Talk:Ghostbusters (2016 film)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Consensus on excluding summary statement for critical reception

It seems like the consensus by default among us is to OMIT the summary statement, as RT and MC disagree and there's no consensus to include one on the talk page. To agree to disagree. Starting this discussion here since it's been lost in the sea of arguing. Offer clarification or disagreement here if you must. Otherwise it seems best to list nothing at all and let readers decide for themselves based on what's there.205.160.165.74 (talk) 19:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I think we could reasonable say "It received mixed reviews." without engaging in OR/POV, which does reflect the wide range of review scores that it got and incorporating the discontinuity between RT and MC. But if there is no agreement then just leading off with the RT and MC metrics would be best. --MASEM (t) 20:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with "mixed" either on the basis of average scores on RT and the overall score on MC, but at this point, there should be a clear consensus to include it. So far, it doesn't appear we have one. Usually when something like this draws a lot of attention and edit-warring, it's usually best to leave it out. I'm indifferent on the matter, but I would not support "positive" if there's going to be one. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, there is no way we can have "something something positive" or "something something negative" here, because whichever way you take it is a slant. "Mixed" is a fair summary and remains indifferent, and if the next thing stated in the body is the RT and MC summaries, we then let the reader make the judgment on what is clearly a difficult consensus of reviews to read. (But we do want editor consensus to include here :) --MASEM (t) 00:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Mixed seems the most appropriate based on all the citations and ratings listed. ContentEditman (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Ridiculous. "Mixed" is NOT a compromise of competing views. It's a synthesis. A movie was either positively received, negatively received, or had a mixed reception. When we can't decide, we don't just put "mixed". Our consensus may be mixed on this. It doesn't mean the critics had a mixed reception to it. The citations don't back this. They disagree. The aggregators disagree. The editors disagree. So we leave it out completely.184.96.187.7 (talk) 03:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I feel like it'd be best not too lean too heavily on Metacritic here as an absolute definitive. While it gives the aggregate of 60, that is at the very boundary of what MC describes as "Mixed or Average Reviews" -- a single extra point and it'd be "Generally Favorable". That's not too say I think we should put positive, necessarily, I just don't want us binded on a technicality. I might consider "mixed, leaning positive". – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 03:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that all the authoritative reputable citations say that this movie experienced a favorable reception. I agree that using the word "positive" is too strong here. "Generally favorable reception" with "average reviews" strikes a good balance. The problem is the haters here have hijacked the page. We don't analyze what the citations say, we report it. So what is true and should be reported is overshadowed by a lack of consensus. When that happens, it is best to leave the summary statement out and let the readers decide. Seems appropriate for this crazy movie. But so far the haters are winning this battle. The summary statement keeps going up, saying "mixed." A WP:OR violation is being allowed when in most film articles this wouldn't be allowed. The film's notoriety and the phenomena of internet hate against this movie is clouding the better judgment of this community.184.96.187.7 (talk) 04:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Looking at sources that describe the reception: Fortune [1] Mixed. HWR [2] "a mix of positive and negative reviews from critics". WSJ [3] "It’s mostly positive, albeit with some slimers in the bunch." (which is objectively more "mixed") Metro [4] Mixed. Boston Globe [5] "Mixed bag". I do note most of these that I can find are dated before the proper release of the film but around 70 reviews tracked at RT. It is completely fair to say, in a single summary statement "mixed" given everything said in sources and here. Covering the diverse reception of the film (from professional critics alone, before even getting to the controversy) is necessary make sure why this is "mixed" if it not obvious. --MASEM (t) 05:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The good news is that a polarizing movie like this attracts a lot of attention in secondary sources. After taking a step back and looking at dozens of sources written after July 15 when RT and MC scores settled out, I may have to change my stance a bit here. Below is a list of the ones I came across that actually looked at the overall critical reception (and not necessarily reviewing the movie first hand). Here's what I found:

• Associated Press

"Critics were largely mixed on the movie"

• Palm Beach Post

"Which brings us back to the new Ghostbusters, which has gotten mixed reviews from professional critics and from people who’ve actually seen the movie."

