Jump to content

Talk:Ghostbusters (2016 film)/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2016

2602:306:BC46:2690:A106:F40A:87D3:1912 (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

It has been announced that a Ghostbusters 3,4, and 5 are in the works to debut on 2017

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Dane2007 talk 07:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Title name change

Why is the title's sub text in the actual title? and can i edit it to the old one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.220.29.166 (talk) 10:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

See the section directly above, where there is currently a discussion to rename the article back to the original name. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 20:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 4 September 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: moved as proposed. SSTflyer 07:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


Ghostbusters: Answer the Call → Ghostbusters (2016 film) – The title of this film is Ghostbusters. It should not have been moved from Ghostbusters (2016 film) to Ghostbusters: Answer the Call. WP uses the title of the original theatrical release, not logos or later DVD releases, as appears to be the case here. See this source: http://uproxx.com/movies/ghostbusters-answer-the-call-dvd/. Gothicfilm (talk) 03:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Can't speak for protocol on this one, but note that according to the Gizmodo and (now removed) Yahoo source, the film was called "Ghostbusters: Answer the Call" quietly at release and that suffix appears in the closing credits. Scoundr3l (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
And as that source says: However, this title was not used in the film’s opening credits, or in any of the marketing material. WP uses the WP:COMMONNAME. As seen in the opening credits. Not something buried in the end credits. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I'll grant that 'Ghostbusters' is probably the common name used in reliable sources, but it's irrelevant whether or not they use the "official" title in the opening credits (see Apocalypse Now). It's still a title that's been attached to the product since its theatrical release and not only on logos and DVD releases, as you said. Scoundr3l (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
I think you may be misinterpreting that source. The source isn't claiming that the name of the film is still 'Ghostbusters', it's saying "the film’s real title was Ghostbusters: Answer the Call even before it was released." I.e. contrary to popular opinion, the film didn't get a new title, it's always had that title. Scoundr3l (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Dose Not Support The title has been changed just like Edge of Tomorrow was changed to Live. Die. Repeat. when it was released on home video. Sony's reasoning for re-titling the film is for video cataloging purposes, so when you search "Ghostbusters" you will see them as separate and not have to tack on 1984 or 2016. Also almost every poster has the tagline Answer The Call right under the main title, and the title card at the end of the film reads Answer The Call. Also the title separates it apart from the original, and is that not what the cry baby fans wanted in the first place. I have called it Answer The Call from the beginning and think it should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C5A3:2060:6501:9562:FFF9:D834 (talk) 09:47, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. It isn't clear yet if the subtitle is actually going to stick. A very recent promotion tie-ins don't support it, neither does the official Ghostbusters Website. I'd say it's too soon to know. Give it 4 or 5 weeks. Devilmanozzy (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support move. The common name is Ghostbusters, without a subtitle.  ONR  (talk)  17:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Worth noting that the only country in which this appears to have been attempted is the United States -- International posters went with "Who Ya Gonna Call" over "Answer the Call", which is clearly a tagline and not a subtitle. Had the subtitle not appeared in the movie's closing credits, there would be no question. I would also point out that while the io9 article concludes this was the title all along, the quotes in said article actually make the opposite case, that Feig argued against opening the movie with it and that it was intended for back-end use that the public would not necessarily see. Droidguy1119 (talk) 04:47, 10 September 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.

On that lede change

On this diff [1] which removes the $144M production budget (NOT marketing), while leaving the total worldwide box office figures, it seems odd to not have a number to compare the box office to. $238M (or whatever it is, I know its $2xx something) is a heck of a lot of money, and at least to me it seems like a success, but in that prose I don't have the cost of the film's production to compare to. I think it's necessary to add the $144M or eliminate the $238M figure for proper comparison. Adding the $144M would show me quickly the film only made by about twice what it cost, and once you estimate what marketing eats into that, it's "obvious" to anyone aware of how films and box offices work that that would be a reasonable lackluster commercial performance. Eliminating the $238M takes out any need to make the comparison, though now I can't readily compare to other films in general (knowing that some big blockbusters in the past have pulled $1B in sales).

(Only opening for discussion, no need to edit war on that figure). --MASEM (t) 00:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I see how the figures can be confusing in either respect, in this sentence, so I can agree with your suggestion to remove both figures. To the average person, I believe seeing that a film had a $144M production budget and grossed $238M suggests that the film profited. We know this isn't the case when all things are factored, but it isn't obvious in the arithmetic. It varies from film to film of course, but in the case of this film it actually lost the studios money and that isn't really reflected in comparing those two figures, leaving the reader to wonder why it's considered a failure if it grossed more than it cost to produce. Since we don't have hard figures to compare it to, the gross was left simply for comparison with other grosses, as you said. However, I can see how removing it would prevent the need for factoring losses. For the time being, I'll do exactly that. Scoundr3l (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Why not mention of the "controversy" of this film?

Seems like it was integral to their marketing campaign. It's probably the only thing this film will be remembered for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.80.57.81 (talk) 06:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Seems you've overlooked the Ghostbusters:_Answer_the_Call#Controversy section. 68.228.55.193 (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I Believe This Proof of Chaunty Spillane's Involvement in Ghostbuster's & Gertrude Alrdridge Under Miscellaneous May Help

Hi all, will all due respect and courtesy--contrary to popular debate among editors (and previously my own beliefs) on whether or not there are actually sources directly from the Official production company page of Ghostbusters 2016's imDB--or any possibly independent viable media source-- which actually does prove that actor Chaunty Spillane indeed also had a part in the portrayal of the role of Gertrude Aldridge under "Miscellaneous Crew" as their protocol on where to credit photo doubles/doubles on imDB [1]. Also, if one clicks the blue hyperlink credit for Chaunty Spillane on her imDB page or Ghostbusters 2016's Official imDB page then it will redirect you to the Official page of Ghostbusters 2016. This establishes relevancy/fact (since the official credit in blue hyperlink formation is direct confirmation from the source at question) per the Wikipedia accepted notability article. In addition, the blue hyperlink credit establishes irrefutably that this Miscellaneous credit for the role of Gertrude Alrdidge was in fact an Official Ghostbusters approved credit for actor Chaunty Spillane and established as well that this is actually factual/reliable. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)>.

