Jump to content

Talk:Ghostbusters

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Twofingered Typist (talk | contribs) at 13:24, 29 August 2019 (added GOCE tag; added Pageviews Graph). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Good articleGhostbusters has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 15, 2019Good article nomineeListed

Template:Assessed


WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on August 29, 2019.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

Lovecraft inspiration?

I find it a little surprising that no mention is made of the obvious Lovecraft influences on Ghostbusters--there have been a handful of articles here and there on the Internet discussing these parallels, here is one: http://horrorfilms101.blogspot.com/2011/08/feature-h-p-lovecraft-presents.html 71.217.30.208 (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subplot about a cult leader designing an art deco building to focus supernatural forces reminds me more of Fritz Leiber's Our Lady of Darkness (1977). Leiber himself was heavily influenced by Lovecraft ... but who isn't? JöG (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ghostbusters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 December 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved per snowball clause (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


– Per WP:NCFILM#Media franchise. While the original film holds and enduring place in modern cinema, the primary meaning of this title has grown to extend to the entire movie franchise spanning 35 years. For example, if someone describes themselves as a "fan of Ghostbusters", would you imagine they only mean only the first film? Or would they more likely be a fan of the multiple aspects of the universe including both original team films, the video games, the animated series, etc.? Additionally, modern coverage uses clarifying language ("1984") when it is referring to that original film to avoid confusion ([1], [2]) - an indication that we should do likewise. The franchise summary acts as a WP:BROADCONCEPT page, helping to direct readers to the specific aspects of the franchise. -- Netoholic @ 21:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Similar to Garfield I suppose, which also has many other uses. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The original film is too engrained as the primary topic. If and if the 2016 film was successful that Sony was seriously continuing expanding the franchise, there might be a challenge, but at this point, the film is more significant than the franchise. --Masem (t) 22:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Masem. Also, I'm not really convinced the usage in the examples is more of a disambiguator than a simple descriptor (i.e. Ghostbusters II also has a year attached in the 1st source, and the 2nd may be a cue for non-film-fan readers). Besides, the 2016 movie is still fresh in people's memory. If the Ghostbusters film series continues it may convincingly take the position of the primary topic, but so far assuming this is more than temporary hype would be speculation. Daß Wölf 22:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Had the 2016 film never existed, I feel this move is still entirely appropriate. As above, when people think of "Ghostbusters", they are not necessarily immediately thinking of only the first film. -- Netoholic @ 06:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Went from 'oppose' to 'neutral' after seeing the 2016 remake yesterday. It was really good, and enjoyed almost everything about it. After seeing it I can't oppose this move, although the original is probably still primary for familiarity. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Randy Kryn's opinion, the 2016 film is a terrible, terrible film, with or without the existence of the original Ghostbusters. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kate McKinnon's workdesk dance scene alone is worth almost supporting this move. I see there is talk of doing another film with the living members of the original cast (although I'd personally add Ramis' ghost), which, if done, would be a good time to revisit this move. As for now it's close, with the comics, films, video games, just one more thing could tip the scale (maybe an article on McKinnon's workdesk dance, feature material!). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Ghostbusters/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Slightlymad (talk · contribs) 03:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Grabbing this nomination for a review; thanks for your patience. To begin with, I noticed several instances of the word "movie" throughout; the word "film" is preferred over the former, so please change them. Also, The American Film Institute has a long write up (under History tab) with more info on the film that you can use to expand the Wiki. I'll come back soon for additional comments. Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:50, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

  • "Dana is possessed by Zuul The Gatekeeper, while Louis Tully is possessed by her counterpart" → There's already an instance of "Louis Tully" in the previous sentence
 Done

