Talk:Ghostbusters: Afterlife

Possible name change to Ghostbusters III

Resolved

The last original film was called Ghostbusters II, back in 1989. I was wondering if the 2020 version would have a similar name but with III on the end of it. If so, would i be able to move the page in the near future. D Eaketts (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Let's wait until we actually get a title from the producers. Everyone's guessing it will be 3 or III, but we have no strong assurances eitherway. --Masem (t) 20:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

That's why i said possible name change in the near future but i will keep an eye out over the the next year. D Eaketts (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Redirect

Resolved

According to WP:NFF, "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles, as budget issues, scripting issues and casting issues can interfere with a project well ahead of its intended filming date. The assumption should also not be made that because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no 'sure thing' production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film might be included in articles about its subject material, if available. Sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun."

That being said, it's too soon for this film to have its own article on Wikipedia since principal photography hasn't begun yet. According to this source from MovieWeb dated June 4, 2019, "According to a new report, production on Ghostbusters 3 is set to begin on July 14, (2019) in Calgary, Canada." Right now it is currently June and the film is in pre-production, meaning principal photography hasn't begun yet. Unless there are other reliable sources that confirm that principal photography for this film has begun, I suggest that this article should be redirected to Ghostbusters (franchise)#Ghostbusters 3 (2020) for the time being as per WP:NFF.

@Kaito Nakamura: would you please comment on this discussion per WP:BRD? Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

NFF is a guideline, not a policy. Nor can it overright the principle notability guideline, WP:GNG. NFF is important to stop articles on the first hint of a movie project that will be poorly sourced or discussed for months, but when you have a project like GB3 which has already attention and criticism, that's enough to push it over the GNG. Yes, principle filming hasn't started, the project could be canned before then, and as which case we can figure out redirects, but it is stil achieved enough attention for a standalone article. --Masem (t) 22:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation of WP:GNG, Masem. I'm convinced now that this article can be its own standalone article. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you to both Hitcher vs. Candyman and Masem for reaching a positive and solid conclusion to the negotiation of the issue. I would like to apologize for this late comment on the resolved issue and also if any comments I have made sounded aggressive whilst editing the article Ghostbusters 3 (2020). As all other Wikipedia editors should, I always attempt to edit/create articles in the most appropriate and acceptable method possible, whilst still maintaining guidelines such as WP:NFF and many more. --Kaito Nakamura 08:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Trailer

This is probably one of the rare articles where the trailer should be discussed, particularly its reception which from what I remember was polarised between fans of the original and people upset it dismissed the terrible, terrible reboot. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Was it more the trailer or the fact Reitman came out and said it would ignore 2016 GB? That's what got Leslie Jones upset, and that we have in here. If there's other commentary that could be added there, its possible but keep in mind the counter-statements that Reitman and Feig said to temper those complaining about it. --Masem (t) 14:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I imagine view count of the trailer and general feedback. I do recall a lot of commentary about it, the comparison to the 2016 film was a part of that but not the entirety. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Which Reitman

In some parts I'm not sure which Reitman you mean - director Jason whether producer Ivan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.5.15.18 (talk) 06:41, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Official confirmation of the title "Afterlife"

Resolved

Where was the official confirmation of the title "Ghostbusters: Afterlife"? TheBigMan720 (talk) 05:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

All sources that I've seen point to a BBC classification website related to a trailer aimed to come out this week or next, which is nowhere close to official. If the trailer does confirm the title, then that's fine, but not the classficiation site. --Masem (t) 06:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I would clarify myself: that was the BBFC classification board, but still the same issue. If the trailer is out in a few days, we can wait until that confirms. --Masem (t) 18:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay then why did someone put the title "Ghostbusters: After Life" should we just wait for the official announcement first? TheBigMan720 (talk) 06:35, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Also in the BBC report it shows a different release date too. So we can't rely on the BBC report. TheBigMan720 (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Just to point out you guys appear to be confusing the BBC with the BBFC. Gistech (talk) 22:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. How can you guys stop random IP’s from changing the title constantly?TheBigMan720 (talk) 02:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Is Vanity Fair official enough?--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Ghostbusters: Afterlife's alternate names

None of the trailers call it Ghostbusters III or 3 in the actual trailer. It's either "Ghostbusters: Afterlife" or "Ghostbusters: Legacy". ‎Wikipedia editors should be more mad than I am about it. Citation needed for the Ghostbusters III/Ghostbusters 3 name before being listed. What trailers say in them "Ghostbusters 3"? A link is needed. Thanks. Devilmanozzy (talk) 06:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Also adding, note user Scriptboy12 previous contributions (1 edit), (2 edit), (3 edit), (4 edit... No Ghostbusters 3 named in that article by Vanity Fair), etc. The guy is "owning" the article. Devilmanozzy (talk) 06:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

