Talk:Ghost Rider (2007 film)

Dan Ketch
The Dan Ketch references make very little sense for people who don't know the in and outs of this character. Maybe someone could clarify...


 * There's a link to the Ghost Rider comics page, but this page is focused on the film, which is clearly based on something else. someone really wanting the skinny on all of it should go to that page. However, I'll give some effort a go. ThuranX 21:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

What? That was Singer
Didn't Brian Singer direct Daredevil...I'm pretty sure he did...

And if I'm wrong I'm sorry fellow comic fans, don't bash me. I just really thought it was Brian Singer.


 * Nope. It was MSJ- Mark Steven Johnson. Originally, he didn't have a drive to direct or write the screenplay for Daredevil. He wanted to make a film on Ghost Rider. But after that proved to be harduous due to CGI limitations of the time, he was approached for an adaption of Daredevil instead. Bryan Singer's Marvel-related films include X-Men and X2, with Superman Returns being his first DC film. Hope that helps. The Chibi Kiriyama


 * Ah my bad. I totally thought it was cuz it had that special "Trailer" and sneak "preview" on the x-men 1.5 (or was it 2) DVD. It kinda led me to believe Singer was responsible for Daredevil. Whoops lol Thanks for clearing it up. --St jimmy86 17:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

formatting and layout.
can someone drop some blank carriage returns under the plot section so the Cast section will default left again? I don't want to shrink the picture more, but it's throwing off the page. ThuranX 15:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * (I did it with regular returns, but if someone else can do it in markup, so as to be more efficient nad cleaner, that'd be great. ThuranX 15:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC) )


 * The page looks fine to me. Do you still see the same problem? --Erik ( talk/contrib ) @ 19:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * nad cleaner? You need a washcloth there, mate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.49.126 (talk) 03:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Article clean-up
I plan to change the Production section into a straightforward section (without any sectioning), but I also plan to create a Design section under which there will be Sound and Visual effects subsections. If anyone has any issue with this setup, leave a comment here. I'll probably implement these changes in the coming week. --Erik ( talk/contrib ) @ 19:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Rating?
Not mentioned once. Quadzilla99 02:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Check that I added that. Quadzilla99 02:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Tattoo
This was removed from the article due to a lack of citation: "As Ghost Rider is one of Nicolas Cage's favorite characters, he has a large tattoo of the character on his back, which had to be digitally removed for the film." If anyone can find a citation for this, please re-add it. Thanks. Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

it is a flaming skull tatoo on his arm, and is mentioned in the DVD commentary and shown in the special features--Aaronpark 16:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Citations for use

 * Citations for use. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Citations for use. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Citations for use. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Citations for use. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Citations for use. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Citations for use. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Citations for use. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Citations for use. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Citations for use. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Citations for use. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Citations for use. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Citations for use. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Citations for use. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Citations for use. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Citations for use. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Citations for use. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 14:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Differences
I've finished reading the official novelization and there are numerous differences in how the characters are portrayed in the comics when compared to the film I was thinking that, after the release of the film, that a section detailing any differences between how the characters are portrayed in the film and comics might be appropriate, maybe? Caretaker, for instance, is an extremely obscure character and this link provides some general information about the comic book version, such as his origin and special abilities and all that, as well as a listing of all of his known appearances in Marvel publications.http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/caretr.htm


 * The best way to compare and contrast the film adaptation to its comic book origins would be to use reliable sources that point out the differences and similarities between the two. We can't do it ourselves because this constitutes original research.  We cannot present ourselves as authorities in comparing and contrasting.  I'm sure that when the film debuts, there will be reviews that will analyze how Ghost Rider adapted from the comics to the big screen. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 01:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems like somewhere it should be noted that Mephisto from the comic was renamed to Mephistopheles in the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.103.30.35 (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

"Ghost Ride the Whip" Commercial
Cartoon Network's Adult Swim block has been promoting the movie with the tag line "Ghost ride the whip", which really has nothing to do with the movie, as apparent by the Ghost ride article; it appears as if the marketing of the movie is just trying to capitalize on a little known meme because of the similar names.

