Talk:Ghostbusters (2016 film)

Grammatical Errors

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

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

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

Let's talk a little about the Marketing section.

The marketing section currently read:

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

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

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

I'd agree that the "negative reaction" to marketing seems out of place, particularly compared to existing standards. I'd second omitting this.

That said, if someone with experience currating films can provide precedence for "marketing reaction", a "mixed" or "mixed to negative" reaction may be more accurate. While the negative social media reaction (particularly Youtube votes) has received some press, there have been positive and negative reactions from critical publications and media outlets. Nerd2thend (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

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

Reception

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

Trailer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It seems fine to mention it given the amount of coverage and thinkpieces it has got. It may turn out to fail the WP:10YEARS test, or it may be the only thing that anyone remembers about the film in ten years' time. --McGeddon (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

There needs to be a link to the trailer right at the start of that section. Something like "The first official trailer[1] was..."

UK release date

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

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

"Downvote into oblivion"

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

I took a look at this and don't see a problem. The phrase "downvote into oblivion" is a quote, not the opinion of Wikipedia, and looks like it's sourced appropriately. It's not a bad thing that the quote comes from an external website; in fact, Wikipedia completely depends on external sources. Popcornduff (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

It's not the quote itself, it's how it is used. It seems like it was put there to project the idea that the only reason the dislikes are there is because of the campaign. It is biased because of that fact. McGeddon also changed the reception from "negative" to "mixed to negative". This leads me to believe that the editor is pushing their own POV and trying to suppress the legitimacy of the negative reception the trailer has been receiving. It wouldn't be bad if it didn't come immediately after the quote about the dislikes. The way it is worded now makes it seem like that IS the reason for the dislikes. TJD2 (talk) 06:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I understand your concern. But we can only report what (reliable) sources are saying. The source does say "mixed to negative" reaction, so it would distort the source to change this only to "negative". If you think other reliable sources have different takes, can we report their perspective, too? Popcornduff (talk) 09:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Alternate perspectives are exactly what's needed. As is, "organized campaign" does look like the only suggested reason why these trailers are getting such a negative backlash, and that simply isn't the truth. Ellen Killoran of Maxim, for example, blamed the backlash on the notion that the first trailer implied that the film was going to be a sequel rather than a clean reboot, and was ultimately misleading in that regard. Joethetimelord (talk) 06:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Overall, culturally folks out the gate like Gavin McInnes pretty much discredited the film based on a picture and cast list. The trailer in March had little chance to pass based on criticism that pretty much was unfair from the get go. Folks pro 2016 (like myself) and true fans against the film (because its a reboot, not cause women star in it) are not the ones behind this wave. It is straight forward politics from the right. So address these critics for who they are and stop acting like the campaign is run by fans, because it is not. Devilmanozzy (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

As there's no sourced evidence of there being a campaign at all that I know of, or at least one successful enough to involve hundreds of thousands of Youtube downvoters, we only have (and likely will only have) speculation from the media that the dislikes are the result of an organized group. I was only proposing that that other sourced reasons why the masses would dislike the trailer be listed (such as your own example), to avoid any potential implications of bias. Considering the sensitivity of this issue, we must all work hard at maintaining a neutral perspective of events as they unfold. Joethetimelord (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Some good arguments are raised against the number of downvotes in this example, but overall this debate for or against has pretty much went nuke at this point. In a month the film comes out, and then the ticket sales will dictate who won this. The downvoting thing is only a footnote, and in a month will likely be forgotten about. Devilmanozzy (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

If the alleged campaign and its consequences is as unimportant as you say, then its suggestion should be omitted entirely. I'm still unconvinced that there's any "winning this" or that there's even a "this" at all aside from a vocal minority mixed in with a large number of people who simply don't like what they see due to poor production quality, disconnection to the source, claims of racial stereotyping, or the simple notion that people are tired of seeing yet another remake on the horizon. Internet bickering only has so much influence, especially to the horde of casual moviegoers that neither knows nor cares about any flamewar, no matter how overblown, regarding production. The only reason I'm seconding alterative reasons is to end the neutrality dispute in question. All we have is circumstantial evidence at best of any organized downvote campaign. Unless a group publicly comes forward or is otherwise outed, all we'll have is speculation and conspiracy theory. I say we either remove the quoted speculation entirely and wait for something more concrete to come around, or to offer alternative speculations alongside the quote.Joethetimelord (talk) 04:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

If we include the massive dislike of the trailer, we include the reasons given by the sources. Anything else is clearly an attempt to sweep the issue under the rug. This is pretty similar to Gamergate and a whole bunch of other recent examples of hate and negative reactions to attempts to assert the position of women in popularculture. This stuff is pretty well-attested and there's plenty of sources to back it up. Suggesting it's just a bunch of speculation or even conspiracy theories is ridiculous.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:18, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Tribute to Harold Ramis?