There is a point that before the official Afterlife name, journalists were using one of both Ghostbusters 3 and Ghostbusters 2020 to refer to the film. At least with GB 2020, this was always known to be a placeholder title, but people may be only aware of that title for the film and will not necessarily see that connection. It can be -- but it gets complex here due to the secondary official name - to include those placeholder titles. --Masem (t) 06:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm just tired of seeing this wikipedia page referenced when saying "Ghostbusters 3". Ghostbusters 3 ended years ago in 2014. It was called "Ghostbusters 2020", and now it's "Ghostbusters: Afterlife"/"Ghostbusters: Legacy". I gave up a while back trying to work with Wikipedia as you have to live here to make anything stick. I'm asking for the actual editors here to either put a citation on it or keep it off the page. It's very bothersome and misleading. You got people using the page as a self made reference. Be aware of this. Devilmanozzy (talk) 08:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

"Ghostbusters: Legacy" redirects here (but this alternate title is not listed here),~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C22:BC19:C900:51D:2A0:3174:A14B (talk) 09:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Budget???

I really wanted to know the budget of this film and I checked the usual places[1][2] and more but I have not yet found any sources that just state it outright. Say what you will about the 2016 film but the big budget made it far more difficult for it to become a financial success, and without a budget figure it will be difficult to say objectively if this film was successful or not. Keep in mind, Jason Reitman has directed various films and generally speaking the budgets have been below $20 million but presumably an effects heavy film like Ghostbusters is going to cost considerably more than the films he has directed in the past, so I'd have been very surprised if the budget was any less than $50 million. In one interview Reitman did say the budget "was about a third the cost of a typical Marvel outing"[3] but what does a typical Marvel outing cost? If you look at the budgets for MCU films listed at The-Numbers.com then we are looking at $150 million to $200 million, which gives us a ballpark figure of $50-66 million. That sort of estimate is interesting but I don't think it is good enough for an encyclopaedia article.

I expect Sony will admit what the budget was if the film performs well at the box office. I guess we will have to wait and see how strong the opening weekend is and if reliable sources say anything about the budget. -- 109.79.168.197 (talk) 12:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

That didn't take long. Variety reported that the film cost $75 million [4] -- 109.79.178.223 (talk) 01:50, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Box office projections say the film should make about $30 million in its opening weekend, and by normal standards making back half its budget at the domestic box office would be a great result. But these are not normal times so we will have to wait and see. -- 109.76.211.174 (talk) 12:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Plot?

Are we waiting for tomorrow when the film drops in the US, or can we add a proper Plot section now, given the film has already released in some territories (like the U.K.)? giftheck (talk) 16:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd have posted it after it was shown in Venice if could have. I dont see any reason to wait. -- 109.76.211.174 (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so here's what I've got. Trying to keep it within the 700-word limit.

I did some editing, mostly trimming unnecessary details, length, wordy sentences, eliminating prepositional phrasing, revising to passive to active voice phrases, etc. PNW Raven (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Plot

37 years after the Manhattan Crossrip, Egon Spengler has moved to Summerville in Oklahoma, where Gozer cultist Ivo Shandor had built a mine and the town. Egon captures a ghost in the mines of Ivo Shandor, aiming to use it to lure a larger ghost to his farm, where he has set a trap for it. The trap fails, and Egon is killed by the ghost.

Callie, Egon’s estranged daughter, and her two children, Trevor and Phoebe, are evicted from their home and forced to move into Egon’s farm in Summerville. Trevor meets Lucky, a local girl working in a diner, and Phoebe is enrolled in the local school, where she is left under the care of Gary Grooberson, her teacher. Janine Melnitz informs Callie that Egon left behind a large amount of debt.

While sorting through Egon’s belongings, Phoebe finds a PKG Meter and is led by an unseen ghost to a ghost trap, while Trevor finds Ecto-1. Lucky takes Trevor atop the mountain, where he reveals why his family has moved to Summerville. A ghost escapes the mines.

Phoebe brings the ghost trap to school to show to her friend, Podcast, where Gary unveils that Summerville has been suffering daily earthquakes despite not sitting on a fault line, tectonic plate or volcano. Gary, Phoebe and Podcast open the ghost trap and the ghost within escapes into town.

Phoebe is led by the unseen ghost to an underground lair where Egon kept his ghostbusting equipment. Realising that the ghost is Egon, Phoebe mends a proton pack under his direction and tests it the next day, encountering the metal-eating ghost Muncher inside a factory. Muncher escapes capture and flees into Summerville, where Phoebe and Podcast meet with Trevor in a repaired Ecto-1. They give chase and successfully capture Muncher, but are arrested by the police for property damage and Ecto-1 and the ghostbuster gear is confiscated. She contacts Ray Stantz, who reveals that Egon had stolen Ecto-1 and the majority of the Ghostbusters’ gear ten years after the Manhattan Crossrip incident before moving to Summerville, in the belief that Gozer was going to attempt to return again.

Trevor, Phoebe, Lucky and Podcast return to the mine, entering from atop the mountain. Inside the mine, they find a temple dedicated to the resurrection of Gozer. They also find the body of Ivo Shandor, and a trap Egon had set up to contain any potential incursion by Gozer.

