Talk:Ghostbusters (2016 film)

Criticism section is a joke

the fact the movie is highly misandrist is what CAUSED the onslaught of protests in the first place. this information being absent from the criticism section is nothing but TERRORISM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.170.81.208 (talk) 06:15, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

The movie is terrible flop and gathered fame only because of controversy and battle around political correctness. SONY is making this biased article? IMDB rating are 5/10 something, which is more than worse...yet it is not here. BIASED!

Controversy Neutrality

This article seems to be lacking neutrality on the cover of the controversies of the movie. Plenty of statements talking about 'misogyny' and disliking the all female cast, but zero statements talking about the controversy of racist stereotyping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.135.73.153 (talk) 09:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually the whole movie is racist by portraying an african-american as a typical "nigga stole my bike" and making a supposed adventure/horror film into a colorful girl-flick. There are A LOT of youtube videos stating why this movie SUCK, and none of them is about the cast being women(Nerds LOVE badass women), as some say: "repeat a lie until people start believing it to be the truth", the racism and mysoginy lies inside the movie and were created by sony and the director, the real criticism it's because the director's work at making the movie suck... But of course Wikipedia will take money from sony to say that it was mysoginy and racism and protect the page to reflect what's on the contract, it's all about an idiot director ruining a great franchise and sony for being a**holes.--FaustoLG (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. As usual, wickapedia has the facts skewed. This film received tons of valid criticism from both men and women. However, it seems that only the misogynistic comments were mentioned and valid criticism vaguely glanced over. Doom guy 83 (talk) 04:55, 28 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)

The score of the movie is 52% from Rotten Tomatoes' Top Critics. RT gives out two scores: "all critics" and top critics". The latter is from the notable critics who are from major publications and websites with at least 1.5 million unique monthly visitors. The former comes from critics that are not notable. Currently the top critics score of 52% comes from 33 reviews, 17 positive and 16 negative. The average score given by top critics was 6.1 out of 10. Often the top critics and all critics scores are so close together that only one of them is considered the RT score. But when the disparity is large, 52% vs 78%, then it is significant to consider both scores. Walterego (talk) 12:05, 14 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:[1]. --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)

• Comment - To reiterate: there are multiple sources giving conflicting consensus. Summaries exist stating reaction is "mixed" and reaction is "positive". Mixed to positive (while clunky) is frequently used in Wikipedia and IMHO is the closest, most accurate description. Until there's some greater critical consensus (or consensus on the consensus), and unless a better reason beyond bold can be provided, I see no better solution for now. Nerd2thend (talk) 12:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• @TropicAces: It is OR, plain and simple, to say "if you actually read the reviews, they are all mixed. Our most trusted source on critical consensus for films is usually RT, and they are saying positive. The sources that allegedly say "mixed" appear to be mirrors of each other that were clumped together in order to give the false impression that a lot of people think this, or don't actually say "mixed" and are being misquoted. I don't see what the problem is with reflecting what RT tells us rather than what Wikipedians think when they read a whole bunch of reviews. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:52, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

That said, I am not in favour of changing it away from the currently tenuously stable version until the film's wide U.S. release. It's entirely possible that the first critics to see the film (who were undoubtedly overwhelmingly positive) were just pleasantly surprised because they were expecting a garbage-fest, and once the American reviews hit the press we will have a more balanced picture, as the American critics who are aware of the more recent positive buzz will not have the low expectations of the international critics who have already been counted. RT currently only has 98 reviews counted, which is still pretty low, and the consensus could still change. I know this article is a political minefield at the moment, and saying "mixed" in the mean time is the safest way to avoid another sitshtorm. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• MetaCritic, a respected aggregate site, has the critical reaction as "mixed to average". At this time, the consensus is reported as both mixed and positive. Nerd2thend (talk) 12:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

References

"Mixed to positive reviews" is a contradiction in terms, or at the very least sloppy writing. If it received a mixture of mixed and positive reviews, then that's... mixed reviews. Popcornduff (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, "mixed to positive" is a poor grammatical representation of its intended meaning (see Betty's comments above as well). While the goal is to say that the approval rating falls somewhere between "average" and "positive", there are better ways to state that. To others who may not be familiar, realize that this has been discussed many, many, many times over the years at WT:FILM. Generally, the sentiment shared within the WikiProject is to avoid the phrases "mixed to negative" and "mixed to positive". It is better to say "generally negative" and "generally positive" to indicate "lower than average" and "higher than average", respectively. Also see MOS:FILM#Critical response for more information on summary statements. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd consider the wide range of reviews, from gushing to (in Roeper's case) absolutely crushing to be "Mixed", while when we say "Mixed to positive", that implies that "mixed" is the baseline, and there were no firmly negative reviews. Slightly off topic, an additional point to look at when citing RottenTomatoes is that they provide both an aggregate "All Critics" (which are all critics that meet their guidelines), and a Top Critics (which are all critics that meet significantly more stringent guidelines. While the "All Critics" score is currently at 75%, the "Top Critic" score sits at 48%, and I would consider that exceedingly mixed (also, rotten, per their metrics, though the aggregate review score at 6.1 is only .5 below the all critics score.). Is there a reason why we currently only list the "All Critics" score? DsareArde (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

See my comments above regarding the use of "mixed to positive" (we should avoid it). As for your question on Top Critics, see MOS:FILM#Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

There seems to still be some debate on whether this should be "mixed", "mixed to positive" or just "positive". So I will remove the critical reception summary until there seems to be a consensus--Joef1234 (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Joef1234: I reverted you once, since you didn't join the discussion here, but I'm not going to stand in the way of it again now that you've commented. It may actually be a good idea to remove it for now until the dust settles a bit more; reviews are still coming in. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@DsareArde: The reason we only use the Allcritics score these days is because the "Top Critics" score caused mass confusion. A few years ago editors were edit-warring and accusing each other of lying about the score. It turned out that the "top critics" are region dependent so varied from country to country i.e. a British critic might be considered a "top critic" in the UK but not the United States. In view of that it was much simpler to just stick with main score. The Metacritic score is in reality a "top critics" score since there is a generally a much larger overlap between the Metacritic critics and the RT top critics, which is why many editors put more stock in Metacritic, added to the fact they have a "mixed" category too. Betty Logan (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The All-critics score is derived from critics who lack significant readership. The top critics score comes from critics who are notable. Neglecting this because of regional differences is a bad compromise. Walterego (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

That may be so, but the problem here is that a "top critic" is not a static quantity. The fact that you can be both a top critic and not a top critic depending on which part of the world Rotten Tomatoes is accessed from complicates the metric. Clearly we can't list the TC rating for each country. Betty Logan (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Probably would want to make that argument on the MOS page for it, though I wouldn't bother, personally. If it was possible to specify which region a Top Critic # came from, I'd support it's inclusion, but as is if different wikipedians are going to be seeing different numbers just based on where their ip geotags to, I agree that it's functionally useless for wiki's purpose. Which is a shame, as I find the top review numbers generally to be more accurate to mine own findings than the flack of the all reviews, but it is what it is, and I doubt RT is going to change how they do things just to make life easier for us.DsareArde (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Ghostbusters (2016) is now listed as "Certified Fresh" on RT. This term is listed in a lot of Wikipedia review sections, but I can't get a clear guideline from MOS:FILM#Critical response. Can anyone confirm if this is acceptable formatting (For the love of god, don't say be bold. Edits keep getting swapped in and out without discussion.) Nerd2thend (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

There isn't a widespread consensus against the term that I'm aware of, but it has been brought up before and generally shunned. The last discussion I saw was: Talk:Star Wars: The Force Awakens/Archive 2#"Certified Fresh" designation. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I am one of the people who thinks adding "certified fresh" to the article doesn't add any actual weight, as it is a RT-specific term. A normal person has no idea what that means or what kind of affect it has on the rating system, ya know? (cc Nerd2thend, GoneIn60 ) TropicAces (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)tropicAces

From my own experience, "Certified Fresh" actually carries additional weight. It's colloquially use can translate to "positive consensus reached". That said, it doesn't add significant value and is on the informal side. I vote for "Certified Fresh" omission and move for consensus (given that someone will certainly attempt to revert this edit soon). Nerd2thend (talk) 20:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

It might be Certified Fresh, but that doesn't mean folks will agree. I vote for "Mixed", but I'd recommend waiting a week or two and then doing this when everything is known. It's not out in most of the world yet, I think you'll are jumping the gun here. Devilmanozzy (talk) 21:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this. I also vote Mixed at this time but its still a hair early. I say wait another week to see the final reviews to come out and see if the trend takes any sharp changes. ContentEditman (talk) 01:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

VOTE for "generally positive" since this is the truth. The idea that we have to wait for haters of this film to be okay with this reality is revolting. Instead of "waiting", we should report the "generally positive" reaction by critics until this changes. Then if it somehow becomes "a mixed" reaction by them, then we change the article to reflect this. For now, people are deliberately confusing fan-hate and backlash with the critical consensus. Editors clearly driven by emotional reasoning and hate for this reboot are 'analyzing' the positive critical consensus and then the reviews by them and coming to the conclusion that they somehow had a "mixed" reaction to this film. We don't analyze the critics. We report for them. We speak for them. We are NOT their spokesperson. 'Analyzing' the critical consensus the way we are doing here, rather than reporting on it, is the essence of WP:OR.71.218.140.156 (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

