Talk:Ghostbusters (2016 film)

"Downvote into oblivion"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The point was that the "reasons" given are baseless. The original poster questioned the reliability of the source as well as the ability of said source to actually ascertain the extent to which the dislike could be attributed to some great conspiracy against the film. So no, including the dislikes does not dictate that the unfounded speculations be included as well. If they are, why not include the complaints of all the commenters who gave non-sexist criticism and found their criticisms summarily deleted? At this point to my knowledge there's no more or less evidence of this than the supposed conspiracy. Including the speculation the way it's been done is indeed biasing things and encouraging the view of this speculation as proven fact, so either the source should be changed to one more reliable, or it should be questioned, or it should be omitted.98.197.193.213 (talk) 13:01, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

It was not downvoted because of a campaign, but because of it´s style-.-77.11.181.249 (talk) 13:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Tribute to Harold Ramis?

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

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

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

There also is a bust of him outside Erin Gilbert's office much like you might have a bust of Einstein in a physics hallway.Brant Gurganus (talk) 16:44, 19 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)

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)

Anti-feminist bashing?

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

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

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

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

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

Even news articles are having to acknowledge that Sony is deleting the non-misogynistic criticism in an attempt to do a PR-spin and blame all criticism on sexism. http://www.inquisitr.com/3294139/ghostbusters-reboot-receives-mixed-reviews-critics-called-sexist/ MegaSolipsist 13:34, 22 July 2016 NZ time

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

Why has Ivan Reitman's response to these claims been removed from the article? As it is the article only presents one angle, which isn't particularly neutral or unbiased, and the response of the director of the original two movies to the controversy seems significant enough to be included, at least in my opinion. MegaSolipsist 10:17, 22 July 2016 NZ time

Can we please remove the claim that most of the criticism stems from anti-feminism or the fact that the movie has an all-female cast? For every criticism based upon 'because it stars women' there are ten based on 'this is unnecessary and does not look funny at all'. The sources given for that claim support themselves by cherry-picking the worst comments and ignoring all the rest. They have already been called out on this by many people, so there is no reason to include them on this page, as they are clearly unreliable. MegaSolipsist 01:20, 16 July 2016 NZ time

Re:MegaSolipsist While there are definitely a myriad of criticisms leveled against the trailer, I feel like the misogyny discussion has been repeatedly singled out as a notable component in all of the publications listed above. While the content of these articles may be open to rebuttal and dissection, this would be WP:OR. What's notable is the discussion itself, not the discussion's validity. Since many (though not all) of these links come from publications of significance, this would be covered under notability guidelines WP:NEXIST. The article currently doesn't attempt to claim this *is* the only reason for criticism, just that it has been reported as a significant discussion point. If you feel this isn't the case, or if there are rebuttals addressing this very issue from similarly notable sources WP:RS, please discuss. Nerd2thend (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Re:Nerd2thend The article does claim that the criticism is *mostly* due to misogyny, which is incorrect. I'm not denying that some people dislike it simply because it has women in it, but the criticism has overwhelmingly been focused on the unfunny trailers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MegaSolipsist (talk • contribs) 23:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Is anyone going to mention that Sony deletes all negative comments except for those that contain sexist or misogynist remarks? Or that most of the positive comments came from channels that had only been created in the previous few weeks? The whole idea that all of the criticism comes from misogyny is one that Sony has carefully cultivated by removing all criticism that was aimed at the humour or editing of the trailer. This has been noted by numerous groups and loudly criticised for several months, yet no mention of it has reached the wikipedia article. MegaSolipsist 11:48, 15 July 2016 NZ time

I'm not a Sony employee. PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to Sony deleting all legitimate criticism from the trailer on Youtube extremely quickly, unless the comment is sexist, in which case it gets left up for much longer. This has been noted and criticised by practically everybody since the day the trailer dropped. MegaSolipsist 01:14, 16 July 2016 NZ time