Gary and Callie are possessed by Vince Clortho the Keymaster and Zuul the Gatekeeper, respectively, and run to Ivo Shandor’s mine. The Keymaster destroys Egon’s trap, allowing Gozer to manifest and Ivo Shandor to wake up. Gozer kills Shandor and takes her throne in the temple. Phoebe, Trevor, Lucky and Podcast discover Egon’s plan to trap Gozer, and gear up and enter the mine again to enact it. Podcast traps Zuul, casuing Gover’s form to falter. Callie is restored, and they flee the mine to Egon’s farm in order to draw Gozer there. The trap fails, and Gozer breaks Zuul out of the ghost trap. Zuul possesses Lucky, and Gozer is restored.

Venkman, Ray and Winston arrive to aid the Spenglers in stopping Zuul, but Zuul is able to break free by uncrossing their streams. Phoebe attempts to save them by herself. The ghost of Egon materialises beside her to help. Trevor powers the trap with his proton pack, and the traps are triggered, trapping Gozer, Zuul and Vince Clortho within them. Egon embraces Callie, Trevor and Phoebe, and acknowledges his former colleagues before vanishing into the afterlife.

In a mid-credits scene, Dana Barrett submits Venkman to the psychic test from the first film. In a post-credits scene, Winston has brought Ecto-1 back to New York and meets with Janine, before returning to the firehouse.

Needs a bit of polish, but I think this captures all the major points. giftheck (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I dont see any reason to wait. Please note WP:FILMPLOT "Mid- and post-credit scenes should generally not be included in the plot summary." Also MOS:NUMERAL better to use the word instead of the number in plot section. -- 109.76.211.174 (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:FILMPLOT recommends 400-700 words and the plot section has bloated to over 700 words. The wording of the credits scenes has become increasingly bloated, again please note "Mid- and post-credit scenes should generally not be included in the plot summary" and see also WP:STREAMLINE. -- 109.78.207.200 (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

The mid-credits scene is the only appearance of Dana in the film, so it should be briefly mentioned. The post-credits scene is plot appropriate (compariable to any MCU post-credit scene) setting up for a sequel, so a slightly longer bit there would make sense --Masem (t) 17:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I dislike how there seems to be an exception to every rule and the rules are not even consistently applied to begin with, but anyway... You say this end credits sequence is comparable to a Marvel film, but I do not believe that is the case. That Weaver makes a cameo is great but in terms of essential plot points it is even less important than the cameo Potts makes earlier in the film (and although it is nice to have details I think it would be enough that the Cast section mentions her). The scene with Ernie Hudson might turn out be important later, like in a Marvel film, but we cannot know that yet. Even if editors believe an exception to the rule should be, the plot section still needs a trim. -- 109.78.207.200 (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Gozer played by Emma Portner

Pre-release, the article stated that Olivia Wilde was playing Gozer. This was the source: https://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/ent/exclusive-olivia-wilde-ghostbusters.html

I can't speak to the usual validity of this publication, because this is the first time I have encountered it, but every publication that repeats Wilde's casting as Gozer seems to list it as their source. The article's own source states that 'our source tells us she's playing Gozer'. No mention of who the source is, which makes this dubious at best. When this is the 'trusted and confirmed' sources, which certainly just looks like a 'leaks and scoops' page, it definitely brings this article into doubt as a verifiable source. I'm actually kind of surprised this hasn't been brought up sooner.

Wilde is not credited in the film's end credits. Emma Portner is. This can be backed up by one of the reviews of the film: https://www.fwweekly.com/2021/11/17/afterlife-give-up-the-ghost/ Any attempt to suvert this and say it's 'clearly' Wilde even though she's not credited and the one original source saying she's playing the role is of dubious reliability seems to constitute WP:OR. giftheck (talk) 11:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm actually kind of surprised this hasn't been brought up sooner. I'm not surprised at all, this article was full of basic formatting errors, and content errors almost inevitable follow technical errors. That's Wikipedia for you, but at least we can fix it. Giantfreakinrobot.com is a site from the guy who originally founded CinemaBlend.com and although I wish it was more reliable and rigorous they are only as unreliable as most other web publishers, like Screenrant and CBR.com etc. They are clearly wrong here, out of date at best. Anyone who has seen the film should be able to tell it is clearly not Wilde even without reading the end credits. I would have noticed if Olivia Wilde was credited, I was watching the credits carefully to make sure if I'd heard right and Shohreh Aghdashloo did in fact voice Gozer. -- 109.76.211.174 (talk) 12:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems overnight she's been added in (and marked as uncredited) with two different sources: the ihorror one, which directed back to the giantfreakinrobot source, and the screenrant source, which just states she is without providing any further information or evidence to corroborate. Can screenrant be considered a reliable source for this, since it doesn't verify the assertion? giftheck (talk) 09:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