• Breitbart

"Five Thirty Eight, political analyst Nate Silver’s data and poll centric website, ... concludes, 'Based on the Metacritic score and the average Rotten Tomatoes scores, Ghostbusters, like most summer movies, is merely a mediocre-to-good film, critically speaking.'"

• Deadline

States Sony was able to get the critics "on board as they awarded Ghostbusters a 73% fresh Rotten Tomatoes score".

Admits PostTrak saw a downward trend stating, "PostTrak 'definite recommend' fell to an OK 57%, below the awesome 70% figures we saw for Finding Dory and Captain America: Civil War this summer."

• Mic.com

"The critical consensus is much more positive than the internet would want you to believe."

• Huffington Post

"Reviews have been positive but tepid ... the movie has a decent 73 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes."

• The New Yorker

States RT and MC scores, "...doesn’t and can’t measure critics’ levels of engagement. Criticism of the artistry of a movie thus gets wrongly boiled down to an apparent recommendation to see or not to see...", and sums it up by saying "Ghostbusters should very much be seen."

• LA Times

"Moviegoers gave Ghostbusters a B-plus CinemaScore (those younger than 25 gave it an A-minus), while 73% of Rotten Tomatoes critics rated it favorably."

• Moviefone

"Moviegoers who actually did pay to see Ghostbusters gave it a decent B+ grade at CinemaScore, but the grade rose to A- for viewers under 25."

"Beside the positive word-of-mouth ... there were decent reviews from critics, judging by the 73 percent fresh rating at Rotten Tomatoes and the 60 score at Metacritic."

• CinemaBlend

"It will be interesting to see if the positive buzz the film is seeing in reviews will translate into better than expected box office numbers."

• The Wrap

"With big Internet buzz and generally strong reviews from critics..."

• ABCNews.com

"Ghostbusters ... received pretty good reviews"

• The Hollywood Reporter

"But others thought the film could cross $50 million, thanks to generally strong reviews..."

• L.A. Biz

Older women "liked — not loved — it ... while critics liked it an average 73 percent on Rotten Tomatoes."

It is clearly evident that despite the mediocre score at Metacritic, a vast majority of reliable sources believed the trend in reviews was favorable or positive. For every one that says it's mixed, I'm finding 5 or 6 that say it's positive. This shows that we either need to use some form of positive or favorable, or we should leave out the summary statement altogether. Clearly the sources aren't unanimous, so you can make the argument that we are not film review aggregators, and therefore, we should not attempt to research this ourselves. At the same time, however, there are plenty of sources that do agree with a "positive" summary statement. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I would argue that some of these are not the best in terms of RSes (eg Palm Beach), and that it also depends on context and how you read it as some of the quotes states do require synthesis to state they are talking about overall positive reviews, like the New Yorker or LA Times one. Obviously, there's no support at all for a "negative" statement, but I disagree that there's overwhelming evidence to state the summary of reviews were "positive", given the nature of how RT and MC work as the New Yorker alludes to.

An alternative approach we should state "Ghostbusters had received a wide range of reviews on release. On RT it considered "certified fresh" with a 72% approval, while on MC..." It make no attempt to define the middle in our language (letting the RT/MC numbers stand for themselves) and also prepares the reader to understand that they will be seeing positive and negative comments about the film in the next few paragraphs. We absolutely need to put the measuring sticks of RT and MC in this, but the less we try to summarize the better. --MASEM (t) 13:59, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Concur with GoneIn60's reasoning on this, as it reflects the community-at-large. The consensus at this point seems to be to agree-to-disagree, which means to OMIT the summary line entirely. The article reads better without it since the opinion over this is eternally divided over this movie, and probably always will be. We are just reflecting it. However, if we MUST include a summary sentence, the only accurate one according to the authoritative sources on this would be to reflect the favorable-reception is has received. If using the word "positive" is too strong for some, then a summary line that says "the film received a generally favorable reception by critics" is fair. If we need a strong authoritative source for this, around the time the dust was settling, then we couldn't do worse than this one!