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

Yes. And if reliable sources can be found to corroborate it, we could potentially add mention of it in. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 20:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I saw the film last night, there is a "For Harold Ramis" in the closing credits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottrb (talk • contribs) 12:20, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Bias

Well, it looks like the misogynists took over the content and tone of the article's prose.

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

CITATION NEEDED. CITATION NEEDED. CITATION NEEDED.

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

CITATION NEEDED. CITATION NEEDED. CITATION NEEDED.

mixed reviews

75% on Rotten Tomatoes is NOT "mixed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.196.139 (talk) 10:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, the article is a mess right now, not neutral or properly sourced. Popcornduff (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

This was WP:BOLDly added wholesale by User:Smuckola overnight, and does seem to be a lot of straight WP:SYNTHESIS and cherry-picking, particularly the "Publicity" and "Public reception" sections, which I've cut. If everyone involved in the film has dismissed all criticism in a consistently aggressive and mocking way, that's worth mentioning, but let's find a source that's actually drawn that conclusion. Piling up quotes and summarising in Wikipedia's voice that "These statements are generally notable for..." is WP:SYNTHESIS. --McGeddon (talk) 11:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Mixed(?) reviews

Even though Rotten Tomatoes (76%) and Metacritic (63) indicate positive reviews, pretty much every review roundup and review in general is average, if not polarized. So I think, despite my initial stance, that "received mixed reviews" along with specifics is best route. TropicAces (talk) 11:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I have boldly changed wording to "mixed to positive reviews", as I think "mixed" alone unfairly under-represents the fairly high RT meter. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 12:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I think perhaps "polarized" may be best bet here... TropicAces (talk) 12:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

People are clearly trying to push an agenda. It's current score (78%) would be "generally positive" on any other page, but because this is a popular film for people to troll/hate, it's getting grossly misrepresented here. "Polarized" isn't a good option either because it suggests more of a 50/50 split, which this most certainly is not. MaximumMadnessStixon (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Well if you actually read most reviews, they're pretty average/mixed themselves. Many are praising cast but admit the film is just fine. RT is the one that determines if a film review is fresh or rotten, so the 78% could just as easily be in 50's. The review roundups all indicate mixed/polarized, but I feel so long as consensus isn't purely "generally positive," we should be good. TropicAces (talk) 13:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)tropicAces

I can't believe that you would even consider using "mixed to positive " as opposed to "mostly positive." Rotten Tomatoes has a score of nearly 80%, which indicates that the movie has received mostly positive reviews. This is just another attempt to unfairly misrepresent and degrade any so raise this movie may receive. I strongly suggest the wording on the page is changed to fairly represent the movie. Trying to justify individual reviews versus the aggregator scores is against the norm completely and cannot be done. Jeremyblass (talk) 19:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

If you read review roundups or individual reviews, most are in it of themselves mixed. They say "it's not as bad as it could have been" or "as people feared." Yes the scores indicate positive, but the sources have been found that show its polarized. If you can find a few review round ups that show the general consensus is purely positive, it can be changed as such. (cc Jeremyblass) TropicAces (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)tropicAces

Here are just a few of the many glowing reviews on the Internet: ABC News, Toronto Sun, The Globe and Mail, The New York Times, etc. (cc tropicAces) Jeremyblass (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Those reviews are also linked at Rotten Tomatoes. If you read the other reviews linked there, it's mixed to positive. DonQuixote (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Why has the 'Critical response' section not mentioned the IMDb score of 3.7/10, from over 4,000 ratings? People are arguing about whether the section should list the critical response as mixed or positive, with those arguing for positive talking about the Rotten Tomatoes score, but this section completely omits a very noteworthy aggregate review site. I'm not arguing one way or the other, and I haven't seen the movie, but shouldn't this be included? MegaSolipsist 10:48, 12 July 2016 NZ time

The IMDB score is user-generated. Wikipedia prioritizes professional critics over random Internet users. clpo13_(talk) 22:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Think it's best to either eliminate what kind of reviews it's getting (like some pages do) or just leave what was praised/criticized. This is getting out of hand haha... TropicAces (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)tropicAces TropicAces (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/ghostbusters-2016