Also, Iloura is the company whom were the final cgi/special vfx animators of Gertrude Aldridge [2].

Of Iloura, supervisors Glenn Melenhorst and Andrew Hellen reveal that there was another actor and a skeleton prop in addition to Bess Rous utilized in the creation of Gertrude Aldridge (please refer to quote below) [3].

″For Gertrude, a live-action/CG hybrid (sometimes full CG) who lives' in the library, artists built a skeletal system, designed and added her clothes and lower body, and finished with a celestial aura. Production employed a technique of strapping the actors in LED lighting which threw a soft light both onto the actors as well as the set, which required artists to integrate her seamlessly into the plate..." [4]

Please in the above quote, take notice how the word "actors" is plural when used in reference to the character Gertrudge Aldridge's creation and indicates clearly how it took more than one actor and a skeleton to make the final product that we see today of Gertrude Aldridge in Ghostbusters 2016. Although, what created initial confusion was: Bess Rous was the actress whom originally received credit and press, hence the plethora of many articles on her factual involvement as the actor whom portrayed Gertrude Aldridge in Ghostbusters 2016.

Also, may I note that obtaining such a role as being the photo double for a very well know LA Actor (Bess Rous) in addition to the role taking place in the controversial/high criticized production of Ghostbusters 2016 is quite difficult for east coast actors to obtain such a role in such a famous Franchise.

2601:19B:4300:33B4:1561:1238:3254:F2C0 (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5664097/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1#miscellaneous
  2. ^ https://www.productionhub.com/press-release/56779/deluxes-iloura-puts-the-ghost-in-ghostbusters
  3. ^ http://www.bydeluxe.com/news/deluxe-s-iloura-puts-the-ghost-in-ghostbusters
  4. ^ http://www.4rfv.com/Y1HPJQ4K4803/deluxes-iloura-puts-the-ghost-in-ghostbusters.htm

"Answer the Call"

Before I call for an RfC on this, I first want to engage User:Film Fan in discussion. Per WikiProject Film, we use the opening onscreen title of a film. The Move discussion above clearly indicates that the opening onscreen title of the film is simply Ghostbusters. So if that is the title, than anything on the poster other than that is a tagline. As well, these articles are about the movie itself — ancillary media such as home video are not the primary subject and any title given for home video belongs in the home-media section and not in the lead.

Leaving Ghostbusters: Answer the Call in the lead without explanation gives the false impression that this is the title used ... well, where? In the UK or Australia, where sometimes alternate English titles are used? No. Having that tangential trivia in the lead without explanation is misleading. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The above move discussion indicates that Ghostbusters is the common name, per that policy. The argument is not made, nor should it be made, that Ghostbusters: Answer the Call is not the title of the film because according to reliable sources, it is. "the film’s real title was Ghostbusters: Answer the Call even before it was released." I'm not sure what policy you're invoking about the opening onscreen title because this doesn't appear to be listed in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(films). Otherwise, it would appear that your conclusion about it being a tagline is original research contrary to the provided source. I don't even disagree that they changed it (and can hypothesize if they would have gone forward with the other title had the movie been more successful) but ultimately, Sony has plausible deniability on this. The title's been attached since before release. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I think there's some misunderstanding: I am not arguing for removal of the longer title. I am saying that without the explanation, it is misleading and clearly undue weight to suggest that this longer title — tacked onto the end credits for highly technical marketing reasons — is in any respect what the movie is commonly called or how it is commonly listed anywhere. It's a piece of technical trivia. Which is fine. But to leave the misimpression that this longer title is somehow ever used on theater marquis or in published reviews? I'm not sure why we'd want to do that. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
How is a review title more important than a DVD title? — Film Fan 22:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • It's not misleading, because it's a genuine alternative title to the film. The fact that it appears on the closing credits but not the opening credits doesn't render it a tagline. It is also the title for home media, which yes, if it was only the home media title, maybe we could have a discussion about it not being in the lead (although I think any major alternative titles used in the English-speaking world should be mentioned in the lead), but since Sony and Feig have actually declared it the title, and are using it henceforth, it is misleading just to label it the "closing credits title", which suggests exclusivity. — Film Fan 22:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, perhaps we're approaching common ground. As I mentioned above, I have not said anything "about it not being in the lead." And I never said it was not "a genuine alternative title to the film." We're in agreement on both these things. My point is that because this longer title is not used anywhere such as movie marquees, film reviews or reference sources that we need to explain just what it is. Otherwise, we're giving it undue weight and creating confusion.
If "closing credits title" suggests exclusivity, then to keep the lead sentence succinct, what do you think of "given as Ghostbusters: Answer the Call in closing credits and some limited uses."? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Why don't we just change the opening in the lead from:
"Ghostbusters, or Ghostbusters: Answer the Call"
to:
"Ghostbusters, officially known as Ghostbusters: Answer the Call'" ?
This change would clearly explain in very few words that one is the official title and the other is the common name. If a reader would like to further research the official title, they can read the Marketing/Release sections, though at the present time, there is very little detail there. Perhaps that's where the focus of this discussion should move next after we modify the lead. My 2¢ --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
How would you feel about "also known as"? This is what's done for Edge of Tomorrow whose title was changed after release. In this case, the "Answer the Call" title was at least attached at release, albeit quietly. By the book, "Answer the Call" is and has been the official title of the film. That the title of this article is Ghostbusters should be enough to satisfy that it's the common name without further modifying where the subtitle appears. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Either proposed change is better than "or" in my opinion. While it is commonly known among Wikipedia veterans, I wouldn't bet that most users understand article naming standards based on the WP:COMMONNAME policy. Therefore, some alternative phrasing here is certainly warranted. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Concur with GoneIn60 in that we need some alternative phrasing. I believe "or" leads to undue-weight issues, and both "also known as" and "officially known as" will create confusion since where is it known that way? Not in theaters. Not in reference books. Not in newspaper and magazine articles. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure that either will create confusion if it's properly explained in the article body. Perhaps that area needs to be fixed first, then we can change the lead (or change the lead first and promptly fix the body). Either seems acceptable to me, though body typically comes first. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
It may or may not create confusion, but it's still clearly WP:UNDUE. It's a false equivalency to suggest a title used on every theater marquee, film review and reference source and a title used in highly limited circumstances are equal. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Not that it matters at this point given the proposal below will likely be accepted, but just a quick additional comment here. Alternate names mentioned in the lead do not necessarily imply equal weight to the common name. In other words, it doesn't have to be equal or close to equal in order for a properly sourced alternative name to appear in the opening line. You can argue against insignificant alternate names, but I think we're in agreement that it is significant. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I see GoneIn60's work and I know he/she is a good editor. Just so there's misunderstanding, I do need to note we may have differing definitions of "significant", since while I would agree this technical title is worth mentioning, I wouldn't call anything significant that's not on movie marquees, film reviews or reference sources. Ironically, this is just a technical note as well, since I'm quite happy to see reasonable people found a reasonable middle ground!--Tenebrae (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate the compliment (I think?), but perhaps I should have extended the sentence: " ... I think we're in agreement that it is significant enough to appear in the lead". Based on your earlier comments with Film Fan, it seems we agree on that much. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:21, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I do like the exact working presently used at Edge of Tomorrow; here that would be "Ghostbusters (alternatively known by as Ghostbusters: Answer the Call and marketed as such on home release)..." --MASEM (t) 23:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Well, that's not my preferred version, but that seems a reasonable compromise that addresses most of our concerns. What does everyone else think? Note: I think it's "known as," not "known by."--Tenebrae (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Support – Masem's proposal. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's probably the right grammar here - noted that above. --MASEM (t) 00:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
That seems like a very reasonable proposal. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Loss estimates