"Unconfirmed reports prior to Ghostbusters: Afterlife's release alleged that Olivia Wilde (House, Vinyl) would be playing Gozer. Those rumors did turn out to be true, as Wilde does indeed play Gozer." That's all the article says. It doesn't back it up. It doesn't say 'she was uncredited but her appearance was confirmed by such and such publication'. Other publications (such as comicbook.com) also make this assertion with nothing to back it up. While I have no issue with attributing the role properly, all I have seen so far is a dew outlets saying 'yeah, it's her', possibly because of that rumour. To that end, does it not sink into WP:OR territory to say that Wilde is playing Gozer, since the film does not credit her, and no publication can actually certifiably say this is the case by backing up their claim? giftheck (talk) 14:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:RSPS Screenrant is only "marginally reliable". You can tag it {{better source needed}} I guess. -- 109.78.207.200 (talk) 04:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

That sure was some heavy makeup. Even after repeat viewing I still didn't think it was Olivia Wilde but Vanity Fair was on set and confirmed it.[5] -- 109.79.164.223 (talk) 03:26, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Quote changed

Not sure if malicious vandalism or good faith incompetence but an editor modified quoted text without explanation. (I checked the Vanity Fair article the quote was correct and should not have been changed.) It is too late to cleanly revert the edit[6] and too difficult to fix from my mobile device. I hope someone will try to manually revert it and check to see if the edit made any other mistake. (I won't be in a position to fix it myself today.) -- 109.76.211.174 (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Article has been locked and no one else has attempted to fix the quote so I am forced to make a {{semi protected edit request}} to fix changes to quoted text that shouldn't have been allowed to happen in the first place.

In the Production section (Afterlife development subsection), please restore the quoted text:

• Change X: "It's got lots of family in it, with through lines that are interesting."
• back to Y: "It's got lots of family in it, with through lines that are really interesting."
  • The word really was inexcusably deleted from the quoted text, trivial vandalism is still vandalism.

I'd also like to make second separate edit request:

• Change X: "The score includes new material as well as utilizing material" ...
• to Y "The score includes new material as well as reusing material" ...

There is almost never a good reason to use the word "utilize" (although on rare occasions it can breakup the monotony of using the word use too many times already). -- 109.78.207.200 (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done, and pinging WikiMaster2K15. Looks like they were copyediting and made a honest mistake. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 10:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Changing quoted text is a huge mistake, it is either malice or incompetence. Stripping spacing and indentation is also a mistake. It is disappointing that the edit was not automatically flagged with warnings, it is more disappointing that a problem like this happened and an anonymous editor like me has to point it out instead of there being systems to prevent it happening or insiders to revert it. At least it is fixed now. -- 109.79.77.171 (talk) 13:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The game is not canon to Afterlife

Years ago, Dan Akroyd said Ghostbusters the Video Game was canon. However, there's several continuity issues that arise if you're looking at Ghostbusters: Afterlife:

• Egon steals the Ghostbusters equipment in 1994 after years of trying to convince his fellow Ghostbusters to prepare for Gozer's return. Now, the game is set in 1991, but there's also the fact that, inscribed in the Gozerian temple in the film are the years Gozer will attempt to return. 1991 is not up there.
• Given the above, it makes no sense for Gozer's return to be ignored by the Ghostbusters, given they had just thwarted a second such attempt.
• Ivo Shandor becomes the main antagonist in the game but is destroyed at the end. In the film, Ivo Shador has been buried in the Gozerian temple within his mine and only comes back to life when Gozer is released.
• No mention is made of any expansion of the Ghostbusters business. The film actually states it collapsed because of Egon's actions.
• Shandor's skull is found by the Ghostbusters, this would be impossible if his body, fully-intact, is in Summerville.
• According to Ray, it has been over 30 years since the last ghosts appeared. Since 1993 (when the game takes place) is 'after' that time, it means he's talking about Vigo being the last incident.
• Gozer is supposedly permanently destroyed in the game.

Therefore, I would argue that, with these inconsistencies, the game is no longer canon, or at least is not canon to Afterlife. It would still be in continuity with the first two films, that's not up for debat. Just not Afterlife. giftheck (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Canonicity matters to fans, people care about consistency in the narrative they've invested time in learning, and it annoys them when sloppy writing ignores or sweeps aside or otherwise rewrites previously established parts of the story as they know it (I still get annoyed about one particularly unnecessary change in The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King and it has been nearly two decades). However it is not clear how any questions of canon are relevant to improving this encyclopedia article about the 2021 film Ghostbusters Afterlife. So if we are to bring it back to this article specifically then, I recommend removing the mention of the Ghostbusters: The Video Game from the cast list entry for Ivo Shandor. (The mention of G:TVG in the Production section seems fine.) -- 109.78.207.200 (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Production section and Production subsection

The article currently contains two sections labelled "Production". This is a bad thing. The subsection "Production" discusses creature design and what lead to the creation of "Muncher". This part of the film Production could be named in various better ways but it seems best to try and keep it consistent with the article for the first Ghostbusters film and file it under Ghostbusters#Design or Ghostbusters#Creature_effects. -- 109.78.207.200 (talk) 14:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done to "Design". ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 10:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Order of events are wrong