Production

Development

  • "The movie's concept was inspired by Dan Aykroyd's fascination with the paranormal." → Just use the AFI Catalog source to support this claim, as the Hollywood Reporter source states it was Aykroyd's father and grandfather's fascination, not his.
 Done
  • "The original story, as written by Aykroyd, was very different from what was eventually filmed. In the original version, a group of "Ghostsmashers" traveled through time, space, and other dimensions combating huge ghosts (of which the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man was one of many)." → unsourced?
 Done Removed.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revise last sentence of first paragraph to, "Aykroyd cited the Disney short Lonesome Ghosts (1937) and The Bowery Boys slapstick comedy Spook Busters (1946) as inspirations for Ghostbusters' title and premise of professional "exterminators" on a paranormal mission; Lonesome Ghosts includes the line "I ain't scared of no ghost". What makes ref. 7 a reliable, high-quality source?
 Done Removed. Never mind, I found an interview in which Aykroyd mentions the movies that inspired him for the script.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In May 1983, Reitman went to the office of the Columbia Pictures' president Frank Price and pitched him the project." → Drop 'the' from "the Columbia", and wikilink "pitch"
 Done
  • "Price liked it and approved a $30 million budget in advance. The only condition was that the movie was ready for release by June 1984." → Revise to, "Price green-lit the project for $30 million, with the stipulation that the film had to be released by June 1984."
 Done

Pre-production

  • To provide storyboards and concept art, associate producer Michael C. Gross hired illustrators including Thom Enriquez, Bernie Wrightson, and Tanino Liberatore. → Follow "including" with a colon
 Done
  • "John DeCuir, known for his elaborate sets, was hired as production designer and art director, which Reitman considered a coup," → Did Reitman consider John Decuir a coup or his production design? I'm confused...
 Done Shortened it to avoid confusion.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The packs were designed by Design consultant Stephen Dane," → Is there a reason the 'D' in design should be capitalized?
 Done Spelling error.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Each pack weighed about thirty pounds (14 kg), and nearly fifty (22.6 kg) with the batteries installed" → Changed thirty and fifty to their numeric forms
 Done

Casting

  • "Aykroyd and Ramis initially wrote roles for Belushi as Aykroyd's sidekick and John Candy as Louis Tully." → "Aykroyd and Ramis initially wrote the role of Louis Tully specifically for John Candy, and of Aykroyd's sidekick for Belushi."
 Done
  • "However the role ultimately went to Yugoslav model Slavitza Jovan." → Follow however with a comma
 Done
  • An obituary from the Feb-Mar 2000 issue of the Science Fiction Chronicle claims...." → the word "claim" is a word to watch as it implies doubt. Change it to "says" or "states" per WP:SAID
 Done
  • Please do something about that one-sentence paragraph as we try to avoid such
 Done Merged into the previous paragraph.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done A claim that was tagged by another editor is still unsourced, since it's not supported by the AFI source. Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done

Filming

  • The last two sentences of the first paragraph are not supported by the New York magazine source.
 Done Changed them.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • During filming of the scenes set at Dana Barrett and Louis Tully's apartment building at 55 Central Park West," → Location is already mentioned in the first paragraph
 Done
  • "One exterior scene shot in Manhattan enhanced with supplemental work in Los Angeles was the earthquake scene in front of Dana Barrett and Louis Tully's building in the story's climax." → Revise to, "The climactic earthquake scene in front of Dana Barrett and Louis Tully's apartment building was shot in Manhattan, enhanced with supplemental work in Los Angeles."
 Done
  • "After a test with 75 pounds of shaving cream knocked a stunt man flat, only 35 pounds were used for the final shot." → Use Template:Convert as you did in the Pre-production subsection
 Done
  • "His sequences were filmed at a rate of eight frames per second," → wikilink rate to Frame rate
 Done
  • "Reitman claims there are 650 special effects shots in the entire film." → Again, avoid the word "claim" per WP:SAID as it implies doubt. Change it to "said"
 Done
  • "To determine if the comedy works, preview audiences were screened the film in March 1984 without its completed special effects." → "In March 1984, test audiences were screened the film with its unfinished effects shots to determine if the comedy works."
 Done
  • "A viral campaign was intitiated by the studio featuring the "No ghosts" logo, creating popularity even though the people were yet unaware of either the film's title or its stars." → "which created popularity"; "initiated" is also misspelled. Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done