On August 10th, The Hollywood Reporter released an article stating that the film was heading for a $70million dollar loss. The figure appears in the title and the exact wording in that article is "Now they are preparing for steep losses (think $70 million-plus) and an uncertain future for the franchise." There aren't any specifics on how they arrived at that figure, but it has since been parroted by a number of generally reliable sources such as Vanity Fair, Entertainment Weekly, IGN, Maxim, usually attributing the figure to THR.

Within the THR article, a Sony Rep is quoted as saying "This loss calculation is way off. With multiple revenue streams, including consumer products, gaming, location-based entertainment, continued international rollout, and huge third-party promotional partnerships that mitigated costs, the bottom line, even before co-financing, is not remotely close to that number." Variety did its own report which found a $75m loss which is at least attributed to "Sources familiar with the film's finances". With co-financing, Sony's losses are said to be around $50m in that article. $25 million according to Sony insiders.

Given the pervasiveness of the estimates, I suggest they be added to the article with something like the following wording:

'On August 10th, 2016, The Hollywood Reported released a report estimating the film's financial losses would be over $70 million.[1][2][3] A representative of Sony found this loss estimate to be "way off. With multiple revenue streams [...] the bottom line, even before co-financing, is not even remotely close to that number."[1][2] According to Variety, sources familiar with the film's financing estimate the total loss to be about $75 million which, due to co-financing with Village Roadshow, Sony would lose about $50 million.[4] Sony insiders have projected, along with co-financing, a total loss of about $25 million. [4]'

Any thoughts or inputs? Thank you. Scoundr3l (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I have never really understood why the Box-Office sections of movie articles have become so prevalent and over-bloated on Wikipedia in recent years (yes, this has been going on for a while). Maybe it's just that there's more info on this but frankly it's the least interesting or useful part of the article for me - when anyone with even elementary math skills can deduce (from the comparison of budget and box-office in the info-box) whether or not a movie was succesful. But sure, if the section is properly cited, go ahead. --CaptainNtheGameMaster (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
The fact that this movie is a box office bomb, is pretty relevant. Ghost Busters II made 215 million in 1989 money. So far GB hasn't made that. That it can't beat the previous film without even taking inflation into account is really bad. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 14:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Calling a film a box office bomb is labeling, which only should be done if we have reliable sources that use that phrase as well. Yes, the film likely lost money, its nowhere near as successful as the first, but its original research to call it a box office bomb by our own interpretation of the sources. That it likely lost money for Sony after accounting for marketing, sure, we can source that, but also keep in mind (from when I expended the history of this script), Sony was looking for reintroducing as a franchise, and they're looking at a long tail of revenue from other sources, and to that end, it was apparently successful. --MASEM (t) 14:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I support Scoundr's proposed addition and wording as it gives both sides and is reliably sourced. TweedVest (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
In regard to CaptainN's remarks. There has certainly been a surge of interest in box office profits recently, especially with this film, which has polarized a lot of people. Unfortunately, though, it's not as simple as deducing the box office takings from the budget. Due to marketing, co-financing, product placement, and a number of other factors, there's very rarely a clear cut profit or loss line for a film, so we have to rely on third-party calculations from reliable sources. In fact, the List of box office bombs article recently underwent major changes for that reason. (Big shout out to User:Betty Logan for that, though Popcornduff and myself (as an IP) were involved.) I also agree with Masem that "bomb" or "flop" is a pretty subjective label, so I won't be involved in that specific labeling, just reporting that it lost money. Thank you all for your input. Scoundr3l (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Multiple sources are already calling it a flop, which is pretty standard in the press, and is used inter-changeably with "bomb". This isn't going to get better with time. It's not like sources are going to start calling it a success in a month. With the 70 million loss estimates, it's already in the top 100 for biggest bombs of all time. Sony is engaging in spin to try to cover up their massive loss. They're never going to admit that they released a movie that bombed this hard. They always try to spin things in a positive manner. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
As said many times, a bomb/flop is a debatable term at any rate as what exactly qualifies as such? Point blank Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows is a much more clearer flop/bomb than Ghostbusters (2016 film) is, yet nothing about that has been noted on its article or talk page. Lets atleast be fair about this. Devilmanozzy (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
If it lost a ton of money, then it's a flop. A bunch of sources have called it such. They cite Ghostbusters, TMNT, and a bunch of other as well. This is beginning to be called the "Summer of flops" by many sources. The new Ben Hur looks to be added to the list. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't disagree with calling it a flop, I'm just not personally aware of when that labeling is necessary for the article. Pluto Nash? Sure, that's notable (great movie, btw). Anyway, I'm neutral to it. It definitely lost money and has been called a flop by notable sources. I do just have one request: could you please clean up the raw url references using cite web? It'd be appreciated. Thank you. Scoundr3l (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I do see reasonably good reliable sources for supporting "flop", just that calling it a "bomb" only starts appear in opinion pieces and less reliable sources. --MASEM (t) 22:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's another source calling the film a "flop", and putting it in context of the rest of the flops of the year. http://www.wsj.com/articles/rising-box-office-masks-glut-of-big-budget-film-flops-1471192593