But this is simply not true. For every notable critic that rates it positively there is another critic rating it negatively. The top critics score on Rotten Tomatoes is 52%, currently, from 17 positive and 16 negative reviews out of 33 reviews from notable critics. Walterego (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The RT top critics score has been shown to be a bad indicator because of demographics issues on how it is put together. The overall RT score is a better indicator. The numerous sources reflecting "mixed" are hopefully out-of-dated as the opening weekend solidifies and vague at best. I don't see a single one that counters RT or MC. They simply say "mixed" at a time when the consensus was still coming in. This FORTUNE article as of July 12,2016 is authoritative and clearly spells it out with analysis and clear-cut language [2]. This passage here:""Considering all of that negativity, Ghostbusters has so far fared reasonably well with professional critics. The movie had a rating of 59 out of 100 on Metacritic—which is not far off from the original’s rating of 67—as well as a 78% “fresh rating” on review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes. The latter represents a fairly solid Rotten Tomatoes score for an action-comedy summer release, as evidenced by the 68% rating critics recently handed Warner Bros’ Central Intelligence, starring Kevin Hart and Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, which has earned more than $108 million domestically since its release last month. The new Ghostbusters also has a better Rotten Tomatoes score than last weekend’s box-office champ, Universal’s animated feature The Secret Life of Pets. And, when compared to another high-profile franchise reboot—last summer’s Jurassic World, one of 2015’s highest-grossing movies—Ghostbusters also wins the critical battle." Until I see a citation that does the same, and directly says something along the lines that "despite the high RT score and MC score, this is actually a mixed consensus" then we are using WP:OR to take these much OLDER vague reports (long before opening weekend) to conclude insincerely with 'original research' and PERSONAL analysis that this movie got a mixed reception. Sorry, but the article should read: "The film received generally positive reviews by critics."71.218.140.156 (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

As I point out above, the "top critics" score is region variant. For instance in the UK the TC score stands at 75% from 28 reviews. The huge variation in the TC score makes it impractical to derive any kind of meaningful consensus from this particular metric. Betty Logan (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Speaking from a video game editor that has seen this type of spread before and knowing that MC's (and by extension RT's) single point average and qualification doesn't tell the whole story; one look at the scores on the MC page (that range from 90 to 25) tells that there's a wide variance in data (and that is not an OR assessment, it's basic statistics). The way I would lead off the reception section would be something like Ghostbusters received mixed reviews. Aggregator Rotten Tomatoes gave it a 76% "Certified Fresh" rating from 135 critics, while Metacritic reported an aggregate score of 61/100 from 41 critics, considered to be "generally positive reviews". then go on with the positive reviews and end off with the more critical ones like Ropers, etc. This reports the single data point positive scores that RT and MC give as soon as possible so that the reader knows that more reviews were positive, but prepares the reader to know that there were several reviews from major critics that were also highly negative of the film that will be included. --MASEM (t) 14:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

This is slippery slope thinking. EVERY film by this logic has received "mixed" reviews. The recent Marvel comic film Civil War has a high RT score. But when you actually read the reviews, none of them are praising this film as the greatest thing ever. In fact, most of them concede that today's state of films are a "mixed" bag. But almost all the reviews conclude it is decent enough to be considered get a positive response. The RT aggregator is actually VERY thoughtful. They give their readers enough to credit to determine that a true mixed response to a film is when a film polarizes critics (like when half the critics LOVE or HATE it). In that case the film truly has a mixed response by critics. We are talking critical consensus here. Not the actual reviews themselves. Short of hitting it out of the park, a reviewer will always look at both sides and report on both. But the bottom line here is that between the high RT score and the MC score and authoritative citations like this recent Fortune article [3] which actually takes the time to offer not just blanket statements but analysis we can comfortably say this movie has received "generally positive reviews by the consensus of critics". We need to start being honest with ourselves. If this were a Marvel or DC film or Star Wars film with these same ratings, there wouldn't be a discussion. But because this is the dreaded Ghostbusters reboot it is SUPPOSED to fail. I think the problem is that most people with taste can agree that this film is an artistic failure. On the level of art, this film is a failed and stupid attempt to remake the original Ghostbusters which was SUCH a classic (and still is). Imagine if they remade, "Raiders of the Lost Ark" or "Back to the Future?" Who wants to see that! But the problem for our purposes is that we can't quantify that here! In fact, we are only reporting on the critics here. By trying to blend the hater sentiment of audiences and fans with our report on the critical consensus here, we are committing a terrible WP:OR violation and several others. If this film is doomed to fail, and probably is as a cultural experience, then the box office will surely bear this out as will the legacy of this film over time. People wanted a sequel or extension of the original, not a remake. It is clearly this zeitgeisty anger that has hijacked this article.

Compromise: So why not just say,"This film has received generally favorable reviews by the consensus of critics." 'Favorable' doesn't necessarily mean positive. For a D.O.A. film like this, artistically-speaking, a "mixed review" was probably considered a favorable review when most folks expected this to tank in every sense of the word. And the word "generally" concedes that this doesn't include the very average or borderline unfavorable reviews. Again, the phrasing "generally favorable reviews" should satisfy everyone. And if the "mixed" perspective has to be included, then mention it clearly in the critic section when we report on the negative side of the fence like we always do.71.218.140.156 (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

With respect to the "mixed" aspect, there is a certain amount of reasonable non-SYNTH aspect to consider here, knowing historically how a survey of critics rate films or other works. Again, speaking from the video game side, the bulk of works get reviews that fall within a +/- 10% of a given score (eg average 80%, so ranging from 70% to 90%. We would not call that "mixed" but whatever the line MC gives it (I think "generally favorable" if that's the case). On the other hand, a game with a range of +/- 20% from 80% would likely be called mixed since that's a larger than normal variance, though we'd still point out that MC would call it "generally favorable". And this is basically off common sense and knowledge and consensus from editors, since a single-point average cannot capture that unusual.

Unfortunately, I don't have the experience on film scores to judge where the average variance on scores may be. A random spotcheck of some films on MC shows much larger variances than I'd expect (easily around 40-50 percentage point widths). So maybe the same concept can't apply, but I would still stress the need that putting forth the single point of MC or RT as a factual qualifier for how the movie's reviews were taken is a problem particularly in a situation like this where the span is huge. Calling it a "consensus of critics" is really weak, since the critics didn't get together to make the call, just some site algorithm.

Also to keep in mind, just as noted with the RT rating, the MC rating is just 1 point above where it would fall into its 'mixed' reception. (60 is the cutoff, right now it is at 61). Both these points being so close to the edge suggest we should avoid treating it like that was factually how the reviews came out, but at least state that both sites called it "generally favorable" or "certified fresh" based on their scoring. Which might lend weight to the argument below to perhaps hold off on a lede statement of how the film generally did with critics under after opening weekend and both MC and RT are updated with the rest of their scores. --MASEM (t) 16:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Alternately, we should pull the entire reception bit, wait for the film to actually hit general release, and maybe give it a few weeks for the last of the reviews to come in. This certified fresh thing is great, except that the film is now back below the 75% threshold for getting that tag. It may go up again, it may go farther down, but we could just wait it out, keeping in mind that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a news org. We don't need to be making up to the minute changes to the vital situation of the movie critic scores. DsareArde (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

My mistake regarding the 75% threshold, that's the point that RT adds the fresh tag (theoretically if it maintains a "steady 75% or higher), and apparently RT only removes the fresh tag if it drops down below 70% once it's been added. Unless they don't want to. Still, as that tag can be added and removed based solely on RT's discretion ("In some cases, the Certified Fresh designation may be held at the discretion of the Rotten Tomatoes editorial team"), then I don't see it being useful here, as we're using RT for it's aggregate scores, not it's own specific opinion. DsareArde (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree, and I haven't seen any opposition to waiting when it was mentioned earlier. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. Current version has everything but a "consensus" line. Reviews and aggregate score should still be updated, but the opening summary statement should be omitted until this can be revisited with more authority. Nerd2thend (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree with waiting. But weeks? Gimme a break. Maybe until after the second weekend at most, since second weekends are becoming as important as opening weekends. But even then, if RT is still over 70% or even better 75% and MC still is over the threshold for favorable reviews, then there is no good reason NOT to call this. And what is the "current version"? That it got a "mixed reception by critics"??? That would be a lie. Maybe this is that rare case where critics love a film and the audience hates it. Trying to gauge and honor that is probably confusing everyone. If that is the story developing here, that critics and audiences are at odds over the film (albeit, in reverse of what is normally the case) Then we should find a citation on it and report as much. But we shouldn't take it out on the content involving the critics no matter how much we don't like them. If saying "the movie received generally positive reviews by the consensus of critics" is too strongly worded for some, then saying "the movie received generally favorable reviews" is weak-enough in language to acknowledge any mixed sentiments in the outliers of the critic crowd. For now, the authoritative 'recent' citations (like the Fortune one I listed) dispels the myth that this movie hasn't done well with critics and actually offers analysis toward that end. While this film COULD bomb with audiences, if the critical consensus is still going strong like this until next weekend, then it would be ridiculous to suggest the film was "polarizing" or "mixed." The only reason WHY this film is getting such a hard time here is because this happens to be the dreaded Ghostbusters reboot, which is living in infamy because of the emotional reasoning by the fan backlash. Maybe it deserves that reputation. But it has nothing to do with how the critics have received it.71.218.140.156 (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• Re: Rickraptor707 and all other editors, this is the last point of consensus I see on ""mixed", "positive", "negative" summary, which I interpret as indefinite omission. If you're able to provide an argument why this consensus is no longer valid, please provide up to date (new) references from reputable sources clearly stating the critical and public consensus has solidified. Otherwise, I resubmit avoiding these broad statements. Nerd2thend (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• Re:Re: Concur. Someone needs to warn him that he needs to lay off the unilateral edits. Could someone reverse it, and then warn the editor? I don't have the time. He snuck in the "mixed" summary statement after being warning multiple times to wait.184.96.187.7 (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