This FORTUNE article as of July 12,2016 is authoritative and clearly spells it out with analysis and clear-cut language [6]

"Considering all of that negativity, Ghostbusters has so far fared reasonably well with professional critics. The movie had a rating of 59 out of 100 on Metacritic—which is not far off from the original’s rating of 67—as well as a 78% “fresh rating” on review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes. The latter represents a fairly solid Rotten Tomatoes score for an action-comedy summer release, as evidenced by the 68% rating critics recently handed Warner Bros’ Central Intelligence, starring Kevin Hart and Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, which has earned more than $108 million domestically since its release last month. The new Ghostbusters also has a better Rotten Tomatoes score than last weekend’s box-office champ, Universal’s animated feature The Secret Life of Pets. And, when compared to another high-profile franchise reboot—last summer’s Jurassic World, one of 2015’s highest-grossing movies—Ghostbusters also wins the critical battle."

What I love about this source is that it directly addresses the debate here! It is as if it was written to address the controversy we are having over it. It gives analysis, it is directly quotable, and it comes from a reputable source. It even address the reality-distortion field of the film's negativity.184.96.187.7 (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I think based on the arguments from both sides, we agree on two things: 1) We can't label the reception as "negative" and 2) Having no summary statement is the common middle ground that will satisfy both sides. The source posted by 184.96.187.7 has been quoted several times on this page and is a good one no doubt. However, it is just one opinion and must be taken into consideration with the others. I don't believe it can stand on its own as the sole reference cited for a "favorable" summary statement. Unless a more convincing argument shows that the critics' overall response was favorable or positive, I suggest we bail to the middle ground here and leave the summary statement out. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Rickraptor707, judging by your recent edit summary, I think you missed the most recent discussion. In the previous discussion above, the one thing everyone agreed on was to remove the summary statement until there was a consensus to call it mixed or positive. We never reached a consensus there (and so far not here either), so there shouldn't be a summary statement. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Vote for bailing.haha Seriously though, I agree we should OMIT the summary sentence for now. This is a rare case where the article reads better without it: the perfect metaphor for a film whose existence is completely open to interpretation depending on who you talk to on any given day. Also, just to clarify, I didn't mean to suggest we should ONLY include or go with this quote. I was just saying it is a good one to lead with and some of the others you listed seem to have come to this conclusion.184.96.187.7 (talk) 03:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Review sites:

• Imdb: Mixed
• MetaCritic: Mixed
• Tomatometer: Positive
• Rotten Tomatoes audience score: Mixed

A few online critics:

• Nostalgia Critic: Mixed
• Angry Joe: Negative

Rickraptor707 (talk) 05:02, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

First of all, you are the only one in this conversation that believes a summary statement is required. While some of us are divided between "mixed" and "favorable", we agree to leave out the summary statement as the next best option. Secondly, we cannot take audience scores into account with the exception of CinemaScore grades, nor can we consider web-generated polls such as IMDB (see MOS:FILM#Audience response). Feel free to comment here if you believe there are additional points to consider, but do not edit war in the article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I do not believe that it is required, I believe that an opening statement is helpful to have. Also, Why the hell can't we take audience scores into account? They're reviews aren't they? Professional critics aren't the only ones whose opinions matter!

The truth is that the reviews have been mixed to negative, but the consensus was to omit the phrases "Mixed to Negative" and "Mixed to positive".

Upon finding out about this, I changed it to "mixed", but now, that's not allowed because, apparently, Rotten Tomatoes overrides all the other review sites in the world.