I noticed that a certain part of the order of events did not fit from what I have watched, the part where Phoebe, Podcast and their teacher accidentally freed the ghost trapped inside and when Trevor and the other part-time workers saw a ghost coming out of a hole, so could someone please place the former event before the latter, as I am sure that the ghost escaping and the ghost coming out are the same ghost?(Also, I am half-certain that ghost is Vinz Clortho, as Zuul have possessed Callie while she was still at the house.) 128.106.236.244 (talk) 01:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

("Order" is singular, too… Just saying. 😉 – AndyFielding (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2022 (UTC) )

Orphaned references in Ghostbusters: Afterlife

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Ghostbusters: Afterlife's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "score2":

• From Ghostbusters (2016 film): "Ghostbusters (Original Motion Picture Score) by Theodore Shapiro on Apple Music". iTunes. Apple Inc. July 8, 2016. Archived from the original on 21 September 2016. Retrieved 24 July 2016.
• From Ghostbusters: Afterlife (soundtrack): Kaye, Ben (November 12, 2021). "Ghostbusters: Afterlife Official Soundtrack Announced, Two Tracks Released: Exclusive". Forbes. Archived from the original on November 23, 2021. Retrieved November 23, 2021.
• From Ghostbusters (2016 soundtrack): "Ghostbusters (Original Motion Picture Score) by Theodore Shapiro on Apple Music". iTunes. Apple Inc. Archived from the original on 21 September 2016. Retrieved 24 July 2016.

Reference named "score1":

• From Ghostbusters (2016 film): "Theodore Shapiro to Score 'Ghostbusters' Reboot". Film Music Reporter. September 24, 2015. Archived from the original on September 26, 2015. Retrieved September 27, 2015.
• From Ghostbusters: Afterlife (soundtrack): Weiss, Josh (November 22, 2021). "'Ghostbusters: Afterlife' Composer Rob Simonsen On Bridging The Spiritual Gap Between 1984 And Today". Forbes. Archived from the original on November 23, 2021. Retrieved November 22, 2021.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Public Critical Consensus

Rotten Tomatoes now also publishes public consensus from the "verified public". From what I researched, this audience needs to prove it with the movie ticket to be verified at RT. The question is, is it relevant to Wiki?Theys York (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

It is still a user voted web poll. Fandango may have restricted it to make it slightly less unreliable but it will never be a reliable source. Even if you were to ignore that and include it anyway you can still expect selection bias and it will skew positive in most cases. The box office reporting often provides a more reliable commentary on audience response, there has clearly been positive word of mouth for this film but we don't need to resort to Rotten Tomatoes audience ratings to show that.

If you can find secondary sources that highlight the Audience score (how it is significantly more positive than the critic score) then maybe we might have a reasonable justification to make an exception and include it, but it would be better if you found other ways using reliable sources to focus on the underlying point that this film was clearly received positively by audiences.[7] -- 109.79.164.223 (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Gross in the lead

Can I ask the IP why they keep reverting others over the gross mentioned in the film? There is no rule that mandates being approximate afaik, at least not in the lead. And accuracy is important here. The film made over 147 million. Not 147 million. That will be confusing for people who don't know how numbers work here. Also if you're being reverted by multiple people you should stop reverting. Try seeking a consensus first because clearly one man reverting two means you're outnumbered and the only one fighting over it. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 07:39, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

It is not good writing, it is disappointing that some editors could not see that. There are so many Wikipedia rules it is difficult to know or even remember half of them but the Large Number and Rounding numbers guidelines addresses this issue:

MOS:UNCERTAINTY "Avoid using "approximately", "about", and similar terms with figures that have merely been approximated or rounded in a normal and expected way"

The box office gross is rounded in the normal standard way, it should not be confusing to anyone who understands the basic principles of how rounding numbers normally works. See also Template:Infobox film gross which points to MOS:LARGENUM. If you really want to be precise I'd be happy to write the exact numbers (particularly in the Box Office section) but the consensus was to round the numbers so the same old guidelines on rounding numbers still apply.-- 109.78.202.157 (talk) 23:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@109.78.202.157: I hate to tell you this but MOS:UNCERTAINTY is just a redirect, Nothing Less Chip3004 (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

it is a redirect to subsection of the manual of style. if the redirect isn't working for you here's the full link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Uncertainty_and_rounding and the text I quoted is near the end of the list -- 109.78.202.157 (talk) 02:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@109.78.202.157: Policies you cite allows usage of terms like over if the reader might be misled. "Avoid using "approximately", "about", and similar terms with figures that have merely been approximated or rounded in a normal and expected way, unless the reader might otherwise be misled." Read the last sentence. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

if the reader might be misled I can see how you might choose to interpret the guideline that way but to emphasize the last clause and expect so little from readers you are setting the bar incredibly low. I'm simply repeating what the guidelines are already saying, that most normal readers can be expected to understand how rounded numbers work when they are rounded in a normal and expected way. The box office gross figures are rounded in the standard way and it is not unreasonable to expect readers of an encyclopedia to understand how rounded numbers work. MOS:LEAD is supposed to summarize, keep it simple. If you really believe anyone is likely to be mislead by rounded numbers there is plenty of opportunity to further explain the figures in the Box office section. Adding "over" "under" "around" does very little to avoid readers being mislead in more significant and fundamental ways. (Box Office Mojo is not as accurate as you might think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Film_finance_task_force#Box_Office_Mojo but I'd say they do a reasonable job with the fuzzy information they get from the studios and the distributors.)

