Talk:Ghostbusters II/Archive 1

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

External Links

Recnetly, an issue came up concerning the external links. Apparantly, the following pages weren't considered reliable sources mostly as they're pretty much fan sites. The links involved were:

Spook Central: The home of a lot of in depth information and behind the scenes photographs of both films. Material which can't be found elsewhere. I'd consider this site worth keeping within the external links as it provides behind the scenes material not available to a site kept in such high regard such as IMDb.

GBProps: I suppose the worth of this one is up for debate... however it (and the not mentioned www.gbpropject.com) provide information for replicating the props from the movie, and for where to find reference material. An item surely to come in handy with people with Halloween approaching.

Ghostbusters.net: Sadly part of it's draw... the online episodes has thus since been removed. But it was never about drawing traffic to the site. Ghostbusters.net is one of the oldest fan forums around, one of the main fan forums around which... under rhe rulw "Links to be used occasionally: 3. On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such."

This effectively justifies the inclusion of at least one major fansite.

Proton Charging: A manjor GB news outlet which has helped to break down the recent rumours where people believed Ghostbusters 3 was being made. The site also contains interviews with people involved with the films, cartoons and other materials which are not a part of the Wiki article.

Ghostbusters HQ: Similar to Ghostbusters.net in regard, it is a major fan site which contains a number of interviews and media for the cartoons and films.

I can understand the reasoning to keep the external links clean and controlled, and to vet some of the entries which get put in as some are only out there for the visitor numbers.

If you feel the links should once again be removed, please consult this section and add to the discussion before removing them again.Kingpin1055 22:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Intro Paragraph

the sci-fi comedy films are about three parapsychologists and their organization

Aren't there four of them? Egon, Ray, Peter and Winston? I don't want to change this without consulting since I don't know if there's a reason it says three, so... any reason it says three? --user.lain 18:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Good question... well, I'm not sure if I'd call Winston a Parapsychologist in GBII, there's nothing showing he's got the certificate for it even though by rights he is an equal member in the organisation. Kingpin1055 21:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Trivia and Cast

I took the liberty of scooting the Trivia section over to it's own page so it doesn't get bigger then the article.

I also shifted the Plot and Cast sections so that the page format would work with the column formatting someone put on them.Kingpin1055 16:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think someone agrees with your idea, Kingpin, if the merge statement is any indication. --Jb-adder (using the IP 129.180.1.224) 02:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I got that impression quickly... you can't win with the shifting policy goalposts here... one person complains that the trivia section is too long, but when I give it it's own article they figure it should be part of the main article... -Kingpin1055 19:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Merge The trivia section isn't that long. --JYMoore 01:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The solution was simple. Reorganize, and integrate the trivia section here, making the trivia unnessecerry, and as all the information from that page was already here, merging was unnessecerry, but I carried out the actions anyway. I have deleted very little, I'm hoping you guys will know better what should be deleted and what should not. TheGreenFaerae 21:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Article needs contributions

It's a shame that this article is only Start-class. There's enough interest in this page to get it up to GA class pretty quickly. Things that I have noticed about the article's structure:-

  • Lead section - a little short. The lead should summarize the article as a whole.
  • Plot - Plot tag may be removed now. Someone has edited the plot down to just over 800 words - well done anon - under the 900 max stated at Wikiproject film style guideline. I've also noticed a little inconsistency in stating actor names after the characters e.g. Ray Stantz now owns an book shop... (no actor in brackets), where as late we have Judge Wexler (Harris Yulin).
  • Development - just a touch too short maybe.
  • Cast - as per film style guidelines cast should come after Development/Production. Also preferrable to write the section with a summary for each character/actor instead of just a list.
  • Reception - No section yet for Reception.
  • Production notes - has a trivia tag and with good cause. Unsourced bulleted trivia is discouraged and the section should be removed or useful lines merged with Development.
  • Novelization - a two liner trivia fact on the book. Is this necessary?
  • References - not enough of them.

- Nreive (talk) 08:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Re-typed the plot

I thought the version of the plot that was here was a little all over the place and there were also grammatical errors, so I've edited it the best I can. If anybody else wants to add more to it, go for it. 195.92.168.176 14:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


It should also be noted that the end credits have scenes that were cut from the film, like when Ecto-1 (2?) is being driven haphazardly. I found out it ocurred after Ray made eye contact with the painting of Vigo. He suffered a bit of road rage.