• Every review site, I've seen except for Rotten Tomatoes, has given the film Mixed reviews! The consensus here is omission of "mixed to positive" or "mixed to negative", not omission of any summarized critical reception! Rickraptor707 (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Mixed reviews? Not to be rude here, but many people have heard of entities like rotten tomatoes being paid off to give high ratings. I don't know if that's true in this case. I say that because most of the online community agreed that this film was of poor quality. Many now don't give it more than a mediocre review. Doom guy 83 (talk) 05:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Every review, I've seen has been extremely negative. However, the overall score on most websites has been mixed. Rickraptor707 (talk) 00:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Mixed(?) reviews argument = WP:OR scam + Groupthink

Okay. This is becoming one of the biggest WP:OR violations ever allowed to be committed with a wikipedia article in wikipedia history. Lines like this by editors "if you actually read the reviews, they are all mixed" is OUR interpretation, not the reality. That is why we have RT and MC aggregators and citations. It isn't our job to be revisionists. Are job is more akin to amateur journalism and we should set the standard rather than settle for the low-common denominator. In other words, this anti-intellectualism that hijacks these film pages feels like an Orwellian nightmare out of "Animal Farm." I'd like to think wikipedia lets the little guy teach the big reporters a lesson in integrity. But these fanhater-ruled articles is an internet form of mob rule!

With this argument on how to report the critical reception, we have a classic case of emotional reasoning vs. rationality. To start, I'm a big hater of this remake. That out of the way, I think it is unfair to the article that we are not honestly reporting on it! This movie has "generally positive reviews by critics. The RT score is well over the threshold for a "favorable" critic consensus. The MC score indicated "positive reviews." If one of those idiotic tentpole Marvel movies or DC movies had this score, this wouldn't even be a debate! But because this is the dreaded "Ghostbusters" remake, it has to be bad, right???(sarcasm) People are confusing fan-hate for this film, which I agree is huge and notable in its own right, with the critics. Sorry, but the consensus of critics have had "a generally positive" reaction to this film. There is enough solid reporting on this to reach this conclusion. If citations are truly the deal-breaker here, then how about this Fortune article on the matter:

This FORTUNE article as of July 12,2016 is authoritative and clearly spells it out with analysis and clear-cut language [4]

"Considering all of that negativity, Ghostbusters has so far fared reasonably well with professional critics. The movie had a rating of 59 out of 100 on Metacritic—which is not far off from the original’s rating of 67—as well as a 78% “fresh rating” on review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes. The latter represents a fairly solid Rotten Tomatoes score for an action-comedy summer release, as evidenced by the 68% rating critics recently handed Warner Bros’ Central Intelligence, starring Kevin Hart and Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, which has earned more than $108 million domestically since its release last month. The new Ghostbusters also has a better Rotten Tomatoes score than last weekend’s box-office champ, Universal’s animated feature The Secret Life of Pets. And, when compared to another high-profile franchise reboot—last summer’s Jurassic World, one of 2015’s highest-grossing movies—Ghostbusters also wins the critical battle."

If this was an article about evolution and everyone here VOTED for intelligent design right, Darwin wrong, that would be a violation of how consensus works and everyone here would know it. This is nothing "mixed" about how critics received this film. Yes, I'm surprised too by their reaction! As a hater, I fully expected them to hate it. But it turns out they didn't! So call it and let's be honest about this movie. Chances are it will fail in box offices so that the fan-vote on this! Audiences have their say with the purse and critics with the pen. We are violating the spirit of wikipedia with every day we allow this fallacious twisted logic and emotional reasoning to continue to hijack this article. I see a strategy of cherry-picking citations, sneaky WP:OR arguments, plus classic red-herrings and appeals to ignorance being used to force this square peg into a circle hole. Using the language "generally positive" to describe the critics is not only accurate but explains the occasional mixed and negative reaction since the word "generally" acknowledges this isn't all roses. If the movie fails with audiences, you can THEN probably find analysis saying "the favorable critic reaction was not enough to overcome the fan-backlash from die-hard fans of the original" or something in that vein. I VOTE for putting honesty ahead of an attempt to be apologists here on behalf of the press which is also a vote for sanity on this article.71.218.140.156 (talk) 01:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

There are honestly numerous resources of critical summary reflecting "mixed" consensus, as mentioned above (Top Critics on RT, Metacritic's "mixed to average" status through yesterday, etc.). I disagree with the conclusion of Groupthink BUT I think there's room for healthy discussion as to how to properly summarize this within the article, and agree the "critical consensus" will evolve and need to be updated. ((Not that it matters at all, but I'm crazy fanboy excited about this movie. I'm taking the day off so I can celebrate the release. Everything I've suggested is goodfaith attempts at accurate critical representation, my personal opinions being irrelevant.)) Nerd2thend (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The RT top critics score has been shown to be a bad indicator because of demographics issues on how it is put together. The overall RT score is a better indicator. The numerous sources reflecting "mixed" are hopefully out-of-dated as the opening weekend solidifies and vague at best. I don't see a single one that counters RT or MC. They simply say "mixed" at a time when the consensus was still coming in. This FORTUNE article as of July 12,2016 is authoritative and clearly spells it out with analysis and clear-cut language [5]. This passage here:""Considering all of that negativity, Ghostbusters has so far fared reasonably well with professional critics. The movie had a rating of 59 out of 100 on Metacritic—which is not far off from the original’s rating of 67—as well as a 78% “fresh rating” on review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes. The latter represents a fairly solid Rotten Tomatoes score for an action-comedy summer release, as evidenced by the 68% rating critics recently handed Warner Bros’ Central Intelligence, starring Kevin Hart and Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, which has earned more than $108 million domestically since its release last month. The new Ghostbusters also has a better Rotten Tomatoes score than last weekend’s box-office champ, Universal’s animated feature The Secret Life of Pets. And, when compared to another high-profile franchise reboot—last summer’s Jurassic World, one of 2015’s highest-grossing movies—Ghostbusters also wins the critical battle." Until I see a citation that does the same, and directly says something along the lines that "despite the high RT score and MC score, this is actually a mixed consensus" then we are using WP:OR to take these much OLDER vague reports (long before opening weekend) to conclude insincerely with 'original research' and PERSONAL analysis that this movie got a mixed reception. Sorry, but the article should read: "The film received generally positive reviews by critics."71.218.140.156 (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree this is probably a trend for the summary articles, but examples of "mixed" consensus reporting are still new enough to be relevant. I vote for letting the reviews speak for themselves since any summarized consensus can be met with justified contradictions (at the moment). Not saying we shouldn't discuss or revisit, just that the critical media hasn't given us enough to speak authoritatively. (And it was just released in the US today, more media response will be incoming shortly). Nerd2thend (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Just looking at that ref-list. Look at the dates! July 7th! etc.Woefully out-of-date and out-of-touch. Then this authoritative citation which actually offers analysis on the subject from the other day:[6] I agree that it can't hurt to wait to call this (if we must appease the editors suffering from emotional reasoning for the moment) until opening weekend is over. But even then, this is a no-brainer. The critics are not having a mixed response to it. The fans are. And we shouldn't include them in this.71.218.140.156 (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Its not an agenda. The audience simply don´t like it as much as the professional critics.77.11.181.249 (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for conceding my argument. Like you said, the audience doesn't like it "as much as the professional critics" like it. So in a section about critics, we should report the news that "critics liked it" and stop letting the audience's hate for the movie water down and dilute the section. Even audiences must not hate it all that much, the movie isn't bombing the way the haters like me expected and the audience scores for the film, surprisingly, aren't that shabby. Critics had a favorable reaction to this movie. End of argument.71.218.140.156 (talk) 03:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Professional critics applauded the film. The average person (online community) overall (men and women) didn't care for it or thought it mediocre at best. That's the way it should be reported. Doom guy 83 (talk) 05:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

As of June 07, 2016, the "Top Critics" rating for the movie is only at 59%, the "All Critics" rating is at 73%, and the audience score is at 58%. The average rating of 6.5 seems accurate and denotes mixed reception. It is not really accurate to say that professional critics gave it favorable reviews when all the biggest publications averaged to 59%. Smaller and semi-professional presses gave the film a higher score more than any other group. The reason for the confusion, aside from the obvious cases of bias against and for the film, is that few movies are this polarizing. Usually, the 'Top Critics" and "All Critics" scores are pretty close to each other, if not identical. That isn't the case with this movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juliow1 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Controversy regarding lead actresses

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

No. Your proposal lends undue weight to what is clearly a very fringe viewpoint, and it isn't clear what you mean by "its sequel film". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

I meant to say 'its reboot'. Including a Controversy section helps to inform readers about how much debate the reboot generated. You cannot deny that. To be honest, this was one of the most controversial films of the year so far, in par with Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice. The trailer itself has made it the ninth most disliked video on YouTube as of today with over 951,000 dislikes. I believe it is necessary to include this section in the article. Don't believe me, here's the link to the trailer: GHOSTBUSTERS - Official Trailer (HD) De88 (talk) 07:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

