Talk:Ghostbusters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

-


This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High
This article has been rated as High-Importance on the importance scale.
Article assessment An assessment of this article took place along with other articles about 1980s comedy films during the week starting 6 March 2006.

Contents

[edit] "Ghostbusters" logo backward?

I remember reading somewhere, many years ago, that there was an error during the production of the UK video artwork for the first film which meant that the Ghostbuster's logo was printed backwards (an image google of "ghostbusters" will easily provide an example)... this lasted for a number of years.

I'd like to add this to the trivia section... does anyone have a more detailed encyclopedic, um... thingy.


I've heard an alternate theory that it was flipped in the UK for better readability... it's a believable theory, and the only 'error' I'd heard about concerning the Ghostbusters II logo, where the original final design was lost and when it was re-drawn, the ghost's second leg got left off by accident. -Kingpin1055 23:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bloody well justify!

If you're going to peform such a substantial pull apart of the article, discuss it here first before doing so. I reinstated the full cast list (Which will have more members added to it) because it's removal was pointless, and a lot of the other removals were equally unsunstantiated or justified. Discuss these changes here before performing them.Kingpin1055 08:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

(Should 134.74.186.20 be couragous enough to stop by, instead of simply rediting the page he, or she feels the need to vandalise... here's a few pointers.
Three unemployed parapsychology professors (recently kicked out of Columbia University in New York) start a business called Ghostbusters, a spectral investigation and removal service armed with technology of their own design that can track down and capture supernatural entities with unprecedented ease. - They're three lecturers, who are part of a Parapsychology Department. Hence, 'Parapsychology Professors' (Even though 'professor' isn't really the right term. Parapsychologists explore and investigate unusual things, that's what Egon, Ray and Peter are doing. I hope you can work out the conclusion I'm coming too.
Dr. Raymond "Ray" Stantz (Dan Aykroyd) is an expert on paranormal history metallurgy, Ray Stantz isn't an expert in experimental physics. He's an engineer, which would likely come with a knowledge of metallurgy... Egon's the one who dealt with the experimental physics.
The final edit, on Columbia University is a minor one... but seeing as no name was dropped in the film, I think it's fair game just to label it as Columbia. Knock off the inaccurate edits, which frankly show you off as the vandal you appear to be.Kingpin1055 15:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] skiddz

Lex Says that vandalising Wiki Articles for YTMND's is WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Just photo edit or at least fix it once oyu've got you're screen cuase by the time most of you're viewers see you're site is gonna be fixed anyway. yoyokidinghostbusters.ytmnd.com

Pointless, and in the end you'll be forgotten. Thanks for contributing nothing.Kingpin1055 09:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supposed 'Taglines'

I admit that my memory from the mid 80's is a little shaky, but most of these 'taglines' sound like someone pulled them out of his (or her) ass. Ok, 'who ya gonna call' is certainly a legitimate tagline, as is 'I ain't afraid of no ghost', but the rest of the lines on the list (especially given the odd wording...'THEY ain't afriad of no ghost'??) sound like they were snagged from trailers, promo spots or movie posters. If you were to quote any of them out of context, excepting 'I ain't afraid...' and 'who ya gonna call', I promise you that nobody will know what the hell you're talking about. -Grammaticus Repairo 06:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


I think you are confusing the meaning of "tagline" with that of "cathphrase". A tagline is a short, easily remembered phrase used to promote a film, and is usually featured in trailers or on movie posters. My memory of the '80s is certainly no better than yours, but if these phrases appeared, at one point or another, in trailers or on movie posters or advertisements, than they are defintely legitimate taglines. 210.216.45.65 15:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Anonymous, 21 October 2006


Okay, I can accept that. However, in that case, I have to say that since they were likely just promotional garbage spit out by the studios to sell more tickets, the taglines do not really deserve a place in the article, as you really don't see that sort of thing in many other wiki movie articles, and CERTAINLY not located just above the table of contents. This isn't to say that Ghostbusters is not worthy of extra content, having become a major pop culture icon. I feel that a section with pop culture 'catchphrases' would be an appropriate replacement, albeit further down in the article. Just a thought. -Grammaticus Repairo 06:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Herbert? Who?