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Mentioning the other flops of the year seems pretty off-topic. I would honestly rather we just call this film a flop in the box office area, even using some of the previous sources. I'm neutral on whether or not it should be called such in the lede. Though let's see if we can clean up the urls using cite web, please. Scoundr3l (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd counter that what other films have done being off-topic, but I would also say its too early to tell. If analysts look at this (NA) summer's film releases and box offices and find them lackluster across the board, and thus considered part of why this film failed to do well, that's a completely fair argument to include. It's just that I think that since we still have a few more weeks of summer its far to early to be throwing the doom and gloom analyses around. I do agree that it's not lede material, but can be included in box office discussions. --MASEM (t) 19:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Putting it in context is pretty relevant. This year has a lot of big duds at the box office. Ghostbusters poor performance was not a fluek, but part of a trend. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
This is certainly reasonable but again to stress two points: we still have two more weeks left before Labor Day (when the summer period is then considered over) so right now these are very early guesses, and we need to avoid OR and have sources that attribute this film's poor box office, in part, to the weak summer overall. --MASEM (t) 22:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

If this talk page hadn't had an overly agressive archiving set, you would have noticed that i provided a reliable source that sayd it bombed, before this discussion ever started. It bombed. PizzaMan (♨♨) 19:54, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, PizzaMan, I saw your previous post and even used two of your sources. It's in the article under Box Office. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
If only WP had like buttons ;-) PizzaMan (♨♨) 20:45, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The order of the Reception section

Some one continues to put the overly long controversy section before the box-office and critical section. This makes no sense. Looks ugly. And feels suspiciously like an attempt to make this movie look as bad as possible. I think it is fair to say that since most wiki-readers are used to seeing the box office and critical sections first, we lead with that. I don't care about the box office section coming first since truth be told the most notable thing about the movie is that it didn't do all that well. And despite receiving, surprisingly, positive reviews from critics this movie was as forgotten as when it arrived.

If a consensus emerges suggesting a compelling reason to move that controversy section to the front, then that's another story. Please, share your thoughts.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Your speculation about my motivations is a little weird, as I explained my reasons in my edit summaries. Basically, the order is for reasons of chronology:
  • The controversy began long before the movie was released and the reviews arrived.
  • The reception section mentions the controversy in the critics' quotes: ""mean-spirited reception to the film before anyone had seen it" and ""it would have been great to report that the finished film is good enough to shut the bigoted naysayers up once and for all". The reader can't know what these critics are referring to if the chronology section comes afterwards.
If you don't want the controversy section as a subsection of the reception section, fine, but it should come before the critical reception and box office sections. Popcornduff (talk) 17:13, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
To be honest: you just got me thinking it doesn't belong there at all. Please move it elsewhere then. Thank you. P.S. It probably belongs in the production section anyhow as the controversy hit LONG BEFORE the movie came out. They even filmed a scene to address the backlash, etc. that's how early this hit the fan.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 17:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
But the controversy wasn't part of the movie's production. It was external. They filmed an extra scene responding to it, but that's it. Popcornduff (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
The controversy covers before and after release aspects of the film, and spans much of the chronological aspects. As such, it probably should be after all other normal release/reception sections and the last thing in the article before references/etc. Whether that means an H3 in the Reception or as a new H2 in the body, it could go either way, but I think the H2 would be correct since it was a significant aspect that affected elements of the movie. --MASEM (t) 18:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

A failed mention

Under the Cast, Neil Casey, who played Rowan North was not mentioned. I wanted to edit that to fix the issue as well as mention the actor and actress names in parenthesis under plot, however some fools who would edit this to insult it, because they think it is "funny" make that impossible. So can an Admin fix this discrepancy? Boguczed1 (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

wrongly written sentence in the Controversy section

this sentence:

Some saw the portrayal of Leslie Jones' character, a "street-smart New Yorker", as a stereotype of African Americans.[63][64][65][66] However, journalists from The Washington Post and The Atlantic stated that a majority of the criticism constituted misogynist and anti-feminist comments in regard to the all-female cast.

i cannot understand how this "However" fits in this sentence. to me however implies some kind of conflict or contradiction. this has none.