When most of the verifiable "controversy" was between "Return Of Kings"-type misogynist fringe villains and the rest of western civilization, it should not be given its own section per WP:UNDUE. The pre-release criticism that was leveled against the remake by non-misogynist non-villains like James Rolfe and Bob Chipman came from the mere fact that the film is a remake of a classic, which is inherently a stupid idea. The same was said Burton's Planet of the Apes and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. The fact that Chipman later said that even though the film was an inherently stupid idea it wound being a genuinely good film (as did most mainstream commentators) indicates that if it were Rolfe's professional mandate to watch the film he would agree, as would everyone else who isn't a "Return Of Kings" fringe woman-hater. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Nearly non of the criticism was "misogynist". It was because people didn´t like the jokes and the style. That´s not the same as hating women.77.11.181.249 (talk) 13:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

But they hadn't seen the film yet! By the way, you engaged in your (personal, unsourced) speculation that "people" (who?) don't like the film because of "it´s [sic] style" three times in ten minutes. And whether or not people like the jokes or "style" (again -- what?) is irrelevant to whether the "controversy" (which was driven almost entirely by misogyny -- you need a source to claim it wasn't) merits its own section. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The situation around Rolfe was that his statement that he would not see the film made no allusion to the leads being female; he took issue that they were taking a property he loved and remaking it and the pre-release material made it look like a bad remake so was choosing not to see it). Whether or not his reason has weight, what subsequently happened, documented in RSes, is that several people presumed his reaction was for misogynistic reasons. It's the same thing that happened with Roeper following his review his followup. There's a lot of nastiness happening on both sides here, and a lot of gross over-generalizations that we have to be careful in proper handling of. --MASEM (t) 14:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who first heard about the misogynistic reactions to the trailer and couldn't believe that that could still happen in 2016, and who then watched the trailer and read a large number of comments, it quickly became very clear that the vast majority of criticism had nothing to do with misogyny and was just focused on the humour and style. The controversy was more over the reboot itself than the female cast. Indeed, this was reported by Wikipedia (with numerous sources cited) until it was removed within the last few days with no explanation. Also, Ivan Reitman's response that the controversy and backlash was mostly due to nostalgia rather than sexist ideals has been removed as well. As it stands, editors on Wikipedia seem determined to present only one side of the issue, which can hardly be considered neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MegaSolipsist (talk • contribs)

The hyperbolic negative over-reactions began when literally the only thing known about it was when they announced it would have a female cast, long before the trailer came out. Look at all the crap they got just for visiting a children's hospital, when they were invited to since they were filming beside it. That was over nine months before the trailer came out. Also many things with equal or even greater nostalgia value have not received comparable backlash, in fact none at all have.219.88.68.195 (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The backlash when the female cast was first announced was relatively minor and was soon forgotten. Most of the fan backlash and controversy arose after the trailer dropped. MegaSolipsist 11:04, 19 July 2016 NZ time

That's incorrect, the response to the trailer was a direct follow on to the already existing hyperbolic reaction to that initial announcement. As per the examples of things like responses to their visit to a children's hospital, also well before the trailer came out. -The hospital itself had to take down some of the pictures from its Facebook page because it was getting flooded with vitriolic attacks from people who tracked it down to attack the film and the cast (and even a few of the patients got caught in the crossfire).219.88.68.195 (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-6VLuz75yw (controversies behind film)
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GixfiDGhSlk (non-sexist criticisms)
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aQTJw1wlQ8 (Sony's reaction criticism) ExpressElevatortoHell (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

There is clear bias here but what do you expect of Wikipedia? The article does not make it clear that Milo Yiannopoulos was at no point racist towards Leslie, merely called her ugly which is a perfectly fine opinion to express, and criticised the film. He did not tell anyone to go after Leslie, however Leslie has called 'white people shit' (racial insult) and has told people to 'go after them' because she couldn't take a joke (actually inciting hatred). She did not get banned because Twitter's biases and selected censoring of freedom of speech clearly work in her favour. This should be brought up here in the interest of having both sides of the argument. Also Paul Feig's misandry (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/paul-feig-why-men-arent-449025) is obviously relevant if you're going to bring up mere supposed misogyny. 86.179.226.238 (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

The most credible theory for the ban is that Milo reacted in a calculated way to false flag accounts that were pretending to be Jones (http://www.vox.com/2016/7/20/12226070/milo-yiannopoulus-twitter-ban-explained). And it's completely disingenuous to say that Jones failed to take a joke. The number of racist messages within less than a day was in the thousands. Even if any given individual from that group just made a minor shitpost which was "no big deal" and "not against Twitter's rules", it adds up to something that is clearly reprehensible and worth covering in this article. And now to address the scope of the section: a movie or trailer being bad is not controversy. For all of the other crappy reboots and sequels, wiki editors give negative reviews the right amount of weight without trying to elevate them into some pointed condemnation of the Hollywood business model. If this article is going to be different by including a controversy section, it needs to focus on what is actually different about the film. And right now that's the misogynistic campaign against it. Connor Behan (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

James Rolfe controversy "speculation"

Why is the content regarding Dane Cook, Patton Oswalt, and a writer for The Atlantic considered speculative and unsourced? There were clearly, well, sources there. –Matthew - (talk) 11:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Read the tweets. Read the commentary discussing the tweets. There is nothing in there about calling James Rolfe a misogynist. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:45, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

To be specific, the issue around Rolfe's comments were that he never mentioned anything about the cast being all female, but works like the The Altantic called his statement out for being bitter about the all-female recasting, strongly implicating but not saying misogyny. We cannot call it "misogyny" (that would be OR) but it can be called out that they presumed he was bitter about the female cast despite the fact he never alluded to the gender roles, which is putting words into his mouth and why it's a controversy. --MASEM (t) 12:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

But now, even when mention of misogyny has been removed (which I apologise for, as I now realise that the accusations in the sources were implied rather than stated), the incident has been deleted from the article by Danratedrko for being "not relevant" and "not high-profile enough". This is despite the fact that the incident directly relates to the film, Rolfe is a fairly well-known online personality, and The Atlantic is a notable magazine. –Matthew - (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

There needs to be a carefully handled section that covers the "culture war" concepts that have built up around this film; Rolfe's aspect is one small part of this but I wouldn't include his comments alongside the critical responses to the film. I do see similar edit-warring/fighting that has happened on other topics that come within this culture war, and that really needs to stop, given that there's a wealth of commentary on the situation from all sides. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable in the "Controversy" section for now? In case more sources are needed alongside the article by The Atlantic, I also found mention of the incident on Uproxx and Salon. –Matthew - (talk) 17:21, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I restored the deleted content once (diff), moved it out of the Marketing section as a compromise into its own Controversy section, and warned Danratedrko, but apparently that didn't stop him/her from removing the content again. I'm not necessarily a strong supporter of keeping the Rolfe viewpoint in the article, but blatant removal of sourced information repeatedly without discussion is uncalled for. If consensus here is to readd the Rolfe material, Danratedrko should respect the decision, especially if he/she fails to join the discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

The main contender of the Rolfe incident's inclusion (after the info was edited into a neutral tone without mention of misogyny accusations) seemed to be Danratedrko, who didn't join this discussion and has recently been blocked for disruptive edits. Does anyone else have any arguments against the inclusion of the Rolfe incident into the "Controversy" section? –Matthew - (talk) 04:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

As Masem points out, Rolfe's part in the controversy is a small one compared to the number of examples that likely exist. Is there evidence that it is one of the major examples out there? We should avoid giving it undue prominence in the article and if included, it should be kept as brief as possible. Actually, the entire section should be very brief in my opinion. At the moment, it appears to have ballooned into a larger section than it needs to be. In addition, I would suggest moving the Controversy section back to a subsection under Reception; these are reactions to the film before and during its release. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The thing with Rolfe is not his take, necessarily. He is an Internet critic, and while one of the more well-known ones, would not qualify as a reputable critic to put alongside the likes of Roeper, etc. That said, where Rolfe's aspect is important - and this requires a lot of tip-toeing in a potential policy minefield - is that his view that critiqued the film from his nostalgia from the original and what he saw as a humorless trailer was taken by several media and social media ppl as being a critique about the all-female cast, when he never mentioned a word about the gender aspects. I linked Polygon opinion piece that the issues surrounding the film and the current culture war is that people on either side see any people that doesn't agree with them 100% as the enemy. This is also why the reaction to Roeper's review is important as it follows the same logic. (Then there becomes a whole FRINGE-y argument line that I have seen presented on forum sights but haven't sought to see if it is repeated in sources that right now doesn't make sense to include without those sources). There is a lot to be written about the controversy that Rolfe does fit into, but it is a POV/BLP/UNDUE touchy subject issue and we have to approach carefully. --MASEM (t) 22:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The false accusations made against Rolph are just one example of the misleading pseudo information surrounding this film. I skimmed over the mixed reviews section of this page and it really just sounds like it's trying to paint all the critics of this film as misogynists; which is not true. It isn't true by a long shot. Doom guy 83 (talk) 05:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

An angle that I think we should address in the controversy, using Rolfe's experience as the centerpoint, is how some of the criticism like Rolfe's - who may not at all be misogynistic, is really a situation around "fan entitlement" (see [7], [8], [9] among others). --MASEM (t) 23:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

'street smart'

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

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

Expanding the Leslie Jones Twitter Controversey

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

No. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that issue should be worth mentioning in that section. It caused a lot of reactions and Twitter even took matters into their own hands by suspending Milo Yiannopoulos' account. De88 (talk) 06:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Well personally I am not totally convinced any of this actually relates to the film itself and might be better off on Jones' own article. But if it is noteworthy enough to be reported, I don't see why recording the actions of one of the two parties involved in the exchange would not be worthy of noting in the article, especially if the conduct of said party ostensibly would be categorized as the actions they decried when directed against themselves.

