Talk:The Real Ghostbusters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Television Portal

This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects 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.

Start

This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.

Low

This article has been rated as low-Importance on the importance scale.

Assessment comments

Please add more information about the production, discussing the "behind the scenes" aspects of the production process, award nominations, and insights into the casting and staffing where possible. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Television for more advice.

A response section needs to be added to this article. This section should be well cited using neutral and reliable sources that discuss the reaction of both critics and the viewing audience to the show. Additionally, document any impact the show has had on society, and merchandise that may have resulted from the show, such as toys, games, etc. For more advice or clarification, visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Television.

"In 1989, the series was retitled Slimer and the Real Ghostbusters." From what it seems from several episode guides I've seen, this is actually ANOTHER show For example, TVtome.com:

The Real Ghostbusters Slimer & the Real Ghostbusters

It depends on your definition. The voices were the same, the character designs were pretty much the same, and there wasn't the same clear seperation there was with Extreme Ghostbusters. I'd say it was the same show, in the same way as Batman: The Animated Series was the same show as The New Batman Adventures. (In this analogy Extreme would be Batman Beyond). Just my opinion. -Daibhid C

Whoops. I didn't read the TV Tome Real Ghostbusters entry properly, and missed that it was still running while Slimer and the Real Ghostbusters was on. If that's accurate, it does make a difference 8-/. -Daibhid C

My recollection (and understanding, from info like Proton Charging) is that for the 1988-89 season, RGB was expanded from 30 minutes to an hour by adding a Slimer-centric cartoon, and retitled S!&tRGB. So the latter was an expanded version of the former for just one season. --Arteitle 00:07, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

That makes sense. I think here in the UK they just showed the Ghostbusters half, but kept the title, hence my confusion. --Daibhid C 14:46, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

Just for everyone's information, Citizen Ghost (originally identified as the pilot episode, where the "Boys in Grey" are seen returning from the Gozer incident) is not, in fact, the pilot. The pilot is actually "Knock Knock," where city workers digging a subway tunnel in the wrong place accidentally open a door intended to end the world. The pilot episode of Extreme Ghostbusters refers to this as well, by having the antagonist of that episode unleashed by similar means by careless city workers. However, at the beginning of the run some episodes were run out of order.

1 Likeness
2 Clean-up
3 Contradiction with another article
4 External Links
5 Episode List
6 Zeddemore/Zeddmore
7 Houdini
8 What about the toys?
9 Pop Culture References
10 Fair use rationale for Image:Samhain.png
11 Fair use rationale for Image:Samhainegb.png
12 Fair use rationale for Image:Bogeyman.png
13 J Michael Straczynski on Bill Murray
14 Character traits
15 Samhain

[edit] Likeness

In the history section, this sentence sems odd:
Due to likeness rights issues, the characters were dramatically redesigned from their movie counterparts (so, as a result, the Ghostbusters barely resembled their movie counterparts).
If this supposed to refer to The Real Ghostbusters? If it does, I beg to differ, but I'm not sure exactly what this sentence is trying to say. Thanks. Turnstep 17:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

He's trying to say that they couldn't make Peter look very much like Bill Murray, Ray like Dan Akroyd, etc, because they didn't have the rights to use the likenesses of the actors from the movie. Hence, Egon was suddenly blonde, etc.

I always assumed this was done so that young children could better distguish the characters from each other. Like the diffrent clolred headbands for the Ninja Tutles. If you notice, they all wear diffrent color jumpsuits for the same reason (Animedude360 08:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC))

Back around the time the movie DVD came out, I remember reading a website that had screen captures of some early footage, in which the characters looked more realistic. I don't remember if they looked more like the actors they were based on, though. (I remember that Ray definetly had Akyroyd's girth). Does anyone know where those images came from? Was it just test animation, or was there an actual, unaired pilot? I'm mentioning this here instead of in the article because the website doesn't seem to exist anymore... (DrZarkov 05:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC))

They weren't that much more 'realistic' then how they appeared in the final version. Venkman looked a little chubbier, making him appear a bit more like Bill Murray... You're likely thinking of Spook Central (www.spookcentral.tk), where you can find screen captures from a non-final promo animation (Click on 'Series' and then on 'Original RGB').Kingpin1055 09:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, now theres no reference at all to the characters' different appearances (something that always bugged me as a kid unaware of rights issues.) And really, shouldn't there be? ChrisStansfield ^Contribs —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisStansfield (talk • contribs) 02:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean-up

I moved the ifnormation in "Ghostbuster vehicles" to the page for Ectomobiles and the info for Equpiment to its own page. I think this page should focus on the TV series and not the equipment of ghostbusting. Animedude 23:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction with another article