Also, you are not a Wikipedia admin, so you don't have the right to post warnings on my talk page. Rickraptor707 (talk) 01:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Rickraptor707, anyone can place warnings on user talk pages - not just admins. But, speaking as an admin, here's one: stop edit warring please. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:00, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure, if you can explain why having this on the page is such a horrible thing, then yes, I'll stop. Rickraptor707 (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Rickraptor707, see the note I've added to the bottom of this page. It's up to you to gain consensus for your edit if other editors disagree with it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why it can't be in this particular article is explained at WP:CONSENSUS. Clearly, inserting it is going against consensus here. I've already posted a link above that explains the WikiProject's position on audience scores/ratings. If you have a question about that, I suggest you post at the talk page there. Also, if you scroll further up, you'll find at least 9 or 10 sources that support the inclusion of "positive". There are quite a few that support "mixed" as well, which is why we have decided to defer to omitting the summary statement. Your idea that the results are actually "mixed to negative" is not supported by anything we deem reliable. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Regardless which way it is written, the new section begs to have leading statement to explain what the reader should expect to see. Without it (that is, just leading into the RT or MC scores) feels very awkward. It's just that even "mixed" implies trying to assign the score on what is clearly something that one averaged point can't do justice. Thinking about this, maybe "Ghostbusters received a wide variance of critical reactions to the film." This does not attempt to quantify where the average but does tell the reader that they're going to find a number of both positive and negative reviews in the upcoming section. Following this with the RT and MC provides the necessary baselines so that the reader can then judge for themselves how that should be taken but without misrepresenting those sources or without trying to come to a conclusion based on the lack of consistencies in the summaries of reviews. "A wide variance" is not judgement outside of recognizing what is clear from simple observation of the MC score distribution. --MASEM (t) 02:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Having a non-summary opening statement would be welcome. Good idea. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

How about, "The film's reviews have generally ranged from mixed to positive"? Rickraptor707 (talk) 02:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I prefer a non-summary statement in some form similar to Masem's proposal. The reader is about to see the numbers in the following sentences. There's no need to precede them with a "range" in the opening line. I would probably modify it to, "Ghostbusters was met with a wide variance of reactions by critics." --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

But that's basically saying "the film received reviews", a range would give the reader some idea of what to expect from looking at the scores. Rickraptor707 (talk) 02:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

In considering a reader that is already familiar with how films are reviewed, films will get a range of reviews from professional critics, but that range is rarely very wide (20pt on a 100pt scale, roughly). So there's no need to say that for most films. This film is clearly different , with a range of about 70 on the 100 pt scale, so explicitly stating a wide range (without identifying the middle) helps. For the general non-film reader, this of course just helps in general. The thing that we're trying to avoid is to qualify the range with some subjective term, since that is going to be a point of consternation forever here. --MASEM (t) 03:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

It's just an opening to a paragraph; this is a standard literary approach in writing. We want readers to judge for themselves when they see the numbers. Saying "mixed to positive" (or some similar range) is exactly what other discussions agree we should try to avoid. Masem is on point that trying to "qualify" the range will always be a contentious point at this article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

But if we don't summarize the range of the reviews, the only possible opening statement is "the film received reviews", which is just redundant. So, the way I see it, our options are to summarize the overall reception, or omit any type of opening statement. Rickraptor707 (talk) 03:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

We don't need to spell out the details of that range, just that it is wider than one normally sees in most summary reviews of films. And I would stand by that we can make that statement without violating OR or NPOV since it just observation from the data, plus it is also a point reflected in the "summary of review" sources linked above. We shouldn't try to quantify how much bigger the range is, nor try to indicate what the median, mean, or bounds are, letting RT and MC speak for themselves. --MASEM (t) 05:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

For this movie, the RottenTomatoes.com "Tomatometer" is positive for "all critics" while the ratings from "top critics" and "audiences" are grouped together at 59% positive and 57%, respectively. Should this information be noted in this wikipedia article?204.38.4.80 (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

