't believe it is ever stated or implied that the Busters are actually Columbia profs or that the action is supposed to be taking place at the actual Columbia University. PurpleChez (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ghostbusters, Stay Puft Marshmallow Man

Since the character the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man is mentioned in this article and is a continuing character in this series I want to invite anyone interested in the discussion Talk:Ghostbusters_(franchise)#Merge_discussion.2C_Redux where we are discussing whether he should have an article about only him or if all the content about him should be moved to Ghostbusters_(franchise). It would need to be rewritten and additional references would be useful, I've suggested some maybe you can contribute to the discussion and read the article and the other peoples thoughts on the subject. (Floppydog66 (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC))

Ghostbusters video games

A subsection about the video games should be added to the legacy section. EmperorFishFinger (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The Ghostbusters (franchise) article has this info. This is the first link in the Legacy section but it is not obvious, I'm going to modify things a bit to make it clearer. --MASEM (t) 13:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

ολαππππππππππππππππππππππππππππππππππππππππππππππππππππππππππππππππππππππππππππππππππ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.100.23 (talk) 15:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it worth noting the blatent advertisement found within some scenes of the movie, I can distinctly remeber one where a can of Coca Cola appear in almost every shot, even where it was unecessary, or the like? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.198.156 (talk) 00:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Bible Reference

Ray makes a reference to the book of Revelations. Why is this not mentioned in the article? Maybe in a trivia section perhaps? -Pikdude (because I'm too lazy to log in) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.184.244.236 (talk) 11:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Minions of Gozer - The Ghostbusters Shadowcast

I feel that this should probably be part of Legacy. (It's a Rocky Horror-style Ghostbusters shadowcast.) As I wrote a post on it on my blog, I don't want to be the one to put it there.Jickyincognito (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Political themes

How many citations to published books describing the film's "small business vs. regulators" themes do I need, for it not to be original research? I would think the answer is normally "one", at which point it becomes a question of due weight (for a tiny three-sentence paragraph). 2001:558:6045:1D:30BE:51B7:3A69:C863 (talk)

What you have added is a synthesis of various opinions, with vague references, and no direct quotes to back up what you are claiming these authors have argued. Do not add your interpretation of these author's opinions. If the books say what you claim they say, quote the books directly, but succinctly. As it stands, what you have added is improper. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Gozer demon-god edits

User:Jdogno5 is insisting on referring to Gozer as a "demon-god" (see [2]). Demons and gods are separate supernatural entities, so I regard it as WP:Original research to refer to Gozer in this way, unless the film itself explicitly makes the connection. To my recollection Gozer is referred to as just a "god" in the film and demons are never mentioned at all. I have asked for a quote but Jdogno5 declined to offer one (see [3]). I think the demon reference should be removed. Betty Logan (talk) 00:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I will try to find a quote that supports my point. That okay.

Jdogno5 (talk) 00:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


I'm guessing you heard the term demigod. As in Lesser God. It's not Demon God 70.160.244.105 (talk) 01:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Useful sources

Remove the picture of the "ecto-1" wrong model.

I don't know who added the picture of their own personal "ecto 1" but it's not the same model as used in the movie. As such it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.224.45.81 (talk) 06:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Why would you post saying "it should be removed" and then remove it? I see the post and then go to the page to look at it and don't see it. —Musdan77 (talk) 01:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Way too much detail on the sequel's production

It appears that rather than actually edit the section on the sequel with updated factual information as appropriate (e.g. which actors are starring in it, who the writers are etc.), people just kept adding extra sentences with the latest gossip about the project. Someone with adequate knowledge (which I lack) really needs to move the extraneous details over to the article dedicated to that film...—xyzzy 12:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Spook Busters / Lonesome Ghosts

Does the "In addition to a similar title, the movie shares the premise of..." stuff in "Development" actually have anything to do with the film's development - did Aykroyd and Ramis cite them as inspirations? Or should it be in "Critical reception", if critics have drawn parallels? Or is it just the WP:OR observation of a passing editor? --McGeddon (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Great source

http://www.laweekly.com/arts/ivan-reitman-looks-back-at-the-original-ghostbusters-la-locations-7091436

