Talk:Ghostbusters II

Hatnote

@Darkwarriorblake: did you read the link I provided? The hatnote should appear precisely because they are disambiguated: "When two articles share the same title, except that one is disambiguated and the other not, the undisambiguated article [ = this article ] should include a hatnote with a link to the other article." – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The example used is for two unrelated articles with the same name. The games are subsets of this article, meaning you can't end up anywhere else by searching Ghostbusters II, all the game articles get around 40 views a day compared to 900+ here so people aren't getting to the wrong place, and those articles are linked in this one, so they're already present in the article if the reader is after them, unlike Dunwich and Dunwich (Lovecraft). Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Thematic analysis

I realise some guy(s) put effort into “thematic analysis” section and I’m sorry but there really is no call for it. The pseudo father bit is ok. But the other stuff is taking the film way too seriously. You ought to consider deletion. Timmytimtimmy (talk) 16:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

• It was a necessary evil of the FAC process. Not to speak too much for the nominator, but adding more "thematic heft" was basically a prerequisite for promotion. I, for one, agree it's silly, but removing it all now is probably not an option. We may be able to sneak one or two bits out though. Indrian (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • We do not remove reliably-sourced content just because we nobodies do not like or do not approve of it. Film criticism is a valid field, just like literary criticism. Blanking sourced content without a valid explanation will result in disruption warnings. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Uh-huh, now that the children with their pointless threats have come and gone, the adults can go back to talking. It's about whether some of the sources are of high enough quality or their authors of sufficient notability for the content to be worth including. No one said film criticism was not a discipline and no one said anything about removing sourced content just because. I merely suggested that individual inclusions could be reevaluated by the original poster if they so chose. I myself have no intention of doing so. If you have nothing to contribute to that particular discussion, you might as well save everyone some time and energy and stay out of it. Indrian (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Biased wording

The wording here is a bit, well, bad, and my changes keep being reverted:

"The film failed to replicate the cultural impact and following of Ghostbusters. Although some retrospective audiences praised it, Ghostbusters II is generally seen as a poor follow-up to Ghostbusters and responsible for stalling the franchise for decades. The film spawned a series of merchandise including video games, board games, comic books, music, toys, and haunted houses. Despite the relative failure of Ghostbusters II, a second sequel was pursued through to the early 2010s. A financially unsuccessful 2016 series reboot led to renewed efforts on a sequel, Ghostbusters: Afterlife, which is scheduled for release in 2021."

What I wrote: "Despite failing to replicate the cultural impact and following of Ghostbusters, the film spawned a series of merchandise including video games, board games, comic books, music, toys, and haunted houses. A second sequel was pursued through to the early 2010s. A financially unsuccessful 2016 series reboot led to renewed efforts on a sequel, Ghostbusters: Afterlife, which is scheduled for release in 2021."

Mine is cleaner and less ambiguous. Who are the "some retrospective audiences"? What's the *cultural impact* of the original "Ghostbusters" that the second failed to replicate?

• It is not biased to state the clearly sourced fact that Ghostbusters II was a creative disaster that stalled the franchise. What is biased is trying to hide that clearly sourced fact; I suppose because you enjoyed it. That's totally fine, people have different tastes, but we follow the sources on general reception and impact. Indrian (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Prodding again to get an update. I still think Darkwarriorblake is biased and wrong. This reads like an opinion piece. Again, who are the "retrospective audiences" that praised it? FishAndCrisps (talk) 07:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I actually thought both movies were godawful. Still, who are the "some retrospective audiences"? Maybe *critics*? Every movie has audiences retrospectively enjoying it. It's how movies like The Room thrive. FishAndCrisps (talk) 08:47, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
    • As I've previously said, try reading the article and not the first 4 paragraphs. And the Room having a weird cult following is something you'd mention in its lead. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:22, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Also, your update is that two people disagree with you. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:26, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I've read the article. I still think "retrospective audiences" is a weasel word. Maybe retrospective critics. I'm changing it. FishAndCrisps (talk) 11:59, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
        • And I disagree. And all the FA reviewers disagree. Gain support here or knock it off. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
          • You also changed "financial failure" of the 2016 film to just failure, which would be considered bias, because as much of a shitshow that film was, it did ok critically. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:28, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
            • Yeah, the "failure" is meant to include the "cultural impact" you're so keen on, but I think we're reached a reasonable compromise here free of this needless posturing. Godspeed. FishAndCrisps (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
• I like Ghostbusters II and I still wrote it, so not that bias. And it's all content that is in the article, and as explained, the lead of the article is a summary of the content of the article. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Canon?