None of the hate came from anti-feminism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Knowing that the reception around this film is a heated situation (thus avoiding BOLD editing problems), I saw this article from Polygon that actually gets to the meat of the situation [7] - in that there definitely is some misogynistic backlash against the film, and there is some backlash against the film that has nothing to with gender but caught up in this mess (specifically calling out the AVGN situation) and noting that "in an increasingly toxic and polarized social media atmosphere, assessing a work feels like picking a side". (and a few other choice quotes). I think that more needs to be said here, which subsequently is important to understand how to summarize the reviews given the issue with RT described elsewhere on this page. It also appears appropriate to note that Fieg claims the backlash subconsciously shaped how he wrote the film [8]. I am sure we'll see more commentary on the critical nature of this film in a few days as it gets to full release. --MASEM (t) 21:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I've seen a single person I know dislike the movie because it contains women. The majority of people who dislike it do so because they don't like the humor. In fact, many have said that the female cast is the only *positive* attribute. These news articles like to paint a polarized, sexist and misogynistic culture because it gets views - the same as saying that the entire country is unsafe because of a shooting, or that your children are going to be kidnapped and murdered, or that everyone who supports Trump is a racist or that everyone who supports Clinton is a corporate shill. Painting polarizing atmospheres works to gain views and money. At the very least, include a small blurb from the other side - just something like a "However, many have claimed to dislike the movie not because of the female cast but because of the low-brow humor.[source][source]" There are definitely sexist aggressors against this film, but the amount of people who at least claim to dislike it because of the humor is a large enough portion for a mention of it to be necessary. It isn't a fringe group that is saying this, it's a very large portion - I'd argue larger than the misogynists, but that's up in the air. An inclusion of one side, and not the other, is quite biased, in my opinion. 2602:306:3266:3000:71EA:E32:C2AC:4A0C (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

We'll include "the other side" as long as it's supported by reliable sources. We're not going to be a mouthpiece for outspoken minorities who happen to be very good at publicizing their views in various types of online forums.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

People don´t like the movie not because of the all-female cast but because it seems to promote feminism. That might be anti-feminism, but feminism itself is an ideology.77.11.181.249 (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

The sources used to claim misoginy all cherry pick YouTube comments and/or Twitter comments. You can find literally everything in YouTube comments and none of the citations have demonstrated that this is more than a very small number of commenters.2A02:C7D:5035:2400:2559:F6BA:96E2:44DD (talk) 08:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

"Answer the Call"

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

It's very clearly a byline, so no.

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

Actually, it's not a tagline. [9] Apparently, the film was given a subtitle late in the development process. (See the link for more info.) As the original poster indicated, the title card in the end credits identifies the film as "Ghostbusters: Answer the Call." For what it's worth, anyhow. 98.5.61.207 (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Richard Roeper's review

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

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

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

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

Maybe its less a problem with video games in that we have about ~12 typical works that we identify as appropriate important and reliable for reviews that as long as they have done a review for game - positive or negative - it is included, as to avoid cherry picking. I do not know if the film project has similar, though it seems that if we were talking someone like Ebert, his review would have been included in that same fashion, regardless if it was positive or negative. Without Ebert not, Roeper would seem to be one of those "always include" reviewers. But again, I'm not familiar as much with the film project's choice for reviews.

That said, just considering the scores of reviews as assigned by MC, I wouldn't call Roeper's an outlier in terms of general disappointment and dislike for the film: major sites like Variety, New York Magazine, and the Village Voice all express equivalent concerns. The question is of those, who gets their point across better (That's why I go back to our VG approach in that we always include the same works so we don't have to play this cherry-picking game which particularly is difficult on this specific film). --MASEM (t) 00:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's notable though most reviews seem to get negative about half way through anyway. We're cherrypicking a lot of the positive and ignoring the negative which skews it a bit. A lot of reviews condensed here [10]. --DHeyward (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Roeper's notability is almost entirely inherited from his now several years dead former co-host, who was the father of modern American film criticism and whose reviews, as a result, were quoted in virtually all of Wikipedia's articles on films he reviewed. The fact that he has passed on, though, does not mean we should automatically provide undue weight to the opinions of his former co-host and successor at the Chicago Sun-Times; Roeper is not the father of modern American film criticism, and his opinions should only be quoted if they are meant to provide balance to a critical reception section (here, it is likely to have the opposite effect) or if they have already been quoted in numerous other reliable media outlets for whatever reason (Bob Chipman is certainly less notable than Roeper, but his opinions of last year's Pixels arguably meet this second criterion). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:13, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

"The original cast including..."