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

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

Prior to the exchange

• http://archive.is/HYW35 - Jones threatening someone for sitting next to a white woman
• http://archive.is/7Chtr - Jones claiming all white women look alike

During the Exchange 

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

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

This is trivial drama, not worthy of our energy. Popcornduff (talk) 08:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree but if it was important enough to make it onto the article, we might as well do it right. I personally think the entire section about the twitter situation should be removed since it seems entirely peripheral to anything the article is intended to cover.

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

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

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

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

Sounds about right. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Only because I've not seen a source, but I've not looked in depth for one, but we should be careful to imply that Yiannopoulus' review led to the harassment without a source; Yiannopoulus is clearly considered an instigator after the matter, but the harassment Jones talked about seemed to start after the movie's release on Friday, not Monday (which is when Yiannopoulus posted his review). --MASEM (t) 14:17, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The current New York Times reference states, without any qualification, "Hundreds of anonymous Twitter commenters hurled racist and sexist remarks at the star’s Twitter account, rallied and directed by Mr. Yiannopoulos this week." The article seems to prevaricate compared to the source. —Flax5 14:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Right, he wasn't shy on twitter about his comments, but the question is if his review he posted on Monday led to that. That's not said by the source, and at least one source, The Verge, points out the review didn't state anything towards anyone that followed him into action. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• This debate over a documented "call to action" is moot for the proposed mention within the Wikipedia Article for Ghostbusters (2016 Film). Numerous publications have clearly identified his involvement, thus we can confidently state his reported involvement. If necessary, the wording can avoid describing specific actions (which is what we're debating). Without a clear retraction/correction from secondary sources, this argument against inclusion is firmly WP:OR. Nerd2thend (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

• All I'm pointing out is that, as you stated above Harassment of Jones occurred following Yiannopoulos reviewing Ghostbusters may be true but it implies that his review initiated the harassment, which is not either stated by sources or pointed out that didn't happen in sources. Other things that Yiannopoulos all do appear to be taken as inciting harassment towards Jones by followers, no question, just not his review. That's the only fact we can't source. --MASEM (t) 16:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

If the alleged harrassment campaign cannot be tied to his review of the film, then shouldn't this be covered on Jones/Yianoppoulos' own article?

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

It's tied to the release of the film, since it apparently started happening Friday night onward, coming to a head on Monday. [10]. I would say that there likely will be more to the story (for example Wikileaks is stating they are going to start a Twitter competitor seeing Yianoppoulos' banning as improper) but that's definitely a different article. This story likely ends with yesterday's return of Jones to twitter. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps then just mention jones racist remarks and inciting her followers to 'get' that twitter user she disagreed with in the context of wikileaks reaction, as they specifically cited jones remarks as part of their reasoning for feeling that twitter's decision was more politically motivated than based on conduct

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

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

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

73% on RT is not "mixed"

"Mixed reviews" would be 50%. 73% is generally positive.--50.45.210.210 (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes doesn't have a "mixed" category. So when evaluating reviews, they are considered either positive or negative. Here's the flaw in that. If most of the so-called positive reviews are 2.5 stars out of 4, or 3 stars out of 5, then the final score will be still be high. However, we know that these scores represent mixed or average reviews. RT simply doesn't weigh how positive a particular review is on the Tomatometer. A more telling statistic from their site is the average rating per review, which is listed currently as 6.4 out of 10. That rating tells a different story and shows that the reviews have been pretty average. Don't forget we also have the Metacritic score, which is sitting at 60 out of 100. That's "mixed or average" according to their site. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:47, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Untrue "A more telling statistic from their site is the average rating per review, which is listed currently as 6.4 out of 10." Citation? Source? There is nothing to suggest this score accurately gauges whether a response is positive or mixed. It is no better or worse than going with the RT score. I would imagine if this wasn't the fan-hated Ghostbuster movie, this wouldn't be an issue. I went through every other film article for this summer, and any of them with RT scores this high are being called "positive" or "favorable." The rating doesn't tell a different story. Us amateur journalists can't pretend to be 'better' experts than the people who run that aggregator. Ridiculous. It is better to go with reputable citations around and after the film was released. If the consensus in the press is split or polarized, with some saying mixed or positive, then I vote for mixed. If most of them, as I'm finding, are conceding that this film was "favorably" received by critics, then we go with the sources. We don't interpret the news on this. We report it. I will start digging through ALL the citations and comply a list here. Please add to it as I do so we can get a clearer picture.184.96.187.7 (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Please be careful in the future with your formatting, and follow Nerd2thend's suggestion and read section Talk:Mixed reviews Bitsdotliestalk 08:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Please see section Talk:Mixed reviews for previous discussion on why the summary was not previously listed as "positive".Nerd2thend (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion ended with the agreement that the consensus on this was "to wait" and omit a summary sentence until a future time. We are also not supposed to summarize this as "mixed". There is supposed to be NO summary until there is a clear consensus. For now, that IS the consensus. Yet the summary line says "mixed" which is an WP:OR violation since we are not supposed to 'interpret' RT or MC or the citations with our own personal analysis, we are supposed to 'report' what the most recent and authorative citations on this. So far they have dispelled this argument and have conceded the film has received a favorable reception by critics even if they mostly thought the movie was, at best, an average film. But since no here can agree, we should leave this out until a compromise is reached.50.207.104.18 (talk) 19:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

An "average rating" of the reviews doesn't indicate a "mixed" reception by the critics. Only the citations can tell us that. Having read the "mixed section", as you asked of us, the only thing that is clear is there is no consensus on a summary line as of yet. Most of us have agreed to wait a few weeks until we get a clearer picture. 205.160.165.74 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Why is rotten tomatoes the only aggreagator site being considered? Especially when plenty of critical reviews not included in said aggregator went the opposite direction, as metacritic indicates -124.188.232.125 (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

section Talk:Mixed reviews Bitsdotliestalk 08:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Most of the reviews are positive. 6.4/10 is "great". The reviews are positive. Change the article to reflect reality, not you insane bias. 192.183.219.156 (talk) 01:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

An averaged critical score of just barely 60 is not great nor is 6/10 by any metric, a ringing endorsement. The fact that you considering suggesting as much an indication of 'insane bias' probably more accurately reflects your own bias than anything else. -124.188.232.125 (talk) 06:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

When RT and MC disagree with one another, it is best to leave out a summary statement. You cannot choose one and ignore the other. The reader can simply see the numbers and decide for themselves. We don't need to hold their hands. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree we should leave it out. Then why don't we? Right now, there IS a summary statement in the critical section that reads: "Ghostbusters has received generally mixed reviews." This should be removed. Readers can judge for themselves based on everything else listed.205.160.165.74 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:54, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes isn't the only review site in existence, you know... Rickraptor707 (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Bias

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

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

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

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

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

Sony's threat of Legal Action against Bill Murray

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

See Talk Archive - Sony's treatment of Bill Murray for my previous opinion regarding Sony's "threatening" Murray . Here are my issues with this:

• The evidence is someone at Sony requesting they talk with legal counsel about Bill Murray. No indication or reporting this occurred, let alone if Murray was even contacted regarding this.
• I've seen no evidence (and feel free to correct me) that the legal counsel was for Murray's participation in promotion of the new film. Prior to the creation of Ghost Corps production company, the rights for Ghostbusters were jointly held by the creators (Reitman, Aykroyd, Murray, Ramis). This would indicate Sony needed legal to move forward with a new movie (and transferring rights to Ghost Corps).