Christopher Herbert is only mentioned once in the article, and no information is given about him accept that "he has withstood the test of time" and is still crazy about Ghostbusters. Did some foolish fan place himself into the article just to show himself off (sorry, but I calls 'em as I sees 'em), much to the chagrin of those trying to make a REAL and serious encyclopedia article, or is this a person that deserves actual recognition? If so, then anyone that knows anything about Christopher Herbert should post what FACTUAL data they can in the article. Otherwise, this bit at the very end of the article's last paragraph (before the links), should be deleted. It is the only mentioning of Christopher Herbert at this, and will not be hard to find. Cartoonist Will 22:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Character Stubs

Someone appears to be creating stubs of all the characters... may want to revert back to the version with links. I've been following xem around trying to wikify and stub-tag what I can... ESkog 23:59, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I've been replacing them with redirects. There is no need for stubs for movie characters. Kelly Martin 00:05, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll un-revert back to you. ESkog 00:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Material from Gozer the Gozerian

The following is from Gozer the Gozerian, which I've changed to redirect. Some of this is plot summary and should be merged into the main article with the appropriate spoiler tag.

Gozer the Gozerian also known as Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildorohar and The Traveler is the name of a fictional Sumerian god who is the major supernatural enemy in the film, Ghostbusters. The character may have been an in-joke being one of the Hebrew names for a surgeon who performs circumcisions.
He is assisted by two dog-like minions called Zuul (The Gatekeeper) and Vinz Clortho (The Keymaster). Gozer the Traveller appears in one of his pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Valdranaii the Traveller came as a very large and moving Torr. In the third reconciliation of the last of the Meketrex supplicants they chose a new form for him, that of a giant Slorr. Many Shubs and Zuuls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Slorr that day, I'll tell you.
After World War I, an insane surgeon called Ivo Shandor, a leader of an secret apocalyptic cult, designed a massive apartment building in New York City specifically to gather psychic energy that would power a portal that would allow Gozer and his minions to enter the world and destroy it.
By 1984, the building had gathered enough energy to pull the minions through with plans of possessing suitable humans to open the portal on top of the building to allow Gozer through. If one supposed that a Twinkie represents the normal amount of psychokinetic energy in the New York area, based on Dr. Spengler's reading, the energy gathered in 1984 would be a Twinkie thirty-five feet long, weighing approximately six hundred pounds. As a byproduct, numerous ghosts were revived and became active throughout the city as they waited to join their new master.
Unfortunately for them, an unforseen development occurred that created a powerful opposition to Gozer. Three unemployed parapsychology professors had coincidentally formed a business called Ghostbusters, a specteral investigation and removal service armed with technology of their own design that could track down and capture the entities with unprecedented ease. Unaware of the cause of this sudden spike of paranormal activity, the company had brisk business capturing numerous ghosts to the point where they were concerned about the capacity of their containment grid.
When an overzealous EPA inspector, Walter Peck, ordered the grid deactivated against the advice of the Ghostbusters, a massive break out of the ghosts occurred which caused widespread haunting that immediately sparked chaos throughout the city. The Ghostbusters managed to convince the authorities to let them deal with the crisis and they confronted Gozer as he emerged from the portal on top of Shandor's building.
After an initial skirmish, Gozer demanded that Ghostbusters choose the form which the Destructor would take. Ray Stanz reflexively choose an innocuous corporate mascot, the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man. The result was the bizarre sight of a giant marshmallow man in a sailor suit with an insane smile stomping through New York toward the building. The Ghostbusters eventually stopped the god by crossing their proton pack streams as they fired at the portal. This created total protonic reversal which caused an explosion that apparently closed the portal and destroyed or at least neutralized Gozer and his minions and returned the possessed humans back to normal.
00:10, 3 May 2005 ESkog

I have merged this matter into Ghostbusters. Anthony Appleyard 13:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Twinkies and Spengler's estimate

Egon Spengler said "If one supposed that a Twinkie represents the normal amount of psychokinetic energy in the New York area, the energy gathered in 1984 would be a Twinkie 35 feet long, weighing approximately 600 pounds.".

  • Going by size (see Twinkie), the scaling is by 105 each way, being a volume scaling 1053 = 1157625 = say a million.
  • Going by weight, Twinkie does not state weight, but say a few ounces: that gives a weight scaling of a few thousand.

Which was intended? What the script writer needed here was a Twinkie and a lab-type weighing weighing scale and a ruler and a bit of arithmetic. Anthony Appleyard 06:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

At first glance, the weight and volume estimates seem contradictory, since a 35 foot long Twinkie should weigh 60,000 pounds, not 600. Perhaps, however, psychokinetic energy is a 2-dimensional vector quantity, not a scalar quantity. One aspect of psychokinetic energy is a million times greater than normal, while the second aspect of psychokinetic energy is a few thousand times greater than normal.