No, carefully read this discussion to see useful comments and links on why we shouldn't include "audience scores". For "top critics" this was brought up in a past discussion, but this link will help clarify the position on that: MOS:FILM#Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Reminder: Per NeilN, please do not engage in edit wars on this article. This history page reflects yet another edit war taking place in the comment tags in the article. Once it is apparent that there is a disagreement, please instead bring it back to the talk page and discuss it instead of reverting. Dane2007 (talk) 05:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not engaging in an edit-war anymore, I was warned by an admin, so, I stopped. Rickraptor707 (talk) 05:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that this article is "begging" for a summary statement. If we do include "Ghostbusters was met with a wide variance of reactions by critics.", then this is simply a benign statement. But let's be honest: it is a bone we are throwing disruptive editors here because the haters of this film have hijacked the page, given the well-documented reality-distortion field of hate that surrounds this movie. It's like saying "mixed" without actually saying it because what they want out of this is acknowledgment that the critics were wrong (according to them), despite the positive reception by critics. But they don't have the sources to claim the movie received a negative reception. So labeling it "mixed" is the next best slam against the movie.

If we have to be honest here, the only summary statement that is true at this point:"The reactions by critics was met the source of contention between fans and naysayers of the film." But I don't expect anyone to go along with this.

Saying "it is wider than one normally sees in most summary reviews of films" is still WP:OR because this is 'ONLY' true according to our analysis of it. There isn't a citation to back up this personal analysis with actual analysis. As far as critics go, this film isn't any more polarizing than the DC comic book movie that came out this year or a Michael Bay film. The wider than normal reaction is with the audience, not the critics. And trying to respect the audiences' split over the film by synthesizing it against the critics' response is our way of imposing how we feel about this film.

I oppose appeasing the appetites of the lowest-common denominator, simply because a handful of disruptive editors can't have their way. The article reads great without a summary line. It's summarized plenty with the lines about the aggregators in the critical section. If something 'must' be included in the lead, then just say: "The film was a source of contention between critics and fans, which was met with a wide variance of reactions by the public." or something along those lines184.96.187.7 (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Gentle reminder that if we do add a summary statement it should be concise and simple. I know they are only example suggestions, but "Ghostbusters was met with a wide variance of reactions by critics" or "The reactions by critics was met the source of contention between fans and naysayers of the film" are word salads. Popcornduff (talk) 11:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

It's good form in writing to have effective transitions when the topic of discussion changes. The proposed statement is simply an opening line in a paragraph introducing a transition. It doesn't need to contain the meat and potatoes of what's being discussed. That said, I don't feel strongly about it either way. If someone wants to add it, I would support it, but if it is being met with opposition, then we should leave it out. I think ultimately it reads fine either way. The only concern I really have is that if we have one, we omit any kind of reference to mixed, negative, or favorable, based on earlier discussions. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, if we omit "mixed", "positive", or "negative"; Then, we're basically saying "the film has received critical reviews", which, as I've said before, is just plain redundant.
Also, I'm not trying to get "mixed" added just to slam the film. I'm trying to get it added because it's the truth. Metacritic gave it a mixed score, Imdb gave it a mixed score, the Rotten Tomatoes audience score is mixed. Can we add the audience scores to the article? Rickraptor707 (talk) 01:26, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't bother repeating. The consensus here is to omit those terms and let readers judge the numbers for themselves. The proposed opening statement is simply a transition statement, and so far, there isn't really a convincing argument either way to include or exclude it. It hasn't been added as of yet. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

That's not what I asked, though. I was asking if I could add the Imdb and Rotten Tomatoes audience scores to the page. Rickraptor707 (talk) 07:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

No, user-based scores are not reliable to include, unless they themselves are noted by reliable sources (and in which case we'd cite that source). --MASEM (t) 14:28, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Why not? They're reviews aren't they? Processional critics' scores can be just as "unreliable" as audience scores. Adding the audience scores would be taking everyone's reviews into account rather than just the professional critics.
Is there anything in the Wikipedia rules that says audience scores can't be used? Rickraptor707 (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

User scores are user-generated content which itself is not reliable for WP's purposes. They are highly subject to user manipulation (particularly in a case like this film) which makes them highly questionable. If third-party sources note the user scores, we can include them in via that source, but we can't use them directly. --MASEM (t) 14:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