IMHO, since I don't see any reporting as to which of these scenarios actually occurred, stating anything without more details would be WP:OR and/or WP:NOTGOSSIP. Nerd2thend (talk) 15:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Seconded. This is gossip. Popcornduff (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Especially when even as reported, the email was merely their head of legal talking about evaluating their position and options with the general counsel, with the discussion about it being that it would be a terrible idea.219.88.68.195 (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2016

Under the heading suggest adding: FILMING The Library scene in the Aldridge Mansion was filmed at the Ames Mansion (Borderland State Park) in Easton, MA

References: http://www.architecturaldigest.com/gallery/go-inside-the-filming-locations-and-set-designs-of-ghostbusters/all http://www.enterprisenews.com/article/20150826/NEWS/150827520

Sfa31dan (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for backing your suggested addition with a source. However, marking not done for now. If you can make a counter to how this addition meets notability guidelines for inclusion, re-open this with details. Hope that's sensible, thanks — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Misogynistic comments and Sony deleting criticisms

Everyone knows that Sony began deleting negative comments almost the day the trailer dropped, and by now I don't think anybody will deny that they left misogynistic comments up. Why does this keep being removed despite the source being an impartial and neutral analysis of the film, whereas the sources used for the talk of misogynistic comments are far less so? It is very obvious that the Washington and Atlantic articles cherry-pick the worst comments to use as evidence; they have been called out for this repeatedly and are less reliable than the Inquisitr article by a large margin. Nobody is denying that there were and are sexist and misogynistic comments on the Ghostbusters YouTube trailer, but those a minority. As it is this wikipedia page only presents one side of the issue and some editers seem very keen that it remain this way. MegaSolipsist 09:27, 27 July 2016 NZ time

No, everyone does not 'know' this. See WP:TRUTH. Stick to reliable sources. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they do know this. Try to find a comment with a decent number of likes that's more than a week old, or even just three days old. I did use a reliable, unbiased source, but it was removed, and now you've replaced your claim using highly biased and less reliable sources than the one I used. This constitutes edit-warring. MegaSolipsist 13:19, 27 July 2016 NZ time

@MegaSolipsist: I have reviewed both versions of the article and I believe the content added by PeterTheFourth adds due weight to the article. "Try to find a comment with a decent number of likes that's more than a week old, or even just three days old." -- this would constitute original research unless the comment was cited by a reliable news source. Dane2007 (talk) 01:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Having reviewed the sources myself, I came to the conclusion that they were not reliable at all. Each one takes a small sample of sexist/misogynistic comments and uses it to imply that most comments are like that. Each article was called out and criticised for this by numerous people. The inquisitr article I sourced noted that Sony was deleting negative comments but leaving sexist ones up, and THEN speculated that they were trying to do it as a PR spin. However, this was all taken down, not just the part about speculation. The Inquisitr article was far more neutral and balanced then the Washington and Atlantic articles, and much more in-depth, yet apparently it was removed and they were restored. I would recommend watching the third video listed near the bottom of the 'controversy regarding lead actresses' section above, as well as looking at this video and the discussion about it on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/ghostbusters/comments/49jh94/sony_wants_your_sexism_water_cooler_chat/ (This video also addresses the Washington Post article already cited on this page)

Until then, I suggest adding that misogynistic comments remained after Sony deleted negative comments and sourcing Inquisitr, but refraining from mentioning the speculation regarding a PR spin, or at least changing the sentence sourcing Washington and Atlantic to something like "reported some misogynist and anti-feminist comments" to clarify that the sexist and misogynistic comments are a small minority. MegaSolipsist 21:55, 27 July 2016 NZ time

The claim that Sony's behaviour ended up "leading some to speculate that Sony was "using the 'Sexist' card to garner sympathy" was removed because it's a WP:WEASEL phrase (who are the "some"?) that the Inquisitr source doesn't clarify. The statement that a company deleted some but not all negative YouTube comments seems unremarkable by itself, as this would happen on any video where the uploader was deleting abusive comments. --McGeddon (talk) 08:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it's not worth mentioning unless we can provide a concrete, reliable source, not just people speculating and "noticing" things. Popcornduff (talk) 09:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

If the existence of misogynistic comments on the youtube trailer is significant enough to mention, then so is the fact that Sony left them up after deleting other negative comments. MegaSolipsist 23:44, 28 July 2016 NZ time

Why?

The misogynistic comments received widespread coverage from multiple trustworthy sources. The thing about deleting or not deleting comments did not. Popcornduff (talk) 12:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The misogynistic comments received widespread MEDIA coverage because controversy sells (or in this case, generates views), while Sony deleting the non-misogynistic comments was widely discussed and heavily criticised, just not in media outlets. And yes, I agree that multiple trustworthy sources have covered the misogynistic comments, so it puzzles me why the Washington Post article is used as a source, as it is a heavily biased and unreliable example of coverage. MegaSolipsist 10:31, 29 July 2016 NZ time

Regardless of how biased or unreliable you think the media sources are, they constitute reliable sources under Wikipedia policy. Can you provide multiple reliable sources to support the alternative material you want to add to the article? Popcornduff (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Consensus on excluding summary statement for critical reception

It seems like the consensus by default among us is to OMIT the summary statement, as RT and MC disagree and there's no consensus to include one on the talk page. To agree to disagree. Starting this discussion here since it's been lost in the sea of arguing. Offer clarification or disagreement here if you must. Otherwise it seems best to list nothing at all and let readers decide for themselves based on what's there.205.160.165.74 (talk) 19:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I think we could reasonable say "It received mixed reviews." without engaging in OR/POV, which does reflect the wide range of review scores that it got and incorporating the discontinuity between RT and MC. But if there is no agreement then just leading off with the RT and MC metrics would be best. --MASEM (t) 20:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with "mixed" either on the basis of average scores on RT and the overall score on MC, but at this point, there should be a clear consensus to include it. So far, it doesn't appear we have one. Usually when something like this draws a lot of attention and edit-warring, it's usually best to leave it out. I'm indifferent on the matter, but I would not support "positive" if there's going to be one. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, there is no way we can have "something something positive" or "something something negative" here, because whichever way you take it is a slant. "Mixed" is a fair summary and remains indifferent, and if the next thing stated in the body is the RT and MC summaries, we then let the reader make the judgment on what is clearly a difficult consensus of reviews to read. (But we do want editor consensus to include here :) --MASEM (t) 00:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Mixed seems the most appropriate based on all the citations and ratings listed. ContentEditman (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Ridiculous. "Mixed" is NOT a compromise of competing views. It's a synthesis. A movie was either positively received, negatively received, or had a mixed reception. When we can't decide, we don't just put "mixed". Our consensus may be mixed on this. It doesn't mean the critics had a mixed reception to it. The citations don't back this. They disagree. The aggregators disagree. The editors disagree. So we leave it out completely.184.96.187.7 (talk) 03:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I feel like it'd be best not too lean too heavily on Metacritic here as an absolute definitive. While it gives the aggregate of 60, that is at the very boundary of what MC describes as "Mixed or Average Reviews" -- a single extra point and it'd be "Generally Favorable". That's not too say I think we should put positive, necessarily, I just don't want us binded on a technicality. I might consider "mixed, leaning positive". – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 03:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that all the authoritative reputable citations say that this movie experienced a favorable reception. I agree that using the word "positive" is too strong here. "Generally favorable reception" with "average reviews" strikes a good balance. The problem is the haters here have hijacked the page. We don't analyze what the citations say, we report it. So what is true and should be reported is overshadowed by a lack of consensus. When that happens, it is best to leave the summary statement out and let the readers decide. Seems appropriate for this crazy movie. But so far the haters are winning this battle. The summary statement keeps going up, saying "mixed." A WP:OR violation is being allowed when in most film articles this wouldn't be allowed. The film's notoriety and the phenomena of internet hate against this movie is clouding the better judgment of this community.184.96.187.7 (talk) 04:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Looking at sources that describe the reception: Fortune [11] Mixed. HWR [12] "a mix of positive and negative reviews from critics". WSJ [13] "It’s mostly positive, albeit with some slimers in the bunch." (which is objectively more "mixed") Metro [14] Mixed. Boston Globe [15] "Mixed bag". I do note most of these that I can find are dated before the proper release of the film but around 70 reviews tracked at RT. It is completely fair to say, in a single summary statement "mixed" given everything said in sources and here. Covering the diverse reception of the film (from professional critics alone, before even getting to the controversy) is necessary make sure why this is "mixed" if it not obvious. --MASEM (t) 05:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The good news is that a polarizing movie like this attracts a lot of attention in secondary sources. After taking a step back and looking at dozens of sources written after July 15 when RT and MC scores settled out, I may have to change my stance a bit here. Below is a list of the ones I came across that actually looked at the overall critical reception (and not necessarily reviewing the movie first hand). Here's what I found:

• Associated Press

"Critics were largely mixed on the movie"

• Palm Beach Post

"Which brings us back to the new Ghostbusters, which has gotten mixed reviews from professional critics and from people who’ve actually seen the movie."

• Breitbart

"Five Thirty Eight, political analyst Nate Silver’s data and poll centric website, ... concludes, 'Based on the Metacritic score and the average Rotten Tomatoes scores, Ghostbusters, like most summer movies, is merely a mediocre-to-good film, critically speaking.'"

• Deadline

States Sony was able to get the critics "on board as they awarded Ghostbusters a 73% fresh Rotten Tomatoes score".

Admits PostTrak saw a downward trend stating, "PostTrak 'definite recommend' fell to an OK 57%, below the awesome 70% figures we saw for Finding Dory and Captain America: Civil War this summer."

• Mic.com

"The critical consensus is much more positive than the internet would want you to believe."

• Huffington Post

"Reviews have been positive but tepid ... the movie has a decent 73 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes."

• The New Yorker

States RT and MC scores, "...doesn’t and can’t measure critics’ levels of engagement. Criticism of the artistry of a movie thus gets wrongly boiled down to an apparent recommendation to see or not to see...", and sums it up by saying "Ghostbusters should very much be seen."

• LA Times

"Moviegoers gave Ghostbusters a B-plus CinemaScore (those younger than 25 gave it an A-minus), while 73% of Rotten Tomatoes critics rated it favorably."

• Moviefone

"Moviegoers who actually did pay to see Ghostbusters gave it a decent B+ grade at CinemaScore, but the grade rose to A- for viewers under 25."

"Beside the positive word-of-mouth ... there were decent reviews from critics, judging by the 73 percent fresh rating at Rotten Tomatoes and the 60 score at Metacritic."

• CinemaBlend

"It will be interesting to see if the positive buzz the film is seeing in reviews will translate into better than expected box office numbers."

• The Wrap

"With big Internet buzz and generally strong reviews from critics..."