Release

Box office

  • "After seven weeks, it was finally knocked to the number-two position by Prince's film Purple Rain," → "finally knocked" doesn't sound neutral to me. How 'bout "dropped"?
 Done
  • "By year end it had grossed $221 million making it the highest-grossing film of the year and the highest grossing comedy of its time." → million should be followed by a comma; hyphen at "highest grossing"
 Done
  • Fix the boxofficemojo.com to Box Office Mojo in inline cite 1
 Done
  • "It went on to gross $229.2 million but was surpassed by Beverly Hills Cop as the highest-grossing film released in 1984 and as the highest grossing comedy." → again, add hyphen to "highest grossing"
 Done
  • "Box Office Mojo estimates that the film sold over 68 million tickets in the US in its initial theatrical run → Box Office Mojo doesn't use estimates, nor do they need to be attributed in this context as the website is a reliable source for box office figures
 Done

Critical response

  • "Ghostbusters received positive reviews from both critics and audiences and is considered by many as one of the best films of 1984." → "to be one of the best"; the sources supporting these claim are also not reliable nor high-quality, so please change
Why are they not reliable? Filmsite seems alright. Film.com, Listal and Films101 also seem like normal review websites. I do not see anything problematic with them, as long as they are used for the category they represent.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fil101.com and Listal are not vetted as reliable at WP:FILM/R, thus they fail WP:GACR's criterion 2b.
 Done Removed Film101 and Listal.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The use of direct quotations in this section is a bit heavy. See WP:QUOTE and WP:RECEPTION. Try reducing the amount of quotes and grouping generally positive reviews together along with generally negative reviews. Look for general themes between positive critiques, as well as negative. Try to build a narrative out of the commentary/reception on the film. What have critics in general picked up on? What are the main tenets? A bunch of quotes doth not great prose make. Some examples on how to make this section read better are Scrooged and The Thing. Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the wording to address your issue. I hope it's better now. --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done I was hoping you would rewrite this into something akin to those in the examples I gave you; it's still the same, except paraphrased. See it's not just excessive quotation that's my biggest concern here, it's also the fact that it doesn't touch base on reviewers' critique of the movie in terms of acting, humor, special effects, direction, script etc. Whether critics liked them or not, you should give these critiques their due weight to make this section neutral; surely, critics have something to complain about this movie even though they gave it a positive review.
Please read WP:RECEPTION for a guide on how to write this section well. As it stands, it still fails the "well written" and "neutral" criteria at WP:GACR. Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten it again. I hope this is better now.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accolades

  • "The film received two Academy Award nominations, including Best Original Song (for the hit song "Ghostbusters") and Best Visual Effects (John Bruno, Richard Edlund, Chuck Gaspar and Mark Vargo)." → "The film was nominated at the 57th Academy Awards for Best Original Song..."
  • Wikilink Golden Globes
 Done

Home media

  • First three sentences are unsourced
 Done Removed unsourced sentences.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reitman was unhappy with the LaserDisc release of the film. He stated because "it pumped up the light level so much you saw all the matte lines. I was embarrassed about it all these years." → "Reitman was unhappy with the LaserDisc release of the film, explaining that "it pumped up the light level so much you saw all the matte lines. I was embarrassed about it all these years."
 Done
  • "It was released on VHS in 1990 as part of a VHS box set that included Ghostbusters II." → unsourced; italicize Ghostbusters II
 Done Removed.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was released again on VHS in 1994, and in 1996 as part of the Columbia TriStar Family Collection." this is unsourced, too
 Done Removed.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at a time when an estimated four million U.S. households had DVD players, and became one of Reel.com's fastest selling products." → get rid of this waffle
 Done Removed.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sony announced at Comic-Con 2008 that the Blu-ray version of the film would be released on October 21, 2008. Sony initially made it available through their promotional website Ghostbustersishiring.com. " → these are unsourced
 Done Removed.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack

  • In the first paragraph, only the last two sentences are sourced. What gives?
 Done
  • Need better sources for the second paragraph; the one cited is far from GA standards.
 Done Added AFI Catalog for the law suit against the song.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Changed it.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found a couple of lists in which the film is mentioned: [3], [4], [5], [6]. Maybe add them in Accolades. While you're at it, please don't use the hashtag (#) as a substitute to "number", per MOS:HASH. Pick either "number" or "No." and stick with it. Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Great suggestion. Done.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 11:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please ensure that all inline citations to online sources have proper author, title, date of publication, and accessdates. For one, ref 90's publisher says only 'BD' instead of 'Bloody Disgusting' and the author is not credited, which is Brad Miska. Also, the date format in an article like this should all be mdy, not dmy; I notice that the majority of the date formats inline are dmy. Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 12:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
 Not done ref 39 still has no accessdate, and refs 64 and 89 are still using dmy format Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Corrected.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

@3E1I5S8B9RF7:

First, just because something is done in an article that's GA or FA doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. FA articles aren't infallible, and can always be improved. I speak from experience here - I've written and reviewed several.