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 11 July 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Clear consensus to oppose. No action taken. — JFG talk 08:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Ghostbusters → Ghostbusters (1984 film) – with Ghostbusters then being redirected to the current Ghostbusters (disambiguation) page. Not convinced that this film is the primary topic, especially now that the remake of the same name is being released, and also due to the existence of Ghostbusters (franchise), The Ghost Busters and Ghostbusters (1986 TV series). — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 14:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Support per nominator. Doc talk 14:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait If the 2016 is reasonable successful and/or remains a long-term subject of discussion, then yes, this move makes sense; if the film is an utter flop and disappears from theaters in a few weeks, the move doesn't make sense. I would wait to consider this for a few more weeks so we can judge this better. --MASEM (t) 14:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:RECENTISM. The new film might be getting more page views at the moment, but that's to be expected given it's impending release and the controvery it's whipped up. But with regards to long-term significance, the 1984 film is still the clear primary topic. Let the dust settle before making any change to the status quo. PC78 (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per PTOPIC: "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." The term "Ghostbusters" refers mostly to either this film or the franchise as a whole. The problem is that nothing in the franchise is a good contender to say it is as primary as the 1984 film. Also "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term." The usage of this term can be found at [4], which exceeds >1000 pages. As such, this film can be treated as The Karate Kid and RoboCop. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 16:56, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The root of the franchise is definitely the primary topic. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:RECENTISM is definitely applicable. I also echo everything that Tbhotch writes. MarnetteD|Talk 18:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose as recentism; there is virtually no chance that the remake will supplant the original in notability and public awareness, and even if it were faintly possible, that would be a WP:CRYSTAL prediction. If several years from now, it turns out the remake has taken the world by storm and people have all but forgotten the original, then we could revisit. A case could possibly be made for making the franchise article the primary topic, but even that is very dubious.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose because the 1984 film is the primary topic based on its long-term significance. This new derivative film's current popularity does not override that today. It's possible that the 2016 film will replace the 1984 film in terms of long-term significance, but time needs to pass before determining that. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:15, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose at the present time, due to the 1984 film having a greater cultural impact and cinematic significance than the 2016 reboot. -- Matthew - (talk · userpage · contributions) 21:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Wait - Too soon to know if the reboot has feet. Give this a week or two. Devilmanozzy (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The original film is the primary topic and the most notable of the franchise. This discussion would be better brought up at least a year from now. It's too early to debate whether the reboot is as notable and as accessed in page views as the original. κατάσταση 22:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose as recentism and, as Tbhotch explained in detail, this is easily the primary topic. I doubt that's going to change anytime soon if at all. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • As a dissenting opinion, I support a move, because I personally feel the franchise is the primary topic. Regardless of the 2016 film's future significance, the 1984 film spawned a sequel, a reboot, an animated series, a song, et cetera - all of those can reasonably be called part of the Ghostbusters franchise. Well, except the song, maybe.  ONR  (talk)  11:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is easily the primary topic for "Ghostbusters" per Tbhotch's argument. SSTflyer 13:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose ... as explained (primary topic) —Musdan77 (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 11 August 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: IAR quick close Not moved (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:26, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ghostbusters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