can someone explain? or can i edit this? also, if you support changing it, please suggest changes because i am not sure what to write instead. should i just delete the "however" or change wording altogether? Phantom147 (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Good catch, thank you. It appears somebody moved the sentence re: Jone's character up into the "other reasons" section but inadvertently split a point from the source. The "However" was meant to modify the "other reasons" sentence, per WP:HOWEVER. A source can "however" itself, but shouldn't "however" another source, haha. Thanks, fixed. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
That was my fault, apologies. Thanks for fixing it. Popcornduff (talk) 09:06, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Glad to help!Phantom147 (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Having seen the film, there's nothing about Jones' character that would suggest the description of 'street smart' in particular. That criticism appears to have been based on misinterpretation of the line from the trailer when she says she knows New York, however by the context in the film, the character was explicitly talking in terms of being very knowledgeable about obscure historical facts concerning the city.219.88.68.195 (talk) 00:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
We're only reporting the reaction. We're not offering original analysis of whether that reaction was justified. Popcornduff (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
I understand that. This doesn't mean it can't be presented in context though. Does that assertion about her character appear in references that are based on the film itself, or on speculation based on the trailer?219.88.68.195 (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
It's a fair point that some of the criticism was based on the trailer. However, within the context of the controversy section, a great deal of the controversy took place before the film was released. Not all, though, in this case. Of the 4 sources for the "street smart" claim, 2 were before the release and 2 were shortly after. From those sources: "Once again, women like me are the street-savvy sidekick who happens to know random bits of information to fill in a plot hole, but are otherwise unseen and unheard until they are needed for the same utility in the next scene." from one and "This [dynamic] has been criticized because it limits the character to a stereotype: ‘street-savvy black woman’. That continues throughout the film — in one scene, physicist Erin Gilbert (Kristen Wiig) says, “We are scientists… plus Patty.”" So I think it's still fair to say that some authors still believed that Jones' character was fulfilling a trope after the movie was released. Scoundr3l (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Slight head's up

Hey guys, just letting you know that I just took part in an AfD (I was the nominator) for an actress's article where someone tried to claim that Chaunty Spillane portrayed Gertrude Aldridge (the main female ghost). There was plentiful sourcing to prove this claim false, but I just wanted to give a head's up on this page in case there's an attempt to change this on the main Ghostbusters article. There were a ton of sourcing showing Rous as the actress in question, but the only one saying Spillane was Aldridge was a Facebook post. (And even there one of her friends cautioned her about lying about her role in the film, as this can and will backfire horribly if you try to steal someone else's acting credit.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Proof of Chaunty Spillane's Involvement in Ghostbuster's & Gertrude Alrdridge Under Miscellaneous

Hi all, will all due respect and courtesy--contrary to popular debate among editors (and previously my own beliefs) on whether or not there are actually sources directly from the Official production company page of Ghostbusters 2016's imDB--or any possibly independent viable media source-- which actually does prove that actor Chaunty Spillane indeed also had a part in the portrayal of the role of Gertrude Aldridge under "Miscellaneous Crew" as their protocol on where to credit photo doubles/doubles on imDB [1]. Also, if one clicks the blue hyperlink credit for Chaunty Spillane on her imDB page or Ghostbusters 2016's Official imDB page then it will redirect you to the Official page of Ghostbusters 2016. This establishes relevancy/fact (since the official credit in blue hyperlink formation is direct confirmation from the source at question) per the Wikipedia accepted notability article. In addition, the blue hyperlink credit establishes irrefutably that this Miscellaneous credit for the role of Gertrude Alrdidge was in fact an Official Ghostbusters approved credit for actor Chaunty Spillane and established as well that this is actually factual/reliable. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)>.

Also, Iloura is the company whom were the final cgi/special vfx animators of Gertrude Aldridge [2].

Of Iloura, supervisors Glenn Melenhorst and Andrew Hellen reveal that there was another actor and a skeleton prop in addition to Bess Rous utilized in the creation of Gertrude Aldridge (please refer to quote below) [3].

″For Gertrude, a live-action/CG hybrid (sometimes full CG) who lives' in the library, artists built a skeletal system, designed and added her clothes and lower body, and finished with a celestial aura. Production employed a technique of strapping the actors in LED lighting which threw a soft light both onto the actors as well as the set, which required artists to integrate her seamlessly into the plate..." [4]

Please in the above quote, take notice how the word "actors" is plural when used in reference to the character Gertrudge Aldridge's creation and indicates clearly how it took more than one actor and a skeleton to make the final product that we see today of Gertrude Aldridge in Ghostbusters 2016. Although, what created initial confusion was: Bess Rous was the actress whom originally received credit and press, hence the plethora of many articles on her factual involvement as the actor whom portrayed Gertrude Aldridge in Ghostbusters 2016.

Also, may I note that obtaining such a role as being the photo double for a very well know LA Actor (Bess Rous) in addition to the role taking place in the controversial/high criticized production of Ghostbusters 2016 is quite difficult for east coast actors to obtain such a role in as a famous of Franchise as Ghostbusters.

2601:19B:4300:33B4:1561:1238:3254:F2C0 (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me there may be enough evidence to prove that Chaunty Spillane was involved as a photo double, however I don't believe it will become relevant to this article as this article uses only select principle cast. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.imdb.com/name/nm5664097/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1#miscellaneous
  2. ^ https://www.productionhub.com/press-release/56779/deluxes-iloura-puts-the-ghost-in-ghostbusters
  3. ^ http://www.bydeluxe.com/news/deluxe-s-iloura-puts-the-ghost-in-ghostbusters
  4. ^ http://www.4rfv.com/Y1HPJQ4K4803/deluxes-iloura-puts-the-ghost-in-ghostbusters.htm
  • IMDb is not considered to be a reliable source on Wikipedia because anyone can add and edit a credit. We actually had a case earlier this year where someone added years worth of false credits that went undetected for a long while. This, this, and this are all the same thing - a press release that does not specifically mention Spillane in regards to Gertrude or any of the other things in the article. They only say "the actors", which is incredibly general and honestly. What was also the issue was that when the article for Spillane was still active was that the article was written in such a way that it tried to say that she was portraying Gertrude in the film. There's a huge difference between what was written (and claimed in the AfD) and what you're writing here. Even if she was used in the makeup stage, that itself does not count towards notability as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Possible sequel section