"600 pounds" in unambiguous. However, "35 feet long" is. Is the twinkie just stretched (meaning it's just a longer twinkie with the same diameter)? Or perhaps all three demensions are increased. While you point out that this doesn't work, consider that a twinkie is not homogeneous: it has an outer shortcake with an inner vanilla fillling (presumably with different average densities). If one were to start in the centre and move outward radially, you would find that approximately half a twinkie is shortcake and half is filling. However, if all three dimensions where increased, then perhaps this ratio would change. Also, there's no telling how thick the ends would be with shortcake.
In the end, what the writer was going for was for the audience to go, "Holy cow! That's one big twinkie!", not, "I want to get out my calculator and see if that makes sense." I'm sure you could find a LOT of other more important things in Ghostbusters that defy physics than the size of the twinkie! Mustard 21:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the information about the twinkie is a must. Given the uncertainties about the physics involved with PKE and related twinkie-size calculations, I believe that no greater authority can be assigned on this matter than to the writers of the movie itself. Thus, in order to explain what it means for the PKE to be "a few thousand times normal", the example must be supplied. Allen p 12:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Under the Gozer section, it says that the original god chosen for the screenplay was Tiamat, a real Mesopotamian god. Where is this written? Are there references for that?

[edit] citations

"Gozer's temple was the biggest and most expensive set ever to be constructed at that time[citation needed]. "

The region 4 dvd "The ultimate collectors pack" of ghosbusters 1 and 2 flipcover states it as, " Sixty feet high and covering an entire soundstage, the set was surrounded by a 360 degree panorama of NYC. It was so large infact Columbia had to shutdown other sets to power it's 50,000 amps power requirement." It does not mention it being the most expensive set at that given time in history, which being quite impressive probably would have been included in the packaging.Atirage 12:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Character pages

I'd really love to make pages for each of the Ghost Busters and perhaps Tully and Dana too. Janine and Slimer have their own pages so why not give the others pages too? (user:HannuMakinen)

I've never once understood why Slimer, Stay Puft and Janine had their own pages... I thought they'd get explained enough on the source pages (Film(s) or cartoon(s)). Kingpin1055 22:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Go for it. It's the norm on Wikipedia for each significant fictional character to have a page of her/his own, so I think there should definitely be a separate article for each individual Ghostbusters character. I'll make them myself eventually if no-one else does. Mosquitor 22.49, 27 June 2006 (GMT)

[edit] Murphy and Candy

from the article:

"neither Murphy nor Candy could commit to the movie due to prior conflicts"

Conflicts, or commitments? The way it's written it could be inferred that Murphy and Candy had prior conflicts with *one another*, rather than that they had prior commitments which conflicted with Ghostbusters. Does anyone know which it is?

I'd say 'prior commitments', although I'm sure I read that Eddie Murphy never applied to the role, and that in fact he turned it down and regretted that decision ever since. Kingpin1055 16:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disney

'* In 1937 the Disney Company released an cartoon short titled "Lonesome Ghosts" which had Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, and Goofy in the ghost extermination business. In one scene Goofy is looking around in a bedroom and uses the phrase, "I ain't afraid of no ghost." some 47 years before it became a catch phrase.'

Somehow I doubt Goofy would've said that in 1937.

May I ask why not? Grammaticus Repairo 05:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Because to be perfectly honest, it sound anacronistic for 1937... it almost sounds like someone trying to give the Disney short more attention then it deserves. However, if anyone has seen this animation recently then please put this to rest.Kingpin1055 11:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

He does say it, but with a trembling "g-g-g-g-ghost" at the end. Like he's trying to convince himself. Still, I see no reason to include it in the article.

[edit] 'proton pack' Vs 'Proton Pack'

I don't know... what's the common consensus? I always considered them capitolized as that was their full name... Kingpin1055 12:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

Recnetly, an issue came up concerning the external links. Apparantly, the following pages weren't considered reliable sources mostly as they're pretty much fan sites. The links involved were:

Spook Central: The home of a lot of in depth information and behind the scenes photographs of both films. Material which can't be found elsewhere. I'd consider this site worth keeping within the external links as it provides behind the scenes material not available to a site kept in such high regard such as IMDb.

GBProps: I suppose the worth of this one is up for debate... however it (and the not mentioned www.gbpropject.com) provide information for replicating the props from the movie, and for where to find reference material. An item surely to come in handy with people with Halloween approaching.

Ghostbusters.net: Sadly part of it's draw... the online episodes has thus since been removed. But it was never about drawing traffic to the site. Ghostbusters.net is one of the oldest fan forums around, one of the main fan forums around which... under rhe rulw "Links to be used occasionally: 3. On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such."

This effectively justifies the inclusion of at least one major fansite.

Proton Charging: A manjor GB news outlet which has helped to break down the recent rumours where people believed Ghostbusters 3 was being made. The site also contains interviews with people involved with the films, cartoons and other materials which are not a part of the Wiki article.