I can't access the source at the moment, but is this accurate? It is incorrect to say "including" before giving an exhaustive list, and if the source used that word then we should treat it as an accidental misprint. If the list is not comprehensive, then is it taken from the source? If so, would it be possible to access the original source (the Kimmel episode) to check exactly who appeared and just list them all? The wording "The original cast including Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson, and Annie Potts" gives the impression that the entire surviving cast appeared (inluding actors less worthy of specific mention than Potts), but if this were the case why Potts and Hudson but not Weaver? It seems likely to me based on these circumstances (operating under a not great mobile signal at the moment) that this is actually a comprehensive list, and that what is meant is "Several members of the original cast (namely Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson and Annie Potts)", but is this the case? If so, we should just word it in a similar way to how I have just done it. If in fact the source did randomly decide to list these four names but in fact a fifth or sixth name would have made the list comprehensive, then we should just list the fifth and sixth names. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Slimer "cameo"?

I just removed the words "TBA as Slimer" from the "Cameos" list as cameos are typically made by actors and not characters, and in this case it was being jumbled in with the original actors returning to play completely different characters. However, a couple of reviews I read appeared to indicate that the film features a cameo by a practical effects puppet as Slimer. Is this the case? Is it "the original"? If the answer to both of these (or even just the first)is "yes", then I would support readding it as simply "Slimer" or perhaps "Slimer (voiced by TBA)". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

By the way: I haven't seen the original film in several years -- am I right in recalling that Slimer was a puppet? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

According to Making Ghostbusters by Don Shay, yes, Slimer was a puppet; a foam latex suit was constructed for puppeteer Mark Wilson to wear, along with cable mechanisms for facial expressions. Some optical photography and compositing was done, and then tada, Slimer. –Matthew - (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Biased

Funny that the massive racism and bad plot in the film aren't mentioned here e.g. been deleted. Meanwhile, this film had the most dislikes on YouTube in the history of mankind. And both feminists and black activists criticize the film for being racist and not funny.--Élisée P. Bruneau (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The accusations of racism were decided to be WP:SENSATION and/or WP:NOTSCANDAL and negative critical reactions are being included. If you have sources and reasoned arguments not already discussed above, join the conversation. (see:WP:PUS and WP:SOAP) Nerd2thend (talk) 19:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

P.S. It has the most dislikes of any movie trailer. "Baby" by Bieber takes the top spot and COD: Infinite is the most disliked trailer. Nerd2thend (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• @Élisée P. Bruneau: This film's trailer got the most negative reactions, not the film itself. The film itself has received mostly positive reviews. The "history of mankind" is irrelevant -- YouTube has only existed for about a decade. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The movie is NOT racist. But the misogyny and insecure internet troll fan-hate is horribly stacked against this movie. It's a lousy D.O.A. film for sure. But it doesn't deserve THIS kind of online harassment.71.218.140.156 (talk) 03:29, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the article includes an explanation for the massive downvotes to the trailer if you're only going to present one side of the issue. Why not add Ivan Reitman's response to the downvoting to keep things impartial? Just trying to cover our own ass here. 101.160.31.80 (talk) 02:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you can provide a reliable source that mentions the "other side". DonQuixote (talk) 02:48, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you consider this reliable? http://mashable.com/2016/06/30/ghostbusters-ivan-reitman-reboot-backlash/#wocj0qs8auqo 137.147.12.29 (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@IP: The people who downvoted are not trolls or mysoginic. They hate the movie because they don´t like the style.77.11.181.249 (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2016

Change the plot description FROM "Dr. Erin Gilbert and Dr. Abby Yates are co-authors of a book which posits the existence of paranormal phenomenon such as ghosts. When the book proves unpopular, Gilbert distances herself and eventually becomes a teacher at Columbia University...." TO: "Dr. Erin Gilbert and Dr. Abby Yates are co-authors of a book which posits the existence of paranormal phenomenon such as ghosts. When the book proves unpopular, Gilbert distances herself from Yates, pursues a successful career in particle physics* and eventually becomes a professor at Columbia university...."

