Talk:Ghostbusters (2016 film)

Charles Dance

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

Citing sources

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

Bill Murray

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

Burt Reynolds and John Belushi

I thought that I would like to see Belushi and Reynolds in their first movie after Dan Aykroyd and Dom Deluise in loose cannons 1990 film

Incoming backlash

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

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

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

Not a Reboot!

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

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

New record?

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

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

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

Let's talk a little about the Marketing section.

The marketing section currently read:

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

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

Agree, disagree?

——

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

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

Ghostbusters 3

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

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

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

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

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

Comicbook.com (source 24) used incorrectly?

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