This article says:
Despite rumors to the contrary, Columbia was allowed to use the name Ghostbusters for its cartoon but added "The Real" to snub Filmation.
While the Filmation's Ghostbusters page says:
The show is also known as The Original Ghostbusters because, when Columbia Pictures released the film Ghostbusters in 1984, they neglected the fact that Filmation had already produced a live-action comedy series with that same name in 1975. Filmation sued Columbia in 1985, and as part of the out-of-court settlement the cartoon based on the Columbia Pictures property had to be called The Real Ghostbusters instead of simply The Ghostbusters.
PrometheusX303 16:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The interpretation is up for debate, definately... especially as to whether the Filmation entry might've been biased. However I've read an interview... I think from Proton Charging which had one of the staff remark that Filmation made a huge stink and sued Columbia... so the 'Real' being put in to stick up their nose at Filmation is certainly plausible. Kingpin1055 17:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This is still in contradiction. Does anyone have a citation that will allow the two entries to be reconciled? Bunnyhugger 18:07, 26 April 2007 (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.Kingpin1055 22:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Episode List

Not quite sure why there's a link to an episode list page that doesn't exist... but shouldn't we just add an episode list entry to the main RGB page?Kingpin1055 08:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zeddemore/Zeddmore

I realise bringing it up is trivial... but is there much point in adding a note to the cast section about the missing 'E' in 'Zeddemore'? At most, it was likely an on-running spelling error... it doesn't affect anything in any great detail and seems to have little value in the article. Kingpin1055 03:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I just see it as a useful footnote for crossreferencing. It's not like it's a huge paragraph, it's just a small note. Just my thoughts on the matter. Jay Firestorm 03:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess from a reference standpoint, maybe... but in at least one incidence, the name has been spelt 'Zedmore'... it just felt in the sceme of things, to me, to be fairly unimportant... a minor thing which was likely as I mentioned a simple spelling error... I'm pretty sure the 'Zeddmore' spelling was only seen on the figure packaging anywa... Kingpin1055 06:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Houdini

In a injoke tribute to Houdini a Ghostbusters epsiode has the ghost of HOudini not only break out of every trap the Ghostbusters set for him, but also breaks the Ghostbusters out of a trap a crooked magican-who had stolen HOudini's secrets-had put the Ghostebusters in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.53.145.208 (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Erm, I'm not sure what you point is... -Kingpin1055 14:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What about the toys?

There was a massive toy range connected with the Real Ghostbusters - anyone able to add substantial information about them to this page, or start one dedicate to them? I don't know enough about the history of them to do this myself, but I'm interested enough in finding out about this subject to read about it on wikipedia.

I don't know if it's been updated in a while, but this might be helpful to you: http://www.freewebs.com/gbta/index.htm (The Ghostbusters Toy Archive).-Kingpin1055 22:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Perfect; thanks!

Not a problem, it should give you a pretty good idea on the length of the toyline.-Kingpin1055 20:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that the article states that Samhain and Slimer were the only ghosts to appear in the series to receive an action figure. This isn't correct. The Stay Puft Marshmallow man appeared in several episodes of the series and has at least two different action figures (Kenner and NECA). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.186.24.146 (talk) 14:25, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pop Culture References

The article says that there are only two non-parody pop culture references, and they are then listed. It seems like this is rather subjective as to what a parody really is and what is not. Really, without being the person who wrote-in the pop culture reference, there is no way to know whether or not it was a parody. Maybe this would be better as its own section where all pop culture references are noted, rather than just "non-parody" ones. 71.65.37.0 09:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Samhain.png

Image:Samhain.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Samhainegb.png

Image:Samhainegb.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot 00:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Bogeyman.png

Image:Bogeyman.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

BetacommandBot 14:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] J Michael Straczynski on Bill Murray

This article claims that J. Michael Straczynzki suggested that Bill Murray wanted Lorenzo Music replaced as the voice of Peter Venkman.

JMS has, in fact, actually tried to DEBUNK that rumor in the past. There's an example of it on this page, search "Murray" to get to it faster:

http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/rage/108710123618684.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.221.0.65 (talk) 12:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Character traits

I've watched all but twelve of the episodes, and I have my doubts about some of the character traits. I've never seen Peter as the unofficial leader of the group, although his love of basking in the limelight may make it seem so. I can't recall him having the final say as to whether or not they'll take a case either. My other problem is the article's claim that Winston is the most accurate with the proton guns. I don't recall seeing this stated, and while I haven't kept a list of who misses the least, I'm guessing no one else has either.--24.255.171.220 (talk) 13:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Samhain

Samhain appeared in the theme song for Extreme Ghostbusters, but was not featured in any episodes. Due to the character's likeness being owned by Columbia Pictures Television, his appearance was altered.

This blurb makes no sense. According the Columbia Pictures Television article , the company has been a Sony company since 1989. As a result, Sony would have owned the copyrighted characters of this show and should have had no problem in re-using the character designs. --Jtalledo (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)