Talk:Ghostbusters (2016 film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
	This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed.

Grammatical Errors

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

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

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

Charles Dance

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

Citing sources

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

Bill Murray

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

Incoming backlash

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

Good idea, the trailer has received considerable criticism to say the least. Update: Done, Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Ghostbusters_.282016_film.29 regards. Twobells (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be redone as someone undid the edit, though I cannot undo their edit due to the article being protected. Just thought I'd raise alarm bells, without it the article is unbalanced. Truthdefender2015 (talk)

Not a Reboot!

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

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

New record?

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

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

I concur. I believe we should add some statement like "The trailer release received many negative response, with one-third of the ratings being 'thumbs down'." OttselSpy25 (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment the trailer has over twice as many dislikes as likes, and loads of negative comments have been deleted. Also, most of the positive comments come from bot accounts, and as Sony has received VERY strong criticism for this, I believe it should be mentioned. MegaSolipsist 4:42, 9 March 2016 NZ time

Let's talk a little about the Marketing section.

The marketing section currently read:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ghostbusters 3

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

Reese, Aisha (27 February 2016). "'Ghostbusters 3' Spoilers: Slimer Is Coming Back For The Reboot". EnStarz.com. Good ol' Slimer's going to be back in the house for Ghostbusters 3, according to new reports.

O'Callaghan, Lauren (3 March 2016). "Ghostbusters 3 gets its first full length trailer - watch it now".

David Garrett Brown (7 March 2016). "The World Is Revolting Against Hollywood's Awful Feminist Remake Of Ghostbusters". Return of Kings. Ghostbusters 3 is waking people up to the issue of feminist propaganda in movies

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

Comicbook.com (source 24) used incorrectly?

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

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

Reception

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

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

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

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

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

Eric Ramus

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

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

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

Trailer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UK release date

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

"Downvote into oblivion"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tribute to Harold Ramis?

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

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

Bias

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

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

CITATION NEEDED. CITATION NEEDED. CITATION NEEDED.

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

CITATION NEEDED. CITATION NEEDED. CITATION NEEDED.

mixed reviews

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Metacritic also reached the consensus as Mixed/Average from a compilation of critic reviews

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2016

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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

The Rotten Tomatoes score used on Wikipedia is compiled from professional critic reviews. The user score on RT is ignored. See Wikipedia:Review aggregators and [2]. clpo13_(talk) 23:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Anti-feminist bashing?

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

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

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

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

None of the hate came from anti-feminism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just made an account to say this

Right, box it up. WP:DNFTT. clpo13_(talk) 21:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

It makes no mention of this

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

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

And that's coming from Roeper.

Why can't it just say "Mixed"?

I hardly see as many positive as you guys claim.

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

The film has a 77% on Rotten Tomatoes. If that's not an indication of at least some positive reaction, then I don't know what is. clpo13_(talk) 21:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Also, alot of the positive reviews were bought.

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

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

I was going to write out an explanation of what mixed versus favorable means on Wikipedia, including links to other movies, but then you posted that Reddit screenshot and you lost all credibility. clpo13_(talk) 21:29, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TL;DR: anyone who actually uses the phrase "SJW feminist shills" is not worth listening to. clpo13_(talk) 21:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cool, who said that. clpo13_(talk) 21:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow. The Pee-Wee Herman Response.

Sony's treatment of Bill Murray

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

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

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

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

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