Jump to content

Talk:Ghostbusters II

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bluerules (talk | contribs) at 20:04, 23 December 2019 (→‎Reboot in the lead). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 And also some of the info on the main artical maybe out of date saying that Bill Murray is a hold out is most likely incorect since his IMDB page shows him as announced to be in the new movie.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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ghostbusters_II&oldid=932147643"