• ABCNews.com

"Ghostbusters ... received pretty good reviews"

• The Hollywood Reporter

"But others thought the film could cross $50 million, thanks to generally strong reviews..."

• L.A. Biz

Older women "liked — not loved — it ... while critics liked it an average 73 percent on Rotten Tomatoes."

It is clearly evident that despite the mediocre score at Metacritic, a vast majority of reliable sources believed the trend in reviews was favorable or positive. For every one that says it's mixed, I'm finding 5 or 6 that say it's positive. This shows that we either need to use some form of positive or favorable, or we should leave out the summary statement altogether. Clearly the sources aren't unanimous, so you can make the argument that we are not film review aggregators, and therefore, we should not attempt to research this ourselves. At the same time, however, there are plenty of sources that do agree with a "positive" summary statement. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I would argue that some of these are not the best in terms of RSes (eg Palm Beach), and that it also depends on context and how you read it as some of the quotes states do require synthesis to state they are talking about overall positive reviews, like the New Yorker or LA Times one. Obviously, there's no support at all for a "negative" statement, but I disagree that there's overwhelming evidence to state the summary of reviews were "positive", given the nature of how RT and MC work as the New Yorker alludes to.

An alternative approach we should state "Ghostbusters had received a wide range of reviews on release. On RT it considered "certified fresh" with a 72% approval, while on MC..." It make no attempt to define the middle in our language (letting the RT/MC numbers stand for themselves) and also prepares the reader to understand that they will be seeing positive and negative comments about the film in the next few paragraphs. We absolutely need to put the measuring sticks of RT and MC in this, but the less we try to summarize the better. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Concur with GoneIn60's reasoning on this, as it reflects the community-at-large. The consensus at this point seems to be to agree-to-disagree, which means to OMIT the summary line entirely. The article reads better without it since the opinion over this is eternally divided over this movie, and probably always will be. We are just reflecting it. However, if we MUST include a summary sentence, the only accurate one according to the authoritative sources on this would be to reflect the favorable-reception is has received. If using the word "positive" is too strong for some, then a summary line that says "the film received a generally favorable reception by critics" is fair. If we need a strong authoritative source for this, around the time the dust was settling, then we couldn't do worse than this one!

This FORTUNE article as of July 12,2016 is authoritative and clearly spells it out with analysis and clear-cut language [16]

"Considering all of that negativity, Ghostbusters has so far fared reasonably well with professional critics. The movie had a rating of 59 out of 100 on Metacritic—which is not far off from the original’s rating of 67—as well as a 78% “fresh rating” on review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes. The latter represents a fairly solid Rotten Tomatoes score for an action-comedy summer release, as evidenced by the 68% rating critics recently handed Warner Bros’ Central Intelligence, starring Kevin Hart and Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, which has earned more than $108 million domestically since its release last month. The new Ghostbusters also has a better Rotten Tomatoes score than last weekend’s box-office champ, Universal’s animated feature The Secret Life of Pets. And, when compared to another high-profile franchise reboot—last summer’s Jurassic World, one of 2015’s highest-grossing movies—Ghostbusters also wins the critical battle."

What I love about this source is that it directly addresses the debate here! It is as if it was written to address the controversy we are having over it. It gives analysis, it is directly quotable, and it comes from a reputable source. It even address the reality-distortion field of the film's negativity.184.96.187.7 (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I think based on the arguments from both sides, we agree on two things: 1) We can't label the reception as "negative" and 2) Having no summary statement is the common middle ground that will satisfy both sides. The source posted by 184.96.187.7 has been quoted several times on this page and is a good one no doubt. However, it is just one opinion and must be taken into consideration with the others. I don't believe it can stand on its own as the sole reference cited for a "favorable" summary statement. Unless a more convincing argument shows that the critics' overall response was favorable or positive, I suggest we bail to the middle ground here and leave the summary statement out. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Rickraptor707, judging by your recent edit summary, I think you missed the most recent discussion. In the previous discussion above, the one thing everyone agreed on was to remove the summary statement until there was a consensus to call it mixed or positive. We never reached a consensus there (and so far not here either), so there shouldn't be a summary statement. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Vote for bailing.haha Seriously though, I agree we should OMIT the summary sentence for now. This is a rare case where the article reads better without it: the perfect metaphor for a film whose existence is completely open to interpretation depending on who you talk to on any given day. Also, just to clarify, I didn't mean to suggest we should ONLY include or go with this quote. I was just saying it is a good one to lead with and some of the others you listed seem to have come to this conclusion.184.96.187.7 (talk) 03:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Review sites:

• Imdb: Mixed
• MetaCritic: Mixed
• Tomatometer: Positive
• Rotten Tomatoes audience score: Mixed

A few online critics:

• Nostalgia Critic: Mixed
• Angry Joe: Negative

Rickraptor707 (talk) 05:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

First of all, you are the only one in this conversation that believes a summary statement is required. While some of us are divided between "mixed" and "favorable", we agree to leave out the summary statement as the next best option. Secondly, we cannot take audience scores into account with the exception of CinemaScore grades, nor can we consider web-generated polls such as IMDB (see MOS:FILM#Audience response). Feel free to comment here if you believe there are additional points to consider, but do not edit war in the article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I do not believe that it is required, I believe that an opening statement is helpful to have. Also, Why the hell can't we take audience scores into account? They're reviews aren't they? Professional critics aren't the only ones whose opinions matter!

The truth is that the reviews have been mixed to negative, but the consensus was to omit the phrases "Mixed to Negative" and "Mixed to positive".

Upon finding out about this, I changed it to "mixed", but now, that's not allowed because, apparently, Rotten Tomatoes overrides all the other review sites in the world.

Also, you are not a Wikipedia admin, so you don't have the right to post warnings on my talk page. Rickraptor707 (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Rickraptor707, anyone can place warnings on user talk pages - not just admins. But, speaking as an admin, here's one: stop edit warring please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure, if you can explain why having this on the page is such a horrible thing, then yes, I'll stop. Rickraptor707 (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Rickraptor707, see the note I've added to the bottom of this page. It's up to you to gain consensus for your edit if other editors disagree with it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why it can't be in this particular article is explained at WP:CONSENSUS. Clearly, inserting it is going against consensus here. I've already posted a link above that explains the WikiProject's position on audience scores/ratings. If you have a question about that, I suggest you post at the talk page there. Also, if you scroll further up, you'll find at least 9 or 10 sources that support the inclusion of "positive". There are quite a few that support "mixed" as well, which is why we have decided to defer to omitting the summary statement. Your idea that the results are actually "mixed to negative" is not supported by anything we deem reliable. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Regardless which way it is written, the new section begs to have leading statement to explain what the reader should expect to see. Without it (that is, just leading into the RT or MC scores) feels very awkward. It's just that even "mixed" implies trying to assign the score on what is clearly something that one averaged point can't do justice. Thinking about this, maybe "Ghostbusters received a wide variance of critical reactions to the film." This does not attempt to quantify where the average but does tell the reader that they're going to find a number of both positive and negative reviews in the upcoming section. Following this with the RT and MC provides the necessary baselines so that the reader can then judge for themselves how that should be taken but without misrepresenting those sources or without trying to come to a conclusion based on the lack of consistencies in the summaries of reviews. "A wide variance" is not judgement outside of recognizing what is clear from simple observation of the MC score distribution. --MASEM (t) 02:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Having a non-summary opening statement would be welcome. Good idea. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

How about, "The film's reviews have generally ranged from mixed to positive"? Rickraptor707 (talk) 02:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I prefer a non-summary statement in some form similar to Masem's proposal. The reader is about to see the numbers in the following sentences. There's no need to precede them with a "range" in the opening line. I would probably modify it to, "Ghostbusters was met with a wide variance of reactions by critics." --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

But that's basically saying "the film received reviews", a range would give the reader some idea of what to expect from looking at the scores. Rickraptor707 (talk) 02:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

In considering a reader that is already familiar with how films are reviewed, films will get a range of reviews from professional critics, but that range is rarely very wide (20pt on a 100pt scale, roughly). So there's no need to say that for most films. This film is clearly different , with a range of about 70 on the 100 pt scale, so explicitly stating a wide range (without identifying the middle) helps. For the general non-film reader, this of course just helps in general. The thing that we're trying to avoid is to qualify the range with some subjective term, since that is going to be a point of consternation forever here. --MASEM (t) 03:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

It's just an opening to a paragraph; this is a standard literary approach in writing. We want readers to judge for themselves when they see the numbers. Saying "mixed to positive" (or some similar range) is exactly what other discussions agree we should try to avoid. Masem is on point that trying to "qualify" the range will always be a contentious point at this article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

But if we don't summarize the range of the reviews, the only possible opening statement is "the film received reviews", which is just redundant. So, the way I see it, our options are to summarize the overall reception, or omit any type of opening statement. Rickraptor707 (talk) 03:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

We don't need to spell out the details of that range, just that it is wider than one normally sees in most summary reviews of films. And I would stand by that we can make that statement without violating OR or NPOV since it just observation from the data, plus it is also a point reflected in the "summary of review" sources linked above. We shouldn't try to quantify how much bigger the range is, nor try to indicate what the median, mean, or bounds are, letting RT and MC speak for themselves. --MASEM (t) 05:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Reminder: Per NeilN, please do not engage in edit wars on this article. This history page reflects yet another edit war taking place in the comment tags in the article. Once it is apparent that there is a disagreement, please instead bring it back to the talk page and discuss it instead of reverting. Dane2007 (talk) 05:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not engaging in an edit-war anymore, I was warned by an admin, so, I stopped. Rickraptor707 (talk) 05:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that this article is "begging" for a summary statement. If we do include "Ghostbusters was met with a wide variance of reactions by critics.", then this is simply a benign statement. But let's be honest: it is a bone we are throwing disruptive editors here because the haters of this film have hijacked the page, given the well-documented reality-distortion field of hate that surrounds this movie. It's like saying "mixed" without actually saying it because what they want out of this is acknowledgment that the critics were wrong (according to them), despite the positive reception by critics. But they don't have the sources to claim the movie received a negative reception. So labeling it "mixed" is the next best slam against the movie.