Metacritic also reached the consensus as Mixed/Average from a compilation of critic reviews — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.232.125 (talk) 07:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Metacritic is now "mixed or average," reviews, and if it's needed I can supply a dozen review summaries that all indicate the film is receiving mixed reviews. Rotten Tomatoes is the only consensus site that implies positive reviews. TropicAces (talk) 11:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)tropicAces

It seems the only source we are using to indicate "generally positive" is Rotten Tomatoes. I have six other review consensus' that indicate mixed, and now Metacritic is the same. I think it is ignorant to continue to ignore the obvious fact reviews are mixed to positive, if not purely mixed... TropicAces (talk) 14:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)tropicAces TropicAces (talk) 14:27, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Just as a counter point: there are several sources reporting a much more positive consensus. All that said, unless someone can has good precedent one way or another, I don't think "mixed to positive" is necessarily inaccurate. Nerd2thend (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Mixed to positive is not "bold" it is the worst kind of equivocation. Pick one! Mixed obviously includes positive and negative. Rotten Tomatoes are terrible for going with the early result and not updating later. Mixed is the only fair description, but the individual reviews can still highlight the best points of the movie. -- 89.100.252.135 (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Take a deep breath. Not worth arguing about. Everyone knows that there are polarizing elements about this film including how it was promoted and how it was received. Some reviewers have even noted that political undercurrents affected their scoring rather than the film itself. But there is an undeniable accounting coming up by next weekend and will probably take 3 weeks to fully comprehend it: Box Office Receipts. People vote with their wallets. Other polarizing films like "American Sniper" received mixed to positive reviews with politics being a major player for the reviewer (and even awards). Box Office doesn't lie though and the second weekend strength will be the most important indicator in how movie fans outside the political arena feel about the film. Until then, it appears the data is greatly skewed. The current focus on "agenda," rather than film quality reminds me of the lawyer axiom of "If facts are on your side, argue facts - if the law is on your side, argue the law but if you have neither the law or facts, pound the table." There's a lot of table pounding. There should be a separate section outside "Critical response" that documents how the movie was received (i.e. the youtube stuff) as well as how it was marketed as female buddy movie and the reaction to negativity. All of it hyped up the release and is notable if only because there is no such thing as bad publicity. --DHeyward (talk) 20:06, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• Comment It is fairly obvious the reception has been mixed. There are six sources in the opening sentence of the reception section and they all describe the reception as "mixed". Metacritic describes the reception as "mixed/average". Rotten Tomatoes on the other hand does indeed have a high percentage of "fresh" reviews; however, this is partly explained by Rotten Tomatoes not having a "mixed" category, so mixed reviews on the positive side are rated "fresh" and mixed reviews on the negative side are rated "rotten". The average critics rating is more telling: according to Rotten Tomatoes it is 6.7/10, which is a fairly average rating by most people's standards. "Mixed to positive" is grammatically poor, because mixed reviews by definition include positive reviews. The critics are essentially saying it is slightly above average film, going by the normalized aggregator ratings. Betty Logan (talk) 03:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• Another source and summary:[2]. --DHeyward (talk) 03:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)]

• Comment – Concur with Betty, as this is a reoccurring debate that rears its ugly head in almost every time a new movie releases. We cannot look at the numbers ourselves and determine where the cut-off point is between mixed and positive, so when it's not overwhelmingly so, it's best to leave it mixed. Secondly, we should rely on secondary sources other than RT and MC to help determine a film's overall reception. And guess what? The film hasn't even been released yet! There will be another 100 or so reviews tallied at RT in the next two weeks, as well as another 40 or so at MC. We're jumping the gun a bit by trying to summarize a moving target. If it were me, I'd leave the first sentence out altogether in the critical response section in the meantime, or at least rephrase it to specify this is an early reaction. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• Çomment'- People also seem to be quoting at length from positive reviews and keep changing it from mixed to positive reviews, although the actual review compilations posted here and available seem to suggest the actual critical reception is pretty mixed.

-124.188.232.125 (talk) 07:17, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2016

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

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

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

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

The Rotten Tomatoes score used on Wikipedia is compiled from professional critic reviews. The user score on RT is ignored. See Wikipedia:Review aggregators and [3]. clpo13_(talk) 23:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

oh variety also was underwhelmed

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

Anti-feminist bashing?