These are not actually Sumerian

These are not real Sumerian deities and it is not in any way, shape or form "editorializing" by any description to simply state this with the word (supposedly) which I think is required here per academic style. However my first contribution was summarily removed as "editorializing". Could we please establish consensus that the article should clarify that these are purely contrived names for the film and not actually Sumerian? 172.58.185.28 (talk) 21:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello. 'Supposedly' is accurate, but it's not ideal when discussing pop-cultural topics. It implies that this was presented as fact, rather than as part of a fictional narrative. The film is not accurate in many, many ways in addition to mythology, and it doesn't pretend to be. Within the Ghostbusters story, Gozer is a Sumerian deity because the film says he is. This wasn't contested by anyone in the films, right? In real life, he is... well, he's a character from Ghostbusters and that's about it. How would we explain that the mythology is part of the fictional universe without implying that the film was deceptive about reality? Is this a likely source of confusion? Grayfell (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking we don't need to belabor the point, but just fix it as simply and innocuously as possible within the existing text. What led me to edit here was reading news accounts of the new dinosaur genus named for Zuul who some might describe misleadingly as Sumerian, so it occurred to me this was a piece of information that could use rectifying. 172.58.185.28 (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion, add (in canon universe context). Devilmanozzy (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Hmm... That could work. I've added a template:efn note to that effect, but I'm not sure if that's the best approach. List of Ghostbusters characters also needs attention. Grayfell (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure, either way would work to get that point across I guess... thanks 172.58.185.28 (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
It's a good point, thanks for bringing it up. I feel like there's a better way to word this. It would be a lot easier if we could just say "fictional", but "fictional mythology" is more confusing than helpful. Grayfell (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ghostbusters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Lovecraft inspiration?

I find it a little surprising that no mention is made of the obvious Lovecraft influences on Ghostbusters--there have been a handful of articles here and there on the Internet discussing these parallels, here is one: http://horrorfilms101.blogspot.com/2011/08/feature-h-p-lovecraft-presents.html 71.217.30.208 (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The subplot about a cult leader designing an art deco building to focus supernatural forces reminds me more of Fritz Leiber's Our Lady of Darkness (1977). Leiber himself was heavily influenced by Lovecraft ... but who isn't? JöG (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ghostbusters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 27 December 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per snowball clause (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


– Per WP:NCFILM#Media franchise. While the original film holds and enduring place in modern cinema, the primary meaning of this title has grown to extend to the entire movie franchise spanning 35 years. For example, if someone describes themselves as a "fan of Ghostbusters", would you imagine they only mean only the first film? Or would they more likely be a fan of the multiple aspects of the universe including both original team films, the video games, the animated series, etc.? Additionally, modern coverage uses clarifying language ("1984") when it is referring to that original film to avoid confusion ([5], [6]) - an indication that we should do likewise. The franchise summary acts as a WP:BROADCONCEPT page, helping to direct readers to the specific aspects of the franchise. -- Netoholic @ 21:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Similar to Garfield I suppose, which also has many other uses. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose The original film is too engrained as the primary topic. If and if the 2016 film was successful that Sony was seriously continuing expanding the franchise, there might be a challenge, but at this point, the film is more significant than the franchise. --Masem (t) 22:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Masem. Also, I'm not really convinced the usage in the examples is more of a disambiguator than a simple descriptor (i.e. Ghostbusters II also has a year attached in the 1st source, and the 2nd may be a cue for non-film-fan readers). Besides, the 2016 movie is still fresh in people's memory. If the Ghostbusters film series continues it may convincingly take the position of the primary topic, but so far assuming this is more than temporary hype would be speculation. Daß Wölf 22:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Had the 2016 film never existed, I feel this move is still entirely appropriate. As above, when people think of "Ghostbusters", they are not necessarily immediately thinking of only the first film. -- Netoholic @ 06:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Went from 'oppose' to 'neutral' after seeing the 2016 remake yesterday. It was really good, and enjoyed almost everything about it. After seeing it I can't oppose this move, although the original is probably still primary for familiarity. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Oppose Randy Kryn's opinion, the 2016 film is a terrible, terrible film, with or without the existence of the original Ghostbusters. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Kate McKinnon's workdesk dance scene alone is worth almost supporting this move. I see there is talk of doing another film with the living members of the original cast (although I'd personally add Ramis' ghost), which, if done, would be a good time to revisit this move. As for now it's close, with the comics, films, video games, just one more thing could tip the scale (maybe an article on McKinnon's workdesk dance, feature material!). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ghostbusters/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Slightlymad (talk · contribs) 03:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


Grabbing this nomination for a review; thanks for your patience. To begin with, I noticed several instances of the word "movie" throughout; the word "film" is preferred over the former, so please change them. Also, The American Film Institute has a long write up (under History tab) with more info on the film that you can use to expand the Wiki. I'll come back soon for additional comments. Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Plot