If we are concerned about not misleading readers there are bigger problems we should try to address. Listing the headline box office gross can give readers the false impression that a film is financially successful when that is not necessarily the case. If reliable sources can be found we need to give more context and we need to begin to address the murky details of Hollywood accounting and try to explain what the actual breakeven point might be. To do that we need to try to explain about other significant costs such as Marketing (P&A) and if possible go even further and try to find out more about revenue sharing agreements Sony might have with the theaters and to find out film was truly profitable. But good sources are hard to find and the bigger problem of presenting box office information in a way that is easily understandable but not misleading is much harder to fix than a word or two in the lead. I'm not really saying anything new here, this is only my paraphrasing some of the old discussion that lead to the guidelines being what they are now. -- 109.78.202.157 (talk) 02:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The readers can misinterpret and it's a fact. Not everyone is good at numbers. And how are you going to decide what is the competency of a reader?

MOS:LEAD is supposed to keep it simple but that doesn't mean eliminate one or two words for it. You're using policies that make no sense.

Also you're answering yourself the question. If BOM is not accurate then maybe saying over is better because we're trying to be accurate and approximate at the same time? After all the grosses are just an estimate. And will you please quit reverting endlessly already AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 04:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

MOS:LARGENUM is saying readers should be expected to have a basic understanding of numbers, the only thing I'm deciding is that we should follow the existing guidelines. You continue to ignore the warning of MOS:UNCERTAINTY against using unnecessary qualifiers: "Avoid using "approximately", "about", and similar terms with figures that have merely been approximated or rounded in a normal and expected way". You have absolutely not given sufficient reason to ignore that guideline.

You seem to be worried about accuracy and think that the word "over" is important but when it comes to accuracy and Hollywood there are much bigger problems than normal rounding of a number, you are looking at a tree and missing the forest. Emphasizing the box office gross without explaining that the break-even point will be millions higher than readers (especially those not good at numbers) might expect it itself far more misleading than tiny amount the word "over" could possibly represent. The film is still in theaters, the studios have not yet claimed the film has broken even or made a profit yet. The numbers are not the end, they are there to try answer the larger question if the film was financially successful (or not), that is point that should be emphasized. -- 109.76.201.155 (talk) 14:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

There is no such claim in MOS:LARGENUM that the reader is expected to have a basic understanding. Please provide one statement that says so from there. MOS:UNCERTAINTY clearly says "unless the reader might otherwise be misled." There's your reason.

You are basically admitting that my editing is attempting tobe accurate. Please stop edit-warring and removing because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Now MOS:LARGENUM says a reader might presume large numbers as approximations but maybes aren't a definite. The numbers are important becaude they establosh how much the movie made. You are fighting over your preference. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 05:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I was politely saying that the intent of AbsolutelyFiring might be to be accurate because it is more polite than stating that the actions are pedantic and treating readers like idiots. The WP:ONUS is on AbsolutelyFiring to show that there is any real chance of any reasonable person failing to understand that the "figures that have merely been approximated or rounded in a normal and expected way". AbsolutelyFiring seem to belive that most readers are basically innumerate. From the start I've said this was simply bad writing (there's not need to write "over" or "under" when rounding numbers) but even when shown guidelines AbsolutelyFiring refuses to follow them. On top of that the tiny amount of money represented by rounding is irrelevant is the context of a film actually being financially success or not.

I'm going to have to get a neutral WP:3RD opinion. -- 109.79.73.152 (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I already did provide you a reason - the reader might not understand it especially if they're poor with numbers. In fact I myself didn't understand in past why the figures were written in such a way. And as far as WP:ONUS goes you admit you're correct by trying to deflect by argument with the incorrect claim that "MOS:LARGENUM is saying readers should be expected to have a basic understanding of numbers."

And when will you stop edit-warring with multiple editors reverting you? Maybe see that when you're alone it doesn't make sense to keep reverting? WP:3RR and WP:CONSENSUS are far more important. And there is no one in your favour. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 14:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Even readers extremely poor at numbers are not likely to be mislead by simple rounding and the rounding here is incredibly simple. The gross $174,809,498 is rounded to $174.8 million the difference is just $9,498 that is literally 0.005% of the total. Thousands of dollars might seem like a lot but in the context of $74 million budget and a $175 million gross it is insignificant. Good writing is concise and direct and does not include unnecessary irrelevant words (unlike my own frequently verbose writing). Readers are far more likely to be mislead by the over simplistic assumptions that the films is profitable based on the millions grossed, have anything to do with the net profit or actual breakeven point. So long as the article does not have information about what was spent on other costs such as P&A or marketing we have far bigger problems. -- 109.79.73.152 (talk) 14:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

And how would you know what they would understand or what they wouldn't? It's clear to me you're deciding what their comprehension is to justify removing it. And btw I myself didn't understand why there used to be a gross without decimals, I'm pretty good at numbers. Your statement is absolutely untrue and has no evidence.