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

• https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/online-backlash-against-positive-reviews-for-new-084556703.html
• http://www.themarysue.com/ghostbusters-fanboys-angry-about-good-reviews/
• http://www.themarysue.com/ghostbusters-internet-troll-scene/
• http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2016/05/the-sexist-outcry-against-the-ghostbusters-remake-gets-louder/483270/
• https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/may/02/ghostbusters-trailer-most-disliked-in-youtube-history
• http://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/episode-293-police-violence-milos-super-serve-cleaning-up-the-oceans-busting-the-ghostbusters-and-more-1.3668491/everyone-has-an-opinion-about-the-new-ghostbusters-even-though-no-one-has-actually-seen-it-1.3668559
• http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ghostbusters-how-sony-plans-slime-897104
• http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/15/movies/ghostbusters-review-melissa-mccarthy-kristen-wiig.html?_r=0

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

• https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2016/03/04/people-are-hating-the-ghostbusters-trailer-guess-why/ (already cited in the article)
• http://screencrush.com/ghostbusters-trailer-most-disliked-movie-trailer-in-history/

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

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

None of the hate came from anti-feminism.

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

Well, this is Wikipedia and we go by what sources say about article topics because we have a policy called Wikipedia:Verifiability. The massive amount of dislikes is directly linked to the female cast in multiple sources.

Peter ^Isotalo 02:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Peter ^Isotalo 11:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

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

A separate section on misogynist reactions and feminist (mostly the former) defense doesn't appear to be justified. Glossing it over would not be neutral in any way, especially when it's the explanation given by most sources for the online fam campaign against the film. The far less notable criticism of racial stereotypes is explained in some detail, so I see no reason to pretend that it's super-sensitive to mention other forms of debates regarding discrimination.

The wording I added simply sums up the position of several sources, some of them already cited for insignificant, like accusations of censorship by Sony.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

All good then. Apologies, missed your earlier edit. Nerd2thend (talk) 14:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Just made an account to say this

Right, box it up. WP:DNFTT. clpo13(talk) 21:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Mixed to Positive is crap and putting a spin on the real critical response. It makes no mention of this http://chicago.suntimes.com/entertainment/ghostbusters-reboot-a-horrifying-mess/ Where it's called a horrifying mess and other negative reviews. And that's coming from Roeper. Why can't it just say "Mixed"? I hardly see as many positive as you guys claim. Just my two cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HandsomeFrog22 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC) The film has a 77% on Rotten Tomatoes. If that's not an indication of at least some positive reaction, then I don't know what is. clpo13(talk) 21:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC) It's not a question of whether there are positive reviews or what RT says. It's a question of there are negative reviews as well. Which means "Mostly Mixed" is what would fit best. Mixed to Positive pushes an Agenda and Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HandsomeFrog22 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 11 July 2016 (UTC) Also, alot of the positive reviews were bought. http://i.imgur.com/RQu6Tiz.jpg "Mostly Mixed" is the most unbiased statement and fits the film's page better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HandsomeFrog22 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC) I was going to write out an explanation of what mixed versus favorable means on Wikipedia, including links to other movies, but then you posted that Reddit screenshot and you lost all credibility. clpo13(talk) 21:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC) TL;DR: anyone who actually uses the phrase "SJW feminist shills" is not worth listening to. clpo13(talk) 21:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC) TL:DR Anyone who uses the phrase Mansplaining Reddit Trolls Trigger Me is not worth listening too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HandsomeFrog22 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC) Cool, who said that. clpo13(talk) 21:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC) Oh wow. The Pee-Wee Herman Response.

Sony's treatment of Bill Murray

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Answer the Call"

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

It's very clearly a byline, so no.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:36, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Richard Roeper's review

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

Actually, Danratedkro removed it in this edit with the summary "Definition of "notable critic" is entirely opinion based", which was a response to Katastasi's restoration of Roeper's review here.

Anyways, Roeper is a notable critic, and, what's more, his review is so scathing in comparison to most other reviews that I think it deserves a mention even if only as an outlier. clpo13_(talk) 23:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no argument here that Roeper is not notable, but I am concerned by the sentiment that we should include him because he is an "outlier". I think reception sections generally work best when they exclude outlier sentiments because they are supposed to convey the typical views. Including outliers could potentially violate WP:DUE. If other critics can be found to share his sentiments then you have an argument that those sentiments should be represented. Betty Logan (talk) 03:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's notable though most reviews seem to get negative about half way through anyway. We're cherrypicking a lot of the positive and ignoring the negative which skews it a bit. A lot of reviews condensed here [4]. --DHeyward (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)