Ghostbusters HQ: Similar to Ghostbusters.net in regard, it is a major fan site which contains a number of interviews and media for the cartoons and films.


I can understand the reasoning to keep the external links clean and controlled, and to vet some of the entries which get put in as some are only out there for the visitor numbers.

If you feel the links should once again be removed, please consult this section and add to the discussion before removing them again.87.113.86.247 22:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Trivia"

I can appreciate some people wanting to do away with 'Trivia' sections, although I don't feel the justification is really valid in this case as I don't feel the 'Trivia' section applies to: 'If a section ("trivia" or otherwise) has grown so large as to over-balance an article, consider:'

It doesn't seem to over-balance the article in my mind, and the only entries I think could be easily justified for removal are points #2, #5 and #7 (DVD details, test screening and army regiment respectively) I don't think many of the entries in that section can be easily worked into the main article... hence their place in a separate section of the article. If you're able to fully justify why a 'trivia' entry has to go, please state so here.Kingpin1055 09:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing plot section

The plot section has been marked as confusing because the description leaves out important parts of the storyline, leaving a great many plot holes in the description that won't make sense for people who haven't seen the film. --Ppk01 11:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It's something I wonder about... should we put in the whole plot, regardless of whether everyone has seen it all... but only a brief synopsis so that people can still discover stuff? Kingpin1055 16:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 88MPH Studio?

This tidbit is not clear. 88MPH Studios may continue their ongoing series. Huh? Who are they? What series? Is it a cartoon? A movie? A TV series? I've never heard of this. Of course, after a bit of reading I see that it's a comic book series, but it should be rewritten to be more clear. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.107.219.211 (talk) 03:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

88MPH Studios is a Canadian based comic publisher (There actually was an article... however those in support of it's removal said that 88MPH wasn't a notworthy corporation... regardless of the likely trouble the deletion would cause). The series was an ongoing Ghostbusters comic series.Kingpin1055 20:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia and Cast

I took the liberty of scooting the Trivia section over to it's own page so it doesn't get bigger then the article.

I also shifted the Plot and Cast sections so that the page format would work with the column formatting someone put on them.Kingpin1055 16:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, the result of the deletion debate of the trivia article was merge. So I have to add the trivia section again to article or the information are lost. ---89.51.122.202 18:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Something we might consider to add: according to the script of the first movie available online somewhere (i dont have the url right now), there was supposed to be the ghost of the guy who built the building, instead of Gozers female form, with essentailly the same action going on (the whole "are you a god?" bit". What do you think? 81.201.224.13 14:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
As I recall, Paul Rubens was originally considered to play 'Ivo Shandor', the building's designer, and I'm pretty sure that appeared in both the script and some storyboards in 'Making Ghostbusters', the behind-the-scenes book. I'd say it's a worthy entry. -Kingpin1055 09:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
You wouldn't happen to have a full citation for that would you? I would like to use it in Ivo Shandor, which I am trying to expand enough for GA. IvoShandor 10:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Films which explore Libertarian themes?

Is that an appropriate category? The film has little political content at all; other than making fun of vote-hungry politicians and imperious bureaucrats (Walter Peck in particular). The film's treatment of the Environmental Protection Agency isn't at all serious. There are many in the world who like to make fun or complain about the government, but who would not consider themselves Libertarians...

--EngineerScotty 04:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it smells of someone editing it to try be funny. I vote delete. Kingpin1055 19:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Not fussed either way, but there is the manner in which they are thrown out of the university to be considered. bert 20:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ivo Shandor

Hello all. Thought I would mention I have done some significant expansion of the Ivo Shandor article. I still need a reliable source for the Paul Reubens claim. Also, I regularly review stuff at GA and I think with some minor expansion it could qualify as a short GA, any ideas would be helpful. The expansion led me to create an article for 55 Central Park West, which lo and behold, is popularly known as the Ghostbusters Building according to New York Magazine. Preferably respond on the talk page there but here is fine too. IvoShandor 10:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll try dig out my book, if I can't find it there's an inverview over at www.protoncharging.com with Slavitza Jovan where she mentions them wanting to get Paul Reubens (although I bet you someone will come along and say that's not a reputable source). -Kingpin1055 00:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncomfortable Wording

It might be nitpicking, but i didn't feel comfortable with this sentence:

"When Ernie Hudson took over it was decided that he be brought in later to indicate how the Ghostbusters were struggling to keep up with the outbreak of spooks"

I changed "spooks" to "ghosts" because I think someone may have been trying to sneak in a racial slur about our dear old Winston Zeddemore.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/h/o/Talk%7EGhostbusters_0850.html"