A $9000 difference is very miniscule. But a $800,000 is large enough. And btw grosses are estimates, not accurate. So it makes sense to round them with as least number as possible. There's nothing to stop someone from adding 174.81 million. This is a you problem, not a problem of others. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Since some people are bad at math let us call it an even million, against a gross of $195 million that is still less than 1% and definitely not significant. In the context of a break even point of at least $275 million[8] it is misleading to present the budget and gross to give readers a false impression the film was a box office success. As I already tried to explain the tiny amount money rounded off is utterly irrelevant compared to the millions lost. Although the film might eventually a lot more money in home media and merchandise sales, We certainly cannot claim the film was any kind of financial success. -- 109.76.201.241 (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@109.78.202.157: Since Ghostbusters Afterlife is still in theaters, It is apporiate to leave The Term "Over" in the Gross Section until the Movie leaves the Theaters sometime next month. Chip3004 (talk) 20:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

The numbers have stabilized, the film has left theaters just about everywhere but someone is still insisting on ignoring [[MOS:LARGENUM] and including the qualifier and inconsistently writing "over $195" in the lead instead of consistently writing "$195.2 million" same as the Infobox and the Box office section. -- 109.76.201.241 (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Box office mojo lists the Box office gross as $195,241,789 but The Numbers lists the gross as $195,271,657, the Box office mojo figure rounds to (just over) $195.2 million but the figure from The Numbers would round to (just under) $195.3 million. -- 109.76.201.241 (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Plot skips around?

WP "Plot" sections are usually written from the viewpoint of someone watching the film. If you've seen this one, you know that Egon's activities on his farm—and that it even is Egon—aren't revealed till later. It's quite intentional. So it seems odd that this Plot section spoils the reveal. (Does it do this elsewhere too? Dunno, I stopped reading.) Would you enjoy having someone sit with you in a cinema and describe plot points before they happened? Nope, didn't think so. I haven't presumed to change it—but I would, if I were that presumptuous and had the time. – AndyFielding (talk) 12:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I feel this falls under the remit of WP:Spoiler in that removing the information because it 'spoils' the plot is not acceptable. In the case of the film, it's revealed within the first ten minutes that it's Egon. Plot sections have to be as concise as possible, so it makes sense to keep it the way it is. However: you may have a point about some of it being where it is. giftheck (talk) 12:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, plot summaries are allowed to move details around if it makes the summary more concise and is logically more narrative. This isn't likely a murder mystery where the whodunit part is actually part of the plot. --Masem (t) 13:00, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I totally agree that there should not be unnecessary plot details outside of the plot section and I sympathize. I absolutely agree that it is good writing to explain things in the order that they happen, and editors should do that if at all possible. I do not think it is possible in this case. Despite that and due to WP:FILMPLOT requirements that the plot section must be concise and the other conflicting requirements that the plot section must be complete, sometimes things will have to be explained slightly out of order for clarity and brevity. I cannot see a better way to do it in this case, I really don't think it would be possible to keep the plot summary concise, and as others have said it is only a little later that it becomes entirely clear who the dirt farmer was (IIRC when Janine Melnitz shows up that is the point when it was unambiguously clear that it was Egon). You can always still change it you can rewrite to be both concise and chronological, Wikipedia is a work in progress. -- 109.76.201.241 (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Nominations table

The nomination table needs to be updated to include the films BAFTA nomination for Best Special Visual Effects--MKL123 (talk) 20:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:GOFORIT. Please make sure to include a reliable source too. -- 109.79.175.86 (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Poster billing block

Some editors made changes to the cast listed in the Infobox. They did not follow the WP:SIMPLE rule and explain their changes with an edit summary. I reverted some of those changes and restored the status quo. Finally in an entirely separate edit (this was very deliberate) I added a hidden comment clarifying that the cast list in the Infobox was per the poster billing block, and (because the principle of Wikipedia:Verifiability is important) to make it easier for editors to actually check the small print and verify I included a link to a larger copy of the poster image.

Rather than making a good faith effort and reverting only that very last single edit[9] or deleting the link text, instead an editor reverted multiple edits and made an utterly bizarre and absurd claim that a text link could somehow be a WP:COPYVIO a copyright violation. This was a breathtakingly incorrect claim: https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/linking-copyrighted-materials Even the other statement the editor made "That's not how things work" is also incorrect, Template:Infobox_film says "use the billing block of the poster for the film's original theatrical release as a rule of thumb for listing starring actors". The lack of WP:GOODFAITH shown is shocking.