With the release of Ghostbusters: Afterlife, is this movie still canon, or does the new movie disregard this? If the latter is the case, I think the introduction should make a note of this. Josh (talk) 03:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes it's canon? What a weird question. Better to Google the answer than ask randos on Wikipedia Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Merchandise

Per recent edits, I'm not sure if you (JediJones77) are conflating "toys" with "action figures", but they're not the same thing, action figures may be toys but not all toys are action figures. And a contemporary NYTimes source, a well-respected newspaper, is better than a modern film website. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm referring to all toys and action figures. The statement in the NY Times article is simply poorly written and misleading. The Ghostbusters toys didn't sell until Real Ghostbusters came out because they weren't any being made. Please show me evidence of one Ghostbusters toy existing before 1986. There is also a documentary on the GB Blu-rays where Ivan Reitman himself says they did not release toys for the first movie. JediJones77 (talk) 08:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The YouTube source you added says they didn't release toys with the film, which no duh, there is no text saying merchandise was released alongside the film but there are two years between the release of the film and the cartoon and they put the logo on all kinds of MERCHANDISE. "And (arguably) even more influentially, Ghostbusters refined the art of cultivating its public profile aggressively after the public anointed it a full-fledged hit. Yes, Star Wars already demonstrated there was gold in them there toystore hills, but Reitman & co.’s hit proved the concept of turning your movie into its own brand-name entity was not a one-off fluke if you had the right ingredients — or even better, an iconic logo you could slap onto everything from breakfast cereals to bedspreads. T-shirts and action figures were a given; the themed Vegas slot machine, less so." Rolling Stone. "But there was a huge boom after 'Star Wars,' reaching a crescendo with 'E. T.' in 1982, said Thomas Pollock, the chairman of MCA's Universal Motion Picture Group. Then it came to a screeching halt. With 'Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom,' 'Gremlins' and 'Ghostbusters,' the summer of 1984 was the biggest in movie history, but the merchandising was a bust." MCA Chairman Thomas Pollock. It also had a video game released alongside it. Oh and what's this, More Ghostbusters merchandise including Stay Puft toys. Don't change the text again without seeking a third opinion. EDIT: And action figures are toys, not all toys are action figures.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 11:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

"Sequels uncommon in 1989"

What do you mean, "sequels were still rare in the 1980s"? With the death of New Hollywood around 1980 came the rise of the currently on-going blockbuster era entirely built on franchises and sequels. The article itself mentions movie franchises such as Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Karate Kid, and Back to the Future. Even beyond that, and even ignoring earlier movie serials of the 1930s-1950s, by summer 1989, there were:

• five Halloween movies (1978-1989),
• two Alien movies (1979-1986),
• five Star Trek movies (1979-1989),
• four Jaws movies (1975-1987),
• five Freddy Krueger movies (1984-1989),
• eight Fiday the 13th movies (1980-1989),
• three Rambo movies (1982-1988),
• four Rocky movies (1976-1985),
• six Police Academy movies (1984-1989),
• five Planet of the Apes movies (1968-1973),
• and 18 James Bond movies (1962-1989, seven of which from 1977 onwards).

Most of them made within only the last 15 years prior to 1989 (which shows how the trend basically grew out of Jaws, released in 1975), and looking at the individual franchises, it's bloody obvious how the huge explosion came with the death of New Hollywood around 1980. Based on that, I find the statement in the article that sequels were an uncommon phenomenon in Hollywood by 1989 highly contentious and questionable. --2003:DA:CF25:5A42:FC18:B95F:44DF:644D (talk) 14:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

The source in question is from 2014, where sequels then and since make up 90% of films. In 1989, as the text states, there were more sequels released in a single year than ever before, so the presence of sequel films every year was rarer even if sequels did exist. The context also is talking about franchises in particular, at a blockbuster level, so that is Star Wars not Jaws.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

So, where's your source about "90%"? Or any sourced percentage figure of sequels among Hollywood's output in any given year in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s? Also, you obviously didn't read our article on Jaws (franchise), in how already its lead states, with several external sources, that it ushered in the current, hypercommercial, and oversimplistic ("high-concept") blockbuster and franchise era as a "watershed" moment in the history of Hollywood. Of course, it didn't kill New Hollywood right away which still took roughly half a decade, but with New Hollywood out of the way, there was little left to stop blockbusters from taking over the market, as can be seen with films of the blockbuster type exploding in the early 1980s with ever-expanding force on the entire market up to the present day. --2003:DA:CF25:5A42:FC18:B95F:44DF:644D (talk) 22:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I never questioned Jaws was the original blockbuster, I said Star Wars is what popularized film franchises. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)