In addition to Masem's comments, I noticed you missed this link above, so I'll post it again: MOS:FILM#Audience response. Notice it states, "...they are self-published and have no proven expertise or credibility in the field." --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The part that you quoted is about quoting user reviews, not scores. The part you should have quoted is: "Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew."
I personally think this is stupid, since it basically says that professional critics' votes are better than everyone else's, but they are the rules, nonetheless. Rickraptor707 (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Good point. I should have quoted the latter. Also, the paragraph doesn't suggest "professional critics' votes are better than everyone else's". It is simply saying that the way the scores are collected matters. In fact, it specifically allows the inclusion of CinemaScore audience poll scores (or grades), because they are collected in a professional, accredited manner, unlike IMDB and RT audience scores which can fall victim to vote stacking (the internet version of ballot stuffing). Comments from user reviews are another issue entirely, but no need to get into that since you are apparently only referring to scores. By the way, you may want to have a look at WP:PG for information regarding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. They are not "hard-and-fast rules" and are subject to change over time, since consensus can change. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that. I think this system is flawed because it limits the opinions that are taken into account, to those of professional critics, and, people who saw the film on opening night.Rickraptor707 (talk) 05:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

It does not. It clearly says that any poll "of the public" carried out in an "accredited manner" by a source that passes the WP:RS litmus test can be included. You are only limited to reliably sourced data. That's all this is. If you'd like to challenge it or present a strong argument in favor of modifying this "guideline", then feel free to start a new discussion at WT:Manual of Style/Film. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Potential sequel section

Jeff Bock's word seems more like opinion than a fact. I just kinda think that would fit under critical response or something. Or maybe just rewrite it? Cause it makes it sound like Bock works in industries like that, when really all he is. Is giving an opinion. That doesn't mean he knows a sequel's being made or not. It just means he hates the idea of a sequel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.44.66.248 (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

It is indeed an opinion but is attributed as such to the analyst who offered it. The same could also be said of Rory Bruer's comment. Bock's opinion has been echoed by Entertainment Weekly and the Hollywood Reporter, but Sony has yet to make any official announcement. Until such time, I see no harm in offering attributed expert commentary to the subject of a potential sequel. Scoundr3l (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Box Office Bomb

There's no reliable source on any of this. list the facts and delete the commentary. This is embarrassing to wikipedia. --unbiased passerby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.10.243 (talk) 07:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Box-office analysts say that the film needs $300 million (some say $400 million) to break even after including its hefty marketing costs, etc. It has grossed $154 million, and isn't likely to gross much more than that. What's with the bias against the facts on this film? The box-office failure of Ghostbusters needs to be noted in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C40D:5E90:9597:3743:1F9D:7F86 (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Follow up - I also see that my other topic I had brought up on this page (breaking even) was deleted for no apparent reason. Seems like there's some bias people here, doesn't it? I also added in references to support my statements in the deleted topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C40D:5E90:9597:3743:1F9D:7F86 (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The film is far from being a box office bomb. However, I think it is fair to say the film is a box office disappointment, especially given that they are shelving future sequels based upon the box office (the citations say as much.) But calling it a box office bomb is an exaggeration. It will break even, and probably turn a profit. But that's still a disappointment considering that this film was meant to reboot the franchise. Let's not get carried away here.184.96.187.7 (talk) 04:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