I'm thinking of changing the name of the section to Cancelled sequel due to Paul Feig saying that the sequel wasn't going to happen. But so far it's only from Paul Feig. The studio or cast hasn't said anything about it. So should I leave it alone and wait until more information becomes availible? VintageVHSTreasures •

It doesn't really sound like there was anything scheduled and officially announced, so I don't think anything was "cancelled" exactly. It was just a "possible" sequel. - SummerPhDv2.0 01:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, I never saw a true announcement that a sequel was set. There was definitely talk about the possibility before the film's release but nothing firm. --MASEM (t) 01:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

So I think for now, I'm going to wait until further information is released, and if for whatever reasons if Sony says a sequel isn't going to happen then I will think about changing it. Can someone close this discussion for me? VintageVHSTreasures • —Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Why's Columbia Pictures sometimes always being a production company?

I'm getting sick and tired of Columbia Pictures being the production company and Sony Pictures being distributor! — Preceding unsigned comment added by XSMan2016 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Deleted attempt at summary of critical reception

Per two embedded comments in the lede

!--Please see talk page before adding summary of critical reception to lead. Last consensus was to omit summarized reception: including from aggregators,MC or RT--

and

-- Please see discussion before adding information regarding critical reception. As review aggregators do not agree on the summary of reception, current consensus is against adding a general summary, per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. --

I deleted the sentence

The film received generally positive reviews from film critics ,but was panned by audiences ,with many praising the action scenes, effects, stunts, comedic humor, the tone, the acting ,the villain as well as the direction and the soundtrack, but the audiences claimed the film did not had the originality that had in the 1984 film[8][9].

cshirky (talk) 11:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Political POV edits

An anon IP has been attempting to insert politically inspired bias to the article. They are attempting to make factual claims based on a non-RS blogger, a non-RS personal site and a political opinion piece rather than a straight journalistic article. Two editors have reverted them. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

That editor has now subbed a valid reportorial source, which remains. The editor pointedly left out what the article calls the biggest reason for the backlash, which is that the remake starred women. That has been added. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
As I edited afterwards, the paragraph that that sentence is in is all about the backlash against the all-female cast; that last sentence ascribes other reasons there was dislike towards the movie, but the bulk of the controversy section is about how some took the female cast reboot, so it didn't need to be restated there. --MASEM (t) 20:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
You're absolutely correct. I was looking solely at the sentence and not the paragraph. Good catch. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
No worries: I do agree on your initial assessment that to add those other elements, we needed a source like the Altantic rather than HuffPo/etc., but the core of that section is about how the backlash was considered a result of the female cast. --MASEM (t) 00:14, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Slow edit war over this. You guys need to talk this over already. It's Alt-righters vs SJW's here. Devilmanozzy (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Dan Aykroyd's comments

via Deadline, where he pins the fault of the film's cost on Feig. I'm not sure if this yet should be included or even where to include but it may be a point of relevancy. --MASEM (t) 00:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Adding that on EW.com that Sony has corrected Dan's June 4th numbers:
After Aykroyd’s statements, Sony confirmed the movie’s reshoots — but said the price was between $3 and $4 million, not $30-40 million as Aykroyd stated.
"The budget and additional visual effects shoots were previously reported, and the studio had an incredible relationship with the director who was first rate"
and that since then Dan on Facebook has said the same, minus the numbers he got wrong. Devilmanozzy (talk) 04:10, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Given that Aykroyd issued a self-correction, we can ignore his initial statement, but include that there inclued between $3-4 M worth of reshoots. --MASEM (t) 04:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Film controversies cat

This cat keeps on getting removed without explanation by an anonymous ip address. Well, I don't know if there is any official criteria, but this is a film and it was pretty controversial. Alot of films have controversies surrounding them, but, in this case, the flame war was so epic, it was impossible to discuss the film without the controversy surrounding it. Therefore, I would say it is appropriate. Any thoughts?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 15:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

If the gender-related criticism wasn't a film controversy, I don't know what would then qualify. This clearly should belong there. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
If Wikipedia editors really feel the need to tar and feather a film, then it falls into the "Film controversies category", no matter how stupid the reason. That's how I see it. I'm clearly pro-2016 film, but the masses be stupid so leave the category up. Devilmanozzy (talk) 04:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
The question is whether there was a controversy or not. There are also controversy cats for Black Swan, Harry Potter, the Passion of the Christ etc. I am neither "pro" or "anti" any of these films, but the fact remains that they had documented controversies. And this wasn't some minor thing, it enveloped the whole discussion of the film. So does this belong in film controversies? I would say so.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 05:29, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Just because we're documenting a controversy does not mean WP endorse or refutes either side of the controversy, only that it existed. The gender-related issues clearly cause consternation between the creative crew and some subset of potential movie goers. Clearly the category is appropriate, regardless whom you might think was right or wrong. --MASEM (t) 05:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I was agreeing under protest. That was what I meant by that. Wikipedia has to bend to what is deemed "controversy" but I'm noting that while I a pro-2016 film fan agree with the tag, I don't have to like it or agree that people "should" deem the film a controversy. It's a complex position. It is something you learn working on Wiki's over the year. Your opinion should never hinder the overall picture. If you are in the way, you say your peace and let it go. Devilmanozzy (talk) 08:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
The controversy wasn't solely about the female cast - in fact many people were angry that their reasonable and valid criticisms were just dismissed as misogyny. Its a long and complex story.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
I run a number of facebook pages about Ghostbusters. I have heard them. But most would have been just as mad if they had done the sequel instead. The only real issue left is when will the haters let go and accept some fans did enjoy the film. In hindsight, a cartoon would have been a much easier way to restart the franchise than a reboot film. But the expectation that the original crew were going to be major stars in a film in 2016 was beyond silly. Devilmanozzy (talk) 00:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I also agree that the category is warranted. I did not follow this article, but following movie news, I saw this covered. Like Masem said, the controversy existed, regardless of whether we think it was right or wrong. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ghostbusters (2016 film). 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) 16:06, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Feminist film?