  • "Dana is possessed by Zuul The Gatekeeper, while Louis Tully is possessed by her counterpart" → There's already an instance of "Louis Tully" in the previous sentence
 Done

Production

Development

  • "The movie's concept was inspired by Dan Aykroyd's fascination with the paranormal." → Just use the AFI Catalog source to support this claim, as the Hollywood Reporter source states it was Aykroyd's father and grandfather's fascination, not his.
 Done
  • "The original story, as written by Aykroyd, was very different from what was eventually filmed. In the original version, a group of "Ghostsmashers" traveled through time, space, and other dimensions combating huge ghosts (of which the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man was one of many)." → unsourced?
 Done Removed.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Revise last sentence of first paragraph to, "Aykroyd cited the Disney short Lonesome Ghosts (1937) and The Bowery Boys slapstick comedy Spook Busters (1946) as inspirations for Ghostbusters' title and premise of professional "exterminators" on a paranormal mission; Lonesome Ghosts includes the line "I ain't scared of no ghost". What makes ref. 7 a reliable, high-quality source?
 Done Removed. Never mind, I found an interview in which Aykroyd mentions the movies that inspired him for the script.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "In May 1983, Reitman went to the office of the Columbia Pictures' president Frank Price and pitched him the project." → Drop 'the' from "the Columbia", and wikilink "pitch"
 Done
  • "Price liked it and approved a $30 million budget in advance. The only condition was that the movie was ready for release by June 1984." → Revise to, "Price green-lit the project for $30 million, with the stipulation that the film had to be released by June 1984."
 Done

Pre-production

  • To provide storyboards and concept art, associate producer Michael C. Gross hired illustrators including Thom Enriquez, Bernie Wrightson, and Tanino Liberatore. → Follow "including" with a colon
 Done
  • "John DeCuir, known for his elaborate sets, was hired as production designer and art director, which Reitman considered a coup," → Did Reitman consider John Decuir a coup or his production design? I'm confused...
 Done Shortened it to avoid confusion.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "The packs were designed by Design consultant Stephen Dane," → Is there a reason the 'D' in design should be capitalized?
 Done Spelling error.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "Each pack weighed about thirty pounds (14 kg), and nearly fifty (22.6 kg) with the batteries installed" → Changed thirty and fifty to their numeric forms
 Done

Casting

  • "Aykroyd and Ramis initially wrote roles for Belushi as Aykroyd's sidekick and John Candy as Louis Tully." → "Aykroyd and Ramis initially wrote the role of Louis Tully specifically for John Candy, and of Aykroyd's sidekick for Belushi."
 Done
  • "However the role ultimately went to Yugoslav model Slavitza Jovan." → Follow however with a comma
 Done
  • An obituary from the Feb-Mar 2000 issue of the Science Fiction Chronicle claims...." → the word "claim" is a word to watch as it implies doubt. Change it to "says" or "states" per WP:SAID
 Done
  • Please do something about that one-sentence paragraph as we try to avoid such
 Done Merged into the previous paragraph.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 Not done A claim that was tagged by another editor is still unsourced, since it's not supported by the AFI source. Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 Done

Filming

  • The last two sentences of the first paragraph are not supported by the New York magazine source.
 Done Changed them.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • During filming of the scenes set at Dana Barrett and Louis Tully's apartment building at 55 Central Park West," → Location is already mentioned in the first paragraph
 Done
  • "One exterior scene shot in Manhattan enhanced with supplemental work in Los Angeles was the earthquake scene in front of Dana Barrett and Louis Tully's building in the story's climax." → Revise to, "The climactic earthquake scene in front of Dana Barrett and Louis Tully's apartment building was shot in Manhattan, enhanced with supplemental work in Los Angeles."
 Done
  • "After a test with 75 pounds of shaving cream knocked a stunt man flat, only 35 pounds were used for the final shot." → Use Template:Convert as you did in the Pre-production subsection
 Done
  • "His sequences were filmed at a rate of eight frames per second," → wikilink rate to Frame rate
 Done
  • "Reitman claims there are 650 special effects shots in the entire film." → Again, avoid the word "claim" per WP:SAID as it implies doubt. Change it to "said"
 Done
  • "To determine if the comedy works, preview audiences were screened the film in March 1984 without its completed special effects." → "In March 1984, test audiences were screened the film with its unfinished effects shots to determine if the comedy works."
 Done
  • "A viral campaign was intitiated by the studio featuring the "No ghosts" logo, creating popularity even though the people were yet unaware of either the film's title or its stars." → "which created popularity"; "initiated" is also misspelled. Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
 Done