Second, WP:FILMLEAD says primary genre or sub-genre. That means one or the other. You can't have both.

The consensus on film articles is to include only the main genre identified by sources. This is to stop leads becoming cluttered. One is enough. Popcornduff (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

300 (film) ("low-fantasy epic war film"), Casablanca ("romantic drama"), Blade Runner ("neo-noir science fiction film"), Bride of Frankenstein ("science-fiction horror film"), Changeling (film) ("mystery crime drama"), Manhunter (film) ("crime horror"), Mulholland Drive (film) ("neo-noir mystery film"), The Mummy (1999 film) ("action horror"), On the Job (2013 film) ("neo-noir crime thriller"), Pride & Prejudice (2005 film) ("romantic drama"), Tank Girl (film) ("science-fiction action comedy", these are three!), Zodiac (film) ("mystery thriller").
All these films are Featured articles. These are just a dozen examples which contradict you. Which means, obviously, that this is not part of the consensus. Ghostbusters are two genres: comedy and fantasy (or horror), and the article just reflects this. And the "...just because something is done in an article that's GA or FA doesn't mean it's the right thing to do" quote is self-refuting: either you follow the GA and FA examples and practice, or you don't (in the latter case, then your place is not on Wikipedia). Also, sub-genre cannot be mentioned without the main genre (for instance, "epic..."). Stop placing your personal opinion above the established practice in all these articles. There is no problem here. Just let it go, man.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 13:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, his isn't "my personal opinion". The policy I'm linking is just that: Wikipedia policy. It was reached by consensus, way before I ever got involved. The articles you link to almost certainly ignored the policy because whoever added them didn't know about it, and because not every reviewer can know about every policy. Accept the policy or start a new discussion to change it. Popcornduff (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FILMLEAD: "At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the following elements: the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified." At minimum is the keyword here. It never claims that it has to be only one genre. I think you misinterpreted it. Because you cannot have a subgenre without the main genre. There are simply too many examples of articles for this rule to have been ignored. --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 14:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you know what, you raise a good point. This ambiguity has been debated before, and the consensus basically came down on "one genre should suffice", but I think it's worth another discussion at the policy talk page, so I'll take it there. Popcornduff (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saved content

Reviewers at AllMusic awarded both the Original Soundtrack Album and the Original Motion Picture Score 4 out of 5 stars. Evan Cater describes the Original Soundtrack Album as "a very disjointed, schizophrenic listen" that "does very little to conjure memories of the film". However, he cited the title track, Mick Smiley's "Magic", and the two inclusions from Elmer Bernstein's score as exceptions.[1] Jason Ankeny described the Original Motion Picture Score as "epic in both sound and scale", writing that it "ranks among Bernstein's most dazzling and entertaining efforts, evoking the widescreen wonder of its source material ... his melodies beautifully complement the wit and creativity of the onscreen narrative".[2]

Can anyone watching this article help me with references regarding the film's impact? I'm struggling as Google keeps pulling up the 2016 film instead of this one. Also more information about the ghost designs/effects would be appreciated. Thanks. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:02, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried using Google's extra tools to limit results to pre-2016? eg [7] from a Google News search? --Masem (t) 21:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but even then it doesn't really seem to come up with much talking specifically about the original film. I won't struggle finding top 100 film lists or whatever, and prob merch but I'm after the direct cultural impact like on The Shawshank Redemption. Stuff like the massive quotability, references in popular culture, influence on directors, etc. Any help would be appreciated as I'm kind of hitting that peak when I work on articles that it's becoming more work than it's worth and I start slowing down and losing interest. I honestly thought it would be far easier to find sources than it has been. Most stuff has come from those three Vanity Fair/Esquire/Hollywood Reporter articles from 2014. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Ghostbusters – Original Soundtrack at AllMusic
  2. ^ Ghostbusters [Original Score] – Elmer Bernstein at AllMusic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ghostbusters&oldid=913035747"