Other options are also available, but that would require editors to at least write an edit summary, and preferably discuss changes to the cast listings her on the article talk page. Throwing accusations of copyright violations at editors making good faith efforts to restore the WP:STATUSQUO is very unhelpful. -- 109.76.192.201 (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I checked the image you provided and the names you removed aren't there. However I see no reason whatsoever to add a link to a high-quality non-free image. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

As I have already said my comment was to remind editors to follow what the documentation recommends. The (hidden in a comment where only editors will see it) link was to make it easier for other editors to follow the principle of Wikipedia:Verifiability and properly check that the list is actually "per billing block" if someone changes it again.

If your objection was to the link then you could have simply deleted the link or reverted one edit. That would have been the minimal necessary response. But that is not what you did, you entirely reverted all my recent edits to this page, a very aggressive response, a massive overreaction. Can you see now with hindsight that was not constructive? You could still delete just the link and only the link if you still feel strongly about it, but I think it is worth making it as easy as possible for other editors to actually follow the rules and check the facts. -- 109.76.192.201 (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

You can do that while not including the link to the edit. Please look at how it is done in Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (film). I agree that I probably should've only reverted that one edit. However since I wasn't completely sure that those names weren't on the billing block (and I wasn't willing to click on that link until now) I reverted all the edits. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I could have done it without including a link but as I already explained I included the link to make it easier for editors to check things. The reason I went to the extra effort to try is make it really easy for editors is because I know many editors are just like Blaze Wolf and are not willing to check things, and will take the easy option to make aggressive reverts instead. I know checking the small print on a poster billing block is annoying, I wish it was easier to check. Some editors might disagree but I do think it is important to make it as easy as possible to follow the rules. Even long established editors might not be familiar with all the current recommendations for film articles, or the local consensus on any particular article.

Blaze Wolf has already complained one on my talk page about me not replying quickly enough, but I have to go and I may not have time to comment further on this today. If editors do not want to follow Template:Infobox film and do something else instead of listing the cast as they are listed in the poster billing block as the documentation recommends, then please discuss and try to establish WP:LOCALCONSENSUS before changing it again. -- 109.76.192.201 (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't check the link because there's always a risk of the user adding the link having malicious intent. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

For the record the billing block on the poster lists only six names:

• Carrie Coon
• Finn Wolfhard
• Mckenna Grace
• Annie Potts
• Ernie Hudson
• AND Paul Rudd

I disagree with Blaze Wolf removing of the link, especially since his own actions clearly show how unwilling people are to actually check the details. I'm not going to argue the point any further though, unless people start changing the cast listing again without any explanation or discussion. Again if editors want to do something else (other than what Infobox film recommends) they should first discuss and establish local consensus. -- 109.76.197.58 (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Again[10] just the people on the poster billing, as recommended by the documentation of {{Infobox film}} please. -- 109.76.139.121 (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Again[11] there really has to be a better way to do this. -- 109.79.171.199 (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

year set in Gostbusters: Afterlife

User:71.184.206.176 Ghostbusters: afterlife is set in the year 2021, not 2020, you should not change that date, clearly you are edit warring. Chip3004 (talk) 23:25, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

The status quo was 2020 afaik. What is your source? -- 109.79.161.244 (talk) 22:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

The plot section still claims 2021 but no source was provided to support this claim. The film was originally due to be released in November 2020. I've quickly check the film (and a transcript) and I didn't find any specific mention of either 2020 or of 2021. Some sources talk about the film being "set 30 years after the second movie"[12] and Ghostbusters 2 was released in 1989 but so far no one is claiming the film was set in 2019. Are there any reliable sources that state in what year the film was set? Is there something in the film itself that shows the year? -- 109.78.195.136 (talk) 11:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Took another look at the film, and the engravings on the wall in the temple would seem to set the story in 2021. -- 109.78.195.136 (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Other film

I think it is a bad idea putting too much emphasis on another film (Ghostbusters 2016) in this article about Ghostbuster:Afterlife and would prefer if we could avoid mentioning it in the lead section at all, but unfortunately it does seem necessary to briefly mention it. So I think there is there is too much emphasis on it to begin with, and it is especially inappropriate to use charged language like "bomb" to describe that film when the reliable source provided does not use such emphatic language. I have restored the previous wording several times as I believe it is a violation of the policy of neutral point of view WP:NPOV to use wording not directly based on what the reliable source says. Another editor disagrees, saying that based on his definition of bomb it is would not be neutral to use less strong language. (Again I'd prefer not to mention Ghostbusters 2016 at all.) If editors have reliable source that uses that harsh wording to describe Ghostbusters 2016 then they can add that source and change the wording but without a reliable sources specifically using that stronger wording then this article should not do it either. (My edits are all in good faith. I'm editing anonymously without an account, as I am allowed to do. There is no point making accusations that I am using a sock puppet, as far as I know I am not breaking any of those rules by editing without using an account. Escalating further is premature when there hasn't been a discussion yet.) If we cannot make progress a neutral WP:3RD opinion might help to break the deadlock. -- 109.78.195.136 (talk) 11:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Again I do not think the lead section of this article about the 2021 film is an appropriate place to make statements about the ("derided"(diff)) 2016 film. This article should as much as possible focus on this film. -- 109.76.132.151 (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)