Release

Box office

  • "After seven weeks, it was finally knocked to the number-two position by Prince's film Purple Rain," → "finally knocked" doesn't sound neutral to me. How 'bout "dropped"?
 Done
  • "By year end it had grossed $221 million making it the highest-grossing film of the year and the highest grossing comedy of its time." → million should be followed by a comma; hyphen at "highest grossing"
 Done
  • Fix the boxofficemojo.com to Box Office Mojo in inline cite 1
 Done
  • "It went on to gross $229.2 million but was surpassed by Beverly Hills Cop as the highest-grossing film released in 1984 and as the highest grossing comedy." → again, add hyphen to "highest grossing"
 Done
  • "Box Office Mojo estimates that the film sold over 68 million tickets in the US in its initial theatrical run → Box Office Mojo doesn't use estimates, nor do they need to be attributed in this context as the website is a reliable source for box office figures
 Done

Critical response

  • "Ghostbusters received positive reviews from both critics and audiences and is considered by many as one of the best films of 1984." → "to be one of the best"; the sources supporting these claim are also not reliable nor high-quality, so please change
Why are they not reliable? Filmsite seems alright. Film.com, Listal and Films101 also seem like normal review websites. I do not see anything problematic with them, as long as they are used for the category they represent.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Fil101.com and Listal are not vetted as reliable at WP:FILM/R, thus they fail WP:GACR's criterion 2b.
 Done Removed Film101 and Listal.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The use of direct quotations in this section is a bit heavy. See WP:QUOTE and WP:RECEPTION. Try reducing the amount of quotes and grouping generally positive reviews together along with generally negative reviews. Look for general themes between positive critiques, as well as negative. Try to build a narrative out of the commentary/reception on the film. What have critics in general picked up on? What are the main tenets? A bunch of quotes doth not great prose make. Some examples on how to make this section read better are Scrooged and The Thing. Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
I've changed the wording to address your issue. I hope it's better now. --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 Not done I was hoping you would rewrite this into something akin to those in the examples I gave you; it's still the same, except paraphrased. See it's not just excessive quotation that's my biggest concern here, it's also the fact that it doesn't touch base on reviewers' critique of the movie in terms of acting, humor, special effects, direction, script etc. Whether critics liked them or not, you should give these critiques their due weight to make this section neutral; surely, critics have something to complain about this movie even though they gave it a positive review.
Please read WP:RECEPTION for a guide on how to write this section well. As it stands, it still fails the "well written" and "neutral" criteria at WP:GACR. Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I've rewritten it again. I hope this is better now.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Accolades

  • "The film received two Academy Award nominations, including Best Original Song (for the hit song "Ghostbusters") and Best Visual Effects (John Bruno, Richard Edlund, Chuck Gaspar and Mark Vargo)." → "The film was nominated at the 57th Academy Awards for Best Original Song..."
  • Wikilink Golden Globes
 Done