"The logo used in the movie is unique. Unlike the logo that appears in marketing materials, it is the original, lost design: the ghost has two legs stepping through the red symbol. After it was designed for the movie title intro, the design was lost, so it had to be redone. However, when it was redrawn, they forgot to add in the second leg, so it appears the ghost has only one leg, or a funny-looking tail. It is apparently meant to be a leg, as there is an indication of a foot and an ankle." - I'd like to request a source for this information. To me, the logo appears to have the ghost stepping out of it, with his right leg coming out and his left leg still behind him, as if he were pulling himself though a hole. His arm pushing out on the logo lends to this. I couldn't find anything about an art mistake, but I am willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. If no source is found, I think this should be deleted. Animedude360 09:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Are you Venkman? or the actor who playes the figure Venkman? or where do you know the words so exactly from? In german translation the baby is called Donald, two dimensions missing. May be the museum is a nice room for fancies!--Danaide (talk) 11:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It is fairly obvious if one watches the original opening credits and then looks at any other promotional images for the movie, the loss of the other leg is quite noticable. Despite the fact that no source is currently available that suggests a "loss" of the original image, it remains quite apparent that the two images differ considerably, and I believe this information should be reassimilated into the Trivia section.

"As the shell encasing the museum disintegrates, Louis Tully reaches the museum, exclaiming "I did it!". The Ghostbusters emerge as heroes."

The above statement is incorrect and needs to be changed as Louis Tully reached the museum and fired the proton pack for around 30 seconds to a minute before the slime shell encasing the museum disintegrated and after which he exclaimed "I did it, I am a Ghostbuster".

The reason why I don't want to do it myself is because I am very new to Wikipedia and I am still trying to learn all the formatting and commands that is used here and don't want to make any mistake. --Sleepless In Canada (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Who is Matthew Thurmon

He is listed as the 5th Ghostbuster but I could not find him on IMDB. I also could not find any reference to him even being an actor on the internet at large. I think a reference may be in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.222.150 (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ghostbusters III

In the Sequel section, the article says:

  • Dan Aykroyd has stated over and over that there will not be a 3rd movie.

Considering there is an announcement of Ghostbusters III (here), shouldn't this statement be deleted, or at least rephrased? BAPACop (converse) 05:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

IMO GB3 Should be given it;s own page. And also some of the info on the main artical maybe out of date saying that Bill Murray is a hold out is most likely incorect since his IMDB page shows him as announced to be in the new movie. Just a thought BXCanada (talk) 08:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

As it is noted already, there is a place to read about ghostbusters III and if it happens. Stop using the Ghostbusters II article to spread false fanboy information. The Movie has yet to be confirmed by Bill Murray so your only wasting time posting it. Devilmanozzy (talk) 05:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

References in Popular Culture...Really?!

===References in Popular Culture===

<i>The Sorrowful Putto of Prague </i>webcomic referenced ths film in the story 'The Faithful Witness'<ref>[http://www.theputto.com/comic/?p=334 Theputto.com]</ref> by having the hero, Xavier of the Sorrowful Snows, fight a zombie version of Saint John of Nepomuk to defend what he feels is unfair public and professional criticism of the film.

Been to the link. Where is there anything related to Ghostbusters II? For that matter, how is this webcomic Popular Culture?! Devilmanozzy (talk) 07:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Reason for divorce

Are Americans really so anti-British that Dana would have divorced her husband "when he received an offer to join the London Symphony Orchestra"? I think that is not an accurate summary of what she saidRoyalcourtier (talk) 05:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Gathering sources