This section was deleted again a day ago. Anyways, costs might be argued to be for restarting a brand, and merchandise sales might play a role in what Sony does next. But as for as it being a bomb... hardly even close. As you said, it break even with budget costs, and we have no idea how sony counts its promotion costs. Ghostbusters as a brand is a ongoing endeavor and Sony might have a very low bar due to the very fact. Batman Begins had the same problems years ago. Yet know one even notes it anymore thanks to it's successful sequel. Devilmanozzy (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the page Box office bomb and List of box office bombs, I notice a couple of things - first, there is no standard definition of a bomb, secondly, there are movies listed as bombs whose gross did surpass their production costs - ie Fant4stic, Ender's Game (film), Green Lantern (film). So far this film has grossed 14 mil more than its production cost. Green Lantern is listed as having grossed 19 mil more than its production costs, and yet is still listed as a bomb. So what does that make Ghostbusters? I dunno, probably have to wait till it finishes its theatrical run, see if we can find authoritative figures for marketing and distribution costs and see if it produces a sequel, or, more to the point, relaunches a franchise or MCU like expanded universe which was Sony's goal in creating this movie to begin with.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 16:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The simplest thing to do is to wait for reliable sources to call it a bomb. DonQuixote (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Here you go (losing 75 million dollars sounds like a bomb to me...): http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2016/08/10/box-office-ghostbusters-is-sadly-a-bomb/#70c416605bfc; http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/08/ghostbusters-box-office-loss; http://movieweb.com/ghostbusters-2-not-happening-box-office-bomb/

It is time to start being honest and call this film the financial failure that it was. At this point, no credible source thinks this movie will break even (the best Sony can muster is to say the "losses" are less than is being reported). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:184:4180:EE0:6C8B:7AE7:2D1A:7FCD (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Also don't forget that gross earnings are not the same as net earnings. A film has to gross roughly twice the cost of its production and marketing budget in order to turn a profit. If it gets close to that number but doesn't cross it, it may still be considered a decent showing by some, if they assume it will get into the black through home media sales. That's why we need to avoid looking at this ourselves and wait for reliable sources to cite success or failure. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

http://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/3402486/ghostbusters-sequel-even-unlikely-remake-bombs/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2016/08/10/box-office-ghostbusters-is-sadly-a-bomb/#5449dc535bfc http://entertainment.ie/cinema/news/Ghostbusters-facing-70-million-loss-sequel-now-unlikely/384010.htm There you go. It bombed. PizzaMan (♨♨) 14:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2016

216.195.224.116 (talk) 00:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The potential for a sequel is dwindling fast due to the fact that the film is a box office flop. This should be acknowledged.

You need to cite a source that says anything like that. DonQuixote (talk) 01:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Source and source. Please use these two sources and add a sentence along the lines of, "In August 2016, media reports indicated that the studio was facing a $70 million loss on the film and was redirecting follow-up projects from sequels to animated series. Sony disputed the media's numbers, saying that they still expected the movie to turn a profit." Thank you. TweedVest (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey Wikipedians, now that we have some sources are you going to answer this edit request? Are any of you even watching the admin logs for edit requests? Wikipedia must really be dying. TweedVest (talk) 22:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The unlikeliness of a sequel is already noted in the section mentioned. --CaptainNtheGameMaster (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The section does not mention the financial failure of the movie as the reason for the unlikelihood of a sequel, which is what both sources above clearly state. Instead, the section cherry-picks a quote in order to imply a lack of interest by the cast and Feig is the reason for no sequel (despite both the cast and director being under contract for two sequels). Thus, the section as written is misleading and factually inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:184:4180:EE0:6C8B:7AE7:2D1A:7FCD (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we have a different understanding of what a fact is, but the speculation of a source is generally not considered one. As yet, there has been no official word from Sony about whether or not there will be a sequel. Do you have an example of other specific information you would like included in the Potential Sequel section? The provided quote is one of the few attributable expert opinions regarding why a sequel is not likely. Since it was the only solid information provided by the source (note that both of the above sources are quoting the same THR article) it's the only solid information we have to include in this article. This is generally known as objectivity. If you'd like to discuss the inclusion of more information regarding the financial losses, I've created a section below with that information. As for the sequel, we've said just about everything the sources have had to say, so far. Scoundr3l (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2016

The "Box Office" for Ghostbusters 2016 shows $194.4 million according to Box Office Mojo, 08/14/16. This is incorrect. If you goto Box Office Mojo right now, 08/19/16 @15:09 PDT, it is $122,860,434

Stoner63A (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done You're looking at the domestic ticket sales. We're reporting domestic and foreign, which is $194,661,740 from BOM right now. --MASEM (t) 22:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)