[*Footnote: http://www.wired.com/2016/07/ghostbusters-mit-physicists/]

Ccplainview (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Is this information really vital to the plot summary? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:16, 18 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

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2016

After the last sentence in the introduction, should add that it got mixed to negative reviews from critics and has grossed over 65 million

2601:641:101:785C:C090:3C11:71D0:ABFF (talk) 02:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Your proposed edit would cause tthe lead to contradict both the article body and the external reliable sources, which say reviews were mostly positive. No comment on whether the lead should specify that it got mostly positive reviews. Or the current box office figures which will be immediately outdated. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:49, 18 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)

Avoid Edit-Warring

Given the large number of disputes and unilateral edits, I'd like to remind everyone of WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. While I haven't seen a direct violation of WP:3RR, it's probably occurred in the last week. Let's avoid escalation and use this talk page to reach consensus before editing.

Remember: An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense. Nerd2thend (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Twitter details

While copy-editing the Controversy section, it appeared that the information regarding Leslie Jones' experience on Twitter seemed unnecessary. Many celebrities experience problems like that from time to time, and while this is occasionally reported in the media, I feel the details of the incident don't belong here. If someone wants to try inserting them into the Leslie Jones (comedian) article, feel free to do so, but they are consuming too much real estate in this article leading to concerns of WP:UNDUE. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

While I'm personally unable to compile the all the necessary resources to for inclusion at the moment, I think some mention of the Twitter/Leslie Jones event may be relevant. Actual details would be better servered under her Wiki page, but there's little doubt the entire sequence was stemmed from a review of this film. The tricky part will be adhering to WP:PERSISTENCE WP:SENSATION. Let's try hash this out here to avoid a WP:EDITWAR. Nerd2thend (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

In context of the larger controversy on the film, the twitter stuff is very relevant since it launched to the degree it did after the film's premiere, with the negative comments reiterating what was said by some at the release of the trailer (which is already documented). Thing is that there is a lot more going on in the controversy presently included (eg the situation around Rolfe), and as the controversy is less directly about the reception of the film, it should be its own section as to not take away from what people normally expect to see in the reception section. --MASEM (t) 13:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

With Dan Aykroyd stepping in to the controversy over the Leslie Jones incident, this is certainly notable news now. And the press has not picked this up in a BIG way. WP:DUE demands we include it here in some sense.71.218.140.156 (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I restored the content. I would still caution that we try to keep this section's length proportional to the overall coverage of the topic. That's really what this comes down to. While the controversy is certainly important, it is just one aspect. Per WP:BALASPS, we need to be careful of recent news that may have the appearance of being very significant now, but not so much months or years later. Let's keep the most essential details that aid in the understanding of the topic. One or two sentences may suffice in areas that have ballooned into entire paragraphs. Long-winded, compound sentences can often be trimmed much shorter for conciseness. This will likely be a work in progress until long after the dust settles. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Location in article

The Reception section contains film critics' reaction, as well as box office performance. The question raised above by Masem is whether or not it belongs in its own section as opposed to a subsection under Reception. I'm leaning in favor of keeping it under Reception. While these aren't reactions by professional critics or analysts in most cases, they are reactions nonetheless. Box office performance, for example, is included here, because it helps explain the public's response to a film. The Critical response section is reserved for professional criticism, but that doesn't necessarily mean the entire Reception section is. My 2¢. Interested to hear what others think... --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Thing is that this is more than just a "reaction" or "reception". Right now the amount of text relative to how much controversy this has generated is really small and it needs expanding (within policy) and when it does, it will be much more than just "reception". --MASEM (t) 02:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you agree, however, that in its current state, the section is only covering reaction to the film and its casting? If it evolves into something else, then by all means we should move it and/or break it up into separate sections (one covering reaction, and another covering everything else). --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:48, 22 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)

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)