Archives for sites blocking me because of stupid GDPR

GA Review

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

Reviewer: CodexJustin (talk · contribs) 15:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My review of this article actually started several days ago and I'm really not seeing much which needs commentary in this review. I would like to see the critical reviews section cleaned up in its comparison with the lede, since the lede is calling it "mixed reviews", and I just don't see any evidence for that in the critical reviews section in this article which are on the negative side. Also, there are updates on completion dates for the 2020 sequel which is currently slated for summer, July 2020, which can be updated in this article. Once you do these, let me know and the rest generally looks fairly good. Images are all checked, and the bibliography is in good shape, showing a well edited article. Let me know when you can get to the critical reviews section. CodexJustin (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Codex, thanks for reviewing this. I've reworded the lead because I wrote that before doing the review section. Apart from reviewers liking MacNicol the reviews were generally negative. I've also added an extra line about the sequel. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:53, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
That looks good. Some small comments on the writing. In the second paragraph of the lede, my suggestion would be to condense its first sentence by dropping the subordinate clause starting with the words "particularly Murray who believed that sequels were...". There is already plenty on Murray in the main body of the article. Also, note that you have 2 giant sentences in the main body of the article over 50 words long. The opening sentence in the Design section is over 50 words long, and the opening sentence in the Release section is over 50 words long. You might want to look at these. Overwise the article looks pretty good. Nice illustrations and thorough coverage. I am going to leave this open over night to see if any other editor might like to comment. Pretty well done with your 300+ edits on this article. CodexJustin (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Fair points, I have amended them. GBII is currently on the waiting list for a GOCE copy edit so that I can look at taking it to FA after GA, so these minor niggles will be hammered out by them but I will have a quick read through to trry and catch any more. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Overnight edits by you look good and no other editors seem to have raised any issues overnight. The GOCE review request is fairly high in the list and I recommend that you update your comment field there to request that an FA level GOCE reviewer do the copy edits at this time since I am promoting the article at this time. I have been thinking of getting the "2001: A Space Odyssey" film article to go for FA nomination as well so I may see there at the FAC. I don't know how you found time to do your 300+ edits on this Ghostbusters2 article though it has benefited the article in a good article way. CodexJustin (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thank you CodexJustin, and I'm a bit OCD, I wasn't going to work on the article but then I started and couldn't stop til it was finished. And let me know if you do take 2001 to FA, I'll be happy to review it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
@Darkwarriorblake: I've just done another read through of 2001 and it looks like its ready for FAC. Earlier this year I read a new 400 page book on the film and I've added a new section to the article with updates to many of the sections. What works as a starting time for doing the review, and I'm assuming that a regular FAC nomination will set it up for you to start your review there. Let me know when you have a preferred time frame to start. CodexJustin (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Whenever is fine, I have to wait for another week until I can nominate another article for FA as I've just finished one nomination. But whenever will work, I'd only be one review among many for an FA nomination. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:28, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
The FAC is started and I have pinged the 5 top editors for the article who should receive notifications soon. Good week-end in the meantime. CodexJustin (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Reboot in the lead

Is it necessary to describe the 2016 reboot as "controversial" in the lead? The lead should only contain the most important information in summarizing the content of an article and while I believe it is necessary to identify the reboot as financially unsuccessful because it better explains why the producers opted to continue the original franchise instead of a new series, also identifying it as "controversial" doesn't have that benefit. The sentence also flows better without the additional "and". Bluerules (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, because it explains why it reverted to a direct sequel. It also read better before it was changed, since it established that they gave up trying to make a sequel, made a terrible film, and reverted to the original series.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
That is all explained with the "financially unsuccessful" identification. Because it wasn't a financial success, the producers didn't see the primary justification (money) in continuing it and came to the conclusion that there was more money in reverting to a direct sequel. Poorly-received properties have received sequels if there was a financial benefit (e.g. the Transformers films), but commercial failure will dissuade producers from investing further money when there's a loss. "Controversial" doesn't translate to "terrible" either; Star Wars: The Last Jedi was "controversial", but a critical and commercial success. So it not necessary to identify the reboot as also "controversial" when "financially unsuccessful" alone explains why the it was replaced by a direct sequel. The previous revision also contradicted itself by saying that the development of a direct sequel ended before stating that a direct sequel is scheduled for release, therefore acknowledging that they did not give up for good and the development of a direct sequel did not end. The lead should be succinct and only state the most necessary facts about the reboot, not reflecting any personal feelings felt about it. Bluerules (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Von Sydow

Is he Vigo's voice? The game already has him as the voice in the game. (JoeLoeb (talk) 05:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

Not in the Movie, in the game he is because the original German actor who portrayed Vigo passed away in 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.55.188 (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Von Sydow did voice Vigo in the movie. They did not use the original voice of the actual actor portraying him. SummeRStorM79 (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Ghostbusters_II/Archive_1"