That's a controversial category to put this film in. There are many who believe this film is one that superficially panders to feminism for commercial reasons and would label it as a pseudo-feminist film. 178.167.182.231 (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

adding timestamp for archive bot. —usernamekiran(talk) 15:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Gross and net

I removed the recently added split of the "gross" and "net" budget. I have never seen such a split in a film infobox, and, honestly, I don't even know what that would mean or why we would need it. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 23:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree, I've never see it like that, and seems to confuse the details (given that budget relates to expendatures, I don't see how "gross" or "net" would apply). --Masem (t) 00:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Exactly what I was thinking. If there are two sources with different figures for the budget, though, that should be discussed. But, it has nothing to do with "gross" or "net". ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 01:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
There was an RfC about this a couple years ago. See Template talk:Infobox film/Archive 28#Request for comment. Hope that helps. I've restored the content for now. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
I've started a discussion about this at the FilmProject. Frankly, the use of these terms makes no sense. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 11:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
This is a project wide issue and affects many film articles. I suggest closing this discussion and continuing it at the Film project where I have explained the basic conundrum. Betty Logan (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
That's fine with me. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 12:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

User:TropicAces added net budgets to several articles, based on a financial report analyzing budget rebates, I haven't checked them all yet. I think it can be misleading to include the net budget but based on the cases I saw I thought it was an accepted way of doing things. One example of User:TropicAces adding net budget was in the article for Pitch Perfect 2 but in that case I argued that the numbers added were synthesized from the source and were not reliable enough to included in the Infobox and after a few days boldly removed it from the Infobox. Instead I updated the article text to include more information about the budget and rebates, something User:TropicAces had not done when he changed the Infobox.

Recently (2018) I've seen a confusing and inconsistent mix of how articles handle budgets. Some take 2 conflicting figures, and then present them as range Talk:Annihilation_(film)#Budget even after it becomes clear from a better source that one figure is far more likely to be correct (the director himself said the budget was $40 million). In another article Talk:Solo:_A_Star_Wars_Story#Budget when a budget range had been included it was later replaced by a supposedly more reliable source without any further discussion. I'm trying to follow the consensus and it would be helpful if people could make it clearer what the rules are and apply them more consistently. I will try to follow up on this question at the film project later.

I'd prefer if the Infobox listed the higher figure before rebates (sticker price? cost as the store? final after coupons or rebates?) but ultimately in the case of this article specifically I'm okay so long as the article body in some way makes it clear that the film received $10 million in rebates, and that information is not obscure from readers.

TL:DR Article text is most important. -- 109.79.84.94 (talk) 14:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Further discussion was suggested but I checked WT:MOSFILM back to 21 June 2018 and it seems like no further discussion has happened so far. -- 109.76.171.55 (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
The discussion you're looking for is here: WT:FILM#Net/gross production budgets --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Also an earlier one that branched off directly from this page is here: WT:FILM#"Net" and "gross" budget in infobox? --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
In case anyone else cares the net/gross discussion has been moved to the archive.
Some people were questioning the figures as Synthesis and others argued it was a simple calculation although nothing is simple with Hollywood Accounting. The discussion didn't seem to reach a consensus, so much as acknowledge that sometimes we do list both net and gross. -- 109.78.222.5 (talk) 04:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Free image

If this Wikipedia or in other languages want a picture of cosplay based on this movie, I have this image.

People dressed as characters from the film at Stockholm International Fairs in 2016.

Egon Eagle (talk) 10:41, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

On Box Office Bomb.. again.

The inclusion of this being a "box office bomb" has been discussed before Talk:Ghostbusters (2016 film)/Archive 3 with general agreement for its inclusion. As even spelled out on the box office bomb page, it is not just the production costs, but production and marketing. We know production, but we don't know marketing but reliable sources - here the WSJ - reported it was very high and the film failed to clear it, therefore qualifying it (even then, other RSes have called it as such). Removal of this from the lede makes no sense at this point. --MASEM (t) 22:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

You believe the marketing costs exceeded $85,000,000? — Film Fan 23:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
That's what the WSJ reports, there is no reason to doubt it (And for a rough measure Iron Man 2 had $100M+ in marketing. It is not unheard of. --MASEM (t) 23:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
That is not what the WSJ reports. Read the article. — Film Fan 01:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm super confused as to why this keeps getting removed. We have a reliable source specifying the statement and the reasoning, not to mention previous consensus based on that assessment and no new information that would indicate a need to address changing that consensus. SO yeah. Really confused. Millahnna (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
All the WSJ article says is that Ghostbusters is one of several films which "fell short of studios’ big expectations". I mean, obviously that's true. But it didn't lose money so it's not a "box office bomb". — Film Fan 01:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
SO we have four sources attached to the "bomb" statement in the reception section at the moment. Forbes is the only one that uses the specific phrasing of "bomb" while most of the others went with "flop" (WSJ's phrasing you've already noted). SO I see what you're getting at. Could we rephrase? I mean currently the statement (which is missing some quotes around "box office bomb") is very carefully worded to state that sources called it such, which is true for one of the sources we use at least. Could we change it to something like:
Sources such as blah and blah began to refer to it as a "flop" or "bomb" at the box office.
And then from there we'd do the usual detailing of why said sources are making this evaluation (which the WSJ source did the most concisely, I felt). Am I making any sense? Millahnna (talk) 01:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
We also have this: :[2] "The film still hasn't opened in a few markets, including France, Japan and Mexico, but box-office experts say it will have trouble getting to $225 million despite a hefty net production budget of $144 million plus a big marketing spend. The studio has said break-even would be $300 million." --MASEM (t) 01:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Film Fan: You might want to check my comments at Talk:Ghostbusters (2016 film)/Archive 3#Box Office Bomb. Your comments above seem to be focusing on gross which is very different from net. Let's say a film's production and marketing was $200 million, but it grossed $250 million at the box office. This is not a net gain once you factor in the movie theaters' cut. In the U.S., that cut is often less than what it is overseas, but it's still significant. Often in order to make money, the film has to gross 1.5 to 2 times the production and marketing cost depending on which international market generated the most revenue. It would be speculation on our part to deny what the sources have concluded. At the very least, the content should remain in the article until discussion shows a consensus that either the reliable sources cited aren't reliable, or that the the sources aren't directly supporting the claim. So far, it doesn't appear that we have that consensus in support of either scenario. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