Home media

  • First three sentences are unsourced
 Done Removed unsourced sentences.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "Reitman was unhappy with the LaserDisc release of the film. He stated because "it pumped up the light level so much you saw all the matte lines. I was embarrassed about it all these years." → "Reitman was unhappy with the LaserDisc release of the film, explaining that "it pumped up the light level so much you saw all the matte lines. I was embarrassed about it all these years."
 Done
  • "It was released on VHS in 1990 as part of a VHS box set that included Ghostbusters II." → unsourced; italicize Ghostbusters II
 Done Removed.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "It was released again on VHS in 1994, and in 1996 as part of the Columbia TriStar Family Collection." this is unsourced, too
 Done Removed.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "at a time when an estimated four million U.S. households had DVD players, and became one of Reel.com's fastest selling products." → get rid of this waffle
 Done Removed.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "Sony announced at Comic-Con 2008 that the Blu-ray version of the film would be released on October 21, 2008. Sony initially made it available through their promotional website Ghostbustersishiring.com. " → these are unsourced
 Done Removed.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Soundtrack

  • In the first paragraph, only the last two sentences are sourced. What gives?
 Done
  • Need better sources for the second paragraph; the one cited is far from GA standards.
 Done Added AFI Catalog for the law suit against the song.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 Done Changed it.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I found a couple of lists in which the film is mentioned: [7], [8], [9], [10]. Maybe add them in Accolades. While you're at it, please don't use the hashtag (#) as a substitute to "number", per MOS:HASH. Pick either "number" or "No." and stick with it. Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done Great suggestion. Done.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 11:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Please ensure that all inline citations to online sources have proper author, title, date of publication, and accessdates. For one, ref 90's publisher says only 'BD' instead of 'Bloody Disgusting' and the author is not credited, which is Brad Miska. Also, the date format in an article like this should all be mdy, not dmy; I notice that the majority of the date formats inline are dmy. Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 Done
 Not done ref 39 still has no accessdate, and refs 64 and 89 are still using dmy format Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 Done Corrected.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Genre

@3E1I5S8B9RF7:

First, just because something is done in an article that's GA or FA doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. FA articles aren't infallible, and can always be improved. I speak from experience here - I've written and reviewed several.

Second, WP:FILMLEAD says primary genre or sub-genre. That means one or the other. You can't have both.

The consensus on film articles is to include only the main genre identified by sources. This is to stop leads becoming cluttered. One is enough. Popcornduff (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

300 (film) ("low-fantasy epic war film"), Casablanca ("romantic drama"), Blade Runner ("neo-noir science fiction film"), Bride of Frankenstein ("science-fiction horror film"), Changeling (film) ("mystery crime drama"), Manhunter (film) ("crime horror"), Mulholland Drive (film) ("neo-noir mystery film"), The Mummy (1999 film) ("action horror"), On the Job (2013 film) ("neo-noir crime thriller"), Pride & Prejudice (2005 film) ("romantic drama"), Tank Girl (film) ("science-fiction action comedy", these are three!), Zodiac (film) ("mystery thriller").
All these films are Featured articles. These are just a dozen examples which contradict you. Which means, obviously, that this is not part of the consensus. Ghostbusters are two genres: comedy and fantasy (or horror), and the article just reflects this. And the "...just because something is done in an article that's GA or FA doesn't mean it's the right thing to do" quote is self-refuting: either you follow the GA and FA examples and practice, or you don't (in the latter case, then your place is not on Wikipedia). Also, sub-genre cannot be mentioned without the main genre (for instance, "epic..."). Stop placing your personal opinion above the established practice in all these articles. There is no problem here. Just let it go, man.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 13:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Dude, his isn't "my personal opinion". The policy I'm linking is just that: Wikipedia policy. It was reached by consensus, way before I ever got involved. The articles you link to almost certainly ignored the policy because whoever added them didn't know about it, and because not every reviewer can know about every policy. Accept the policy or start a new discussion to change it. Popcornduff (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
WP:FILMLEAD: "At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the following elements: the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified." At minimum is the keyword here. It never claims that it has to be only one genre. I think you misinterpreted it. Because you cannot have a subgenre without the main genre. There are simply too many examples of articles for this rule to have been ignored. --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
OK, you know what, you raise a good point. This ambiguity has been debated before, and the consensus basically came down on "one genre should suffice", but I think it's worth another discussion at the policy talk page, so I'll take it there. Popcornduff (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ghostbusters/Archive_1&oldid=1147974457"