If we have to be honest here, the only summary statement that is true at this point:"The reactions by critics was met the source of contention between fans and naysayers of the film." But I don't expect anyone to go along with this.

Saying "it is wider than one normally sees in most summary reviews of films" is still WP:OR because this is 'ONLY' true according to our analysis of it. There isn't a citation to back up this personal analysis with actual analysis. As far as critics go, this film isn't any more polarizing than the DC comic book movie that came out this year or a Michael Bay film. The wider than normal reaction is with the audience, not the critics. And trying to respect the audiences' split over the film by synthesizing it against the critics' response is our way of imposing how we feel about this film.

I oppose appeasing the appetites of the lowest-common denominator, simply because a handful of disruptive editors can't have their way. The article reads great without a summary line. It's summarized plenty with the lines about the aggregators in the critical section. If something 'must' be included in the lead, then just say: "The film was a source of contention between critics and fans, which was met with a wide variance of reactions by the public." or something along those lines184.96.187.7 (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Gentle reminder that if we do add a summary statement it should be concise and simple. I know they are only example suggestions, but "Ghostbusters was met with a wide variance of reactions by critics" or "The reactions by critics was met the source of contention between fans and naysayers of the film" are word salads. Popcornduff (talk) 11:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

It's good form in writing to have effective transitions when the topic of discussion changes. The proposed statement is simply an opening line in a paragraph introducing a transition. It doesn't need to contain the meat and potatoes of what's being discussed. That said, I don't feel strongly about it either way. If someone wants to add it, I would support it, but if it is being met with opposition, then we should leave it out. I think ultimately it reads fine either way. The only concern I really have is that if we have one, we omit any kind of reference to mixed, negative, or favorable, based on earlier discussions. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

The biggest live-action comedy debut

How is it "the biggest live-action comedy debut since Pitch Perfect 2 in May 2015" if 2016 movie "Deadpool" made almost three times as much in the opening weekend? Doesn't "Deadpool" count as a comedy? Then why is it in "2010s comedy films" category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.131.102.238 (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you'll find that the source of that sentence leads to a Forbes article which doesn't mention Deadpool. If you read the box-office section of the Deadpool (film) article, you'll notice it's getting compared, not with other comedies, but with other super-hero films.--CaptainNtheGameMaster (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how Forbes' definition of what is or isn't a comedy is relevant here. According to Wikipedia Deadpool is a comedy.

Moreover, the whole paragraph isn't informative enough to be in this article since the set of films with which Ghostbusters is compared is completely arbitrary. If you want to estimate how financially successful the film is, it makes sense to compare it with other films that have a similarly large budget and are a part of similarly famous franchise. Saying that it made somewhat more money than Pitch Perfect 2, which had only one fifths of its production budged is misleading.--95.131.102.238 (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. Wikipedia's hands are tied in regards to using reliable sources. It can't make whatever general statement about what is or isn't the biggest movie opening of a specific genre of film. Information on Wikipedia has to be sourced and the problem is that this is the comparison the sources have decided to make - Ghostbusters gets compared with other comedies, Deadpool gets compared with other superhero films. The fact that Deadpool (film) also happens to be a comedy film, aside being a superhero film (read the first sentence of the article), is completely irrelevant. If you feel the text is misleading, feel free to edit but other users may disagree with you (I don't personally care either way). --CaptainNtheGameMaster (talk) 09:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Corrections to Plot section, largely nitpicks

"paranormal phenomenon" should use the plural, phenomena

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

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

"group investigate" should read "group investigates"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Milo Yiannopoulos

Should the article not make it clear that there is a massive amount of controversy surrounding, and backlash from, Milo's ban? Should it not also make it clear that Twitter banned Milo for inciting others to harass her, when no evidence exists that he explicitly did so, while failing to ban Jones herself for the same behaviour despite evidence existing proving that she did?

https://twitter.com/lesdoggg/status/755218642674020352

Doesn't get much clearer than "Get her!!"NerdNinja9 (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

No. Article is about the movie Ghostbusters, not some guy who got banned from Twitter. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, a Twitter feud is not relevant to this page. clpo13_(talk) 22:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Note

I've declined a request for full protection at WP:RFPP largely because there seems to be a lot of good editing that would be blocked because one or two editors are edit warring. The usual thing to do in these types of situations is to block editor(s) if further edit warring occurs so please keep that in mind. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:09, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Summarized reception

Can someone please explain to me why "the film has received generally mixed reviews" is such a horrible thing to put on the page? Rotten Tomatoes is the only site I've seen to give this film a positive review, the rest are all mixed to negative.

The truth is that the film has received mixed to negative reviews, but the consensus at the time was to omit the phrases "Mixed to negative" and "Mixed to positive". When I found out about this, I changed it to "mixed", since the film has received some good and bad reviews, but most of the reviews are mixed or average. Now, people have been arguing and edit warring over that.

Some claiming that, since Rotten Tomatoes gave the film a positive score, that somehow means all the reviews are positive. Need I remind you that Rotten Tomatoes isn't the only review site in existence?

The Imdb score is mixed, the MetaCritic score is mixed, the Rotten Tomatoes audience score is mixed.

So, why can't I put this info on the page? It's the truth isn't it? Rickraptor707 (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

You are ignoring the other active discussion by attempting to begin a new one. I advise you post there instead of inviting others to repeat themselves here. It's unnecessary and could be considered disruptive. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I started this one so people could explain what was wrong with adding "Mixed reviews" to the article, which I now realize isn't necessary, because you already explained it on the other discussion. Rickraptor707 (talk) 02:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Box Office Bomb

Box-office analysts say that the film needs $300 million (some say $400 million) to break even after including its hefty marketing costs, etc. It has grossed $154 million, and isn't likely to gross much more than that. What's with the bias against the facts on this film? The box-office failure of Ghostbusters needs to be noted in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C40D:5E90:9597:3743:1F9D:7F86 (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Follow up - I also see that my other topic I had brought up on this page (breaking even) was deleted for no apparent reason. Seems like there's some bias people here, doesn't it? I also added in references to support my statements in the deleted topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C40D:5E90:9597:3743:1F9D:7F86 (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The film is far from being a box office bomb. However, I think it is fair to say the film is a box office disappointment, especially given that they are shelving future sequels based upon the box office (the citations say as much.) But calling it a box office bomb is an exaggeration. It will break even, and probably turn a profit. But that's still a disappointment considering that this film was meant to reboot the franchise. Let's not get carried away here.184.96.187.7 (talk) 04:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

This section was deleted again a day ago. Anyways, costs might be argued to be for restarting a brand, and merchandise sales might play a role in what Sony does next. But as for as it being a bomb... hardly even close. As you said, it break even with budget costs, and we have no idea how sony counts its promotion costs. Ghostbusters as a brand is a ongoing endeavor and Sony might have a very low bar due to the very fact. Batman Begins had the same problems years ago. Yet know one even notes it anymore thanks to it's successful sequel. Devilmanozzy (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the page Box office bomb and List of box office bombs, I notice a couple of things - first, there is no standard definition of a bomb, secondly, there are movies listed as bombs whose gross did surpass their production costs - ie Fant4stic, Ender's Game (film), Green Lantern (film). So far this film has grossed 14 mil more than its production cost. Green Lantern is listed as having grossed 19 mil more than its production costs, and yet is still listed as a bomb. So what does that make Ghostbusters? I dunno, probably have to wait till it finishes its theatrical run, see if we can find authoritative figures for marketing and distribution costs and see if it produces a sequel, or, more to the point, relaunches a franchise or MCU like expanded universe which was Sony's goal in creating this movie to begin with.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 16:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The simplest thing to do is to wait for reliable sources to call it a bomb. DonQuixote (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Also don't forget that gross earnings are not the same as net earnings. A film has to gross roughly twice the cost of its production and marketing budget in order to turn a profit. If it gets close to that number but doesn't cross it, it may still be considered a decent showing by some, if they assume it will get into the black through home media sales. That's why we need to avoid looking at this ourselves and wait for reliable sources to cite success or failure. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Accolades section - "Lost"

I may have missed an update to the usual Film Wikiproject nomenclature for such a section, but I don't believe i've ever seen "Lost" put in as an award result. Isn't the usual action if the film or star doesn't win is to put "Nominated" as the term in the result? Since they were still one of the nominees, they just didn't win the award. For example, as shown on the awards page for the latest Star Wars film: List of accolades received by Star Wars: The Force Awakens. Silverseren^C 04:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I have made the appropriate changes to the table just now.Crboyer (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• I'm new to film award boxes and thought that "Lost" was the appropriate word. Your right, nominated is the correct nomenclature.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 05:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)