And to add, from THR, we know the studio felt $300M was the breakeven point, so we're not guessing at all at that number, and that's why the other sources that call it a bomb/flop are based on. --MASEM (t) 22:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
The THR article should have been the source instead of the WSJ article all along. — Film Fan 00:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
It's been stated by several reliable sources (Forbes, Metro, Daily Wire, Uproxx) that it's a bomb, Hollywood Reporter says it needed $375 million to $400 million worldwide to break even- it made $229 mil. It's a bomb, it seems the political side of this movie is coming out once again as there's no valid, neutral reason not to call it such. --TheTruthiness (talk) 01:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Before challenging and removing content, it's a good idea to check the relevant section of the article. After all, the lead is a summary of the article's contents and doesn't necessarily require citations. If a better source exists in the body, and you feel the citation is needed in the lead, simply move it there or start a discussion when you can't find one. You won't have any problems getting a response in high-traffic articles like this one. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your original research, but Wikipedia relies on the citation of reliable sources. DonQuixote (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
To note, even a movie that turns a profit, after marketing costs are considered, can still be a bomb if the profit was nowhere close to what was expected. (A movie that costs $100M to make and only turned in $110M in worldwide revenue is not a great performance for example). We don't have the exact figure on the marketing value here, but clearly most are expecting it significant enough to definitely call this a loss and thus a box office bomb or flop. --MASEM (t) 19:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Revisit

I'd like to reignite this discussion. I'd argue that calling it a "box office bomb" is misleading. "Box office bomb" doesn't just means the film was unprofitable; it implies that it was a complete catastrophe. "Box office disappointment", "financial loss", "financial disappointment" or even "flop" would be more appropriate. Anywikiuser (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

It seems to just be an issue of semantics. For all intents and purposes, bomb and flop mean the same thing. I believe at one point we played with calling it a "box office disappointment", but frankly that's just a WP:EUPHEMISM. The Last Jedi could be called a 'disappointment' and it's making plenty of money. Meanwhile we've got multiple independent sources (including Sony) estimating losses from this film between $25 million and $75 million. Not for us to say if losing that much money is a catastrophe, but it's certainly a flop/bomb. The sources reflect that, so it's perfectly neutral to call it a bomb. Scoundr3l (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
From previous discussions I think the consensus was only to use the word flop/bomb if the reliable sources do it first. I share your sense of caution and the need for a NPOV but once there are sources to back it up I think it's fair. -- 109.76.134.42 (talk) 14:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Furthermore, the link links to a page entitled "box office bomb". Using any other term makes it appear to be written from a fan's point of view who does not want their movie to be seen that way--Jonathan Joseph (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Breitbart source

I removed a Breitbart [www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/07/20/double-standards-leslie-jones-racist-twitter-history/ source] which is not a reliable source and thus should not be used to support a viewpoint. Additionally, the source does not support the sentence "Conversely, Jones and her character in the film were also accused of promoting negative stereotypes about black people". Please do not reinsert this source without discussion. –dlthewave ☎ 11:57, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that Breitbart as a paper was part of this controversy so they potentially may be used here, looking at the details of the specific BB article shows it was only an attempt to call out what they saw as racist remakes towards white people by Jones in a game of trying to get Twitter to do the same to Jones as Twitter did to Milo. Fully agree it has nothing outside of one tweet that falls into the "negative stereotypes of black people" that the other three sources used summarize clearer. This is a proper removal. --Masem (t) 13:46, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Australian Chart Position for Soundtrack

I found a source that includes the chart position but the one in the article is in a template so I don’t know how to replace the source. Here’s the new source: https://australian-charts.com/search.asp?cat=a&search=Ghostbusters

CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Mindy Kaling was the first to come up with the idea

... and her reaction on not being cast — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.60.219.125 (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Source? --Masem (t) 18:43, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

A reminder about the name of this article

Please review the past discussion here [3] about renaming this to "Ghostbusters: Answer the Call". The fact is that the common name of this film that most know is "Ghostbusters". "Answer the Call" was added for the home media release (that might have been on the poster, but no one, not even Columbia, took that as a subtitle). Do not move the page or change the lede unless you get a new consensus. --Masem (t) 05:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Extended cut

I thought the article might mention the Extended cut but it doesn't yet include any details, or even mention that there was an extended cut. Apparently the extended cut was "better than the theatrical version"[4] or at least it was the same but different (15 minutes longer but more different than that because of lots of different cuts being used). People who already liked the film should like it they say.[5] Maybe someone might add something to the article about it? -- 109.77.194.110 (talk) 00:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Soundtrack Singles

I think the song "Saw it Coming" by G-Easy ft. Jeremiah the single should be a page. Enter your username my name was taken (talk) 17:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ghostbusters_(2016_film)/Archive_4&oldid=1136764028"