It might be worth adding this to the main article under "Promotions", however I've no reference other than seeing the commercial for the last several days myself. (Which I find annoying given what Ghost Riding and the Hyphy movement are.) 207.138.41.165 04:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Release date
According to the Infobox Film template's syntax guide, "Use: if possible, the exact release date. ("May 18, 2008") Use the first public non-festival release in any country. This means any limited releases or openings before opening wide should go by the limited release date. If multi-country entries are necessary, you can put the flag icon before the release date for each country." There's no necessity for multi-country entries. Ghost Rider is an American production and is released there first. No FA-class film article features secondary release dates on the basis that it was filmed in that country -- filming is done in other parts of the world as well. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 13:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If you look closer, it states Use the first public non-festival release in any country which is the Australian release. The production company is American owned sure but most of the production was completed in Melbourne and a bit in Vancouver. The Australian release is non-festival and therefore is worthy of infobox mention. Until an Admin decides what is right, I will keep putting it back if you keep reverting. --Lakeyboy 22:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, in reviewing this, I concede the matter. I was under the impression that it was released in America before the other countries. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Young

 * Citation for use. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Citation for use. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 02:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Critical Reception
26% at rotten tomatoes, this needs to be added but since im too lazy to add it but not mention it here (uhh??) feel free to pitch in. Also theres probobly tons more sites giving reviews that have notoriety such as rotten tomatoes but as i dont care... ya enough said. 26%... ouch The Ravager 18:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added it. Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 18:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"Weasel words?" Hardly.
As opposed to instigating some form of "edit war," I thought I'd present my (hence removed) contribution for the film's Reception category: ''Though Ghost Rider has received a typically positive response by movie-goers, professional critics have been less kind. As of February 16, 2007, the film maintains an average approval rating of 32% at Rotten Tomatoes.[32]Among the film's defenders has been Luke Y. Thompson of E! Online. Wrote Thompson:''



Does this truly violate some form of NPOV policy? It's established that most critics didn't care for the film while simultaneously presenting the reasoning of one who's formed an opinion otherwise. --AWF


 * Nothing cites that "Ghost Rider has received a typically positive response by movie-goers". In addition, the sample from the review  you cited was a challenge to other reviews and not actually critical (either positively or negatively) of the film itself.  The Reception section should be weighed toward negative reviews of the film, based on the neutral aggregation of a site like Rotten Tomatoes.  Hope my revert make sense.  The E! Online citation would be fine if you instead quote the merits of the film itself, and also add at least two negative criticism from other citations for the appropriate balance. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The "typically positive" response by movie-goers, while not grand, is established by user reviews at the "Tomatoes" link in question, as well as the IMDb entry linked to this page. I understand the problem with E's citation, though it does pertain to the overall reaction. Finally, I don't believe that the number of examples needs to exactly match the proportion of reviews by Rotten Tomatoes. The "32%" establishes that without the requirment of infantilizing Wiki's readership with metaphoric illustrations. --AWF


 * Unfortunately, an aggregation of user reviews at one site cannot qualify as a voice for the masses. Not all those who saw Ghost Rider will come to the site and write a review of the film.  On the other hand, the aggregation of professional reviews on that site is suitable, as it is drawn in a neutral manner from an existing list of reviewers.  I assume good faith in your attempt to improve the Reception section, but in reviewing film articles of Featured Article status, user reviews are not cited this way.  Instead, the box office performance is ideally the best way to reflect what theater audiences thought of the film.  In addition, while the Rotten Tomatoes rating reflects mostly disdain for the film, the Reception section should further expand on why the reviewers didn't like it -- as far as I can tell, predictable plot, wooden characters, etc.  Obviously, I'm not trying to ask for a perfect balance of reviews, but based on how it's being received so far, the flaws should be explored before the merits.  If you can work both together and make ensure a balance (not quite easy to do, I know), then that would be great. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 23:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Understood (and honestly, I have no urge to continue on and on with this), but I do have one point of contention. I'm not sure that box office performance is the best way to portray audience reception. For example, Norbit currently holds the number one spot in that regard, but I doubt that it will maintain a great place in the minds of most individuals. Rather, I would be more interested to think what an average viewer would consider after the fact, which is why I tend to favor IMDb, among others. It's not perfect, to be sure, but it provides further insight. --AWF


 * I don't have any issues with continuing the discussion. I respect the fact that you brought it to the talk page to discuss; I don't see too much of that with the work I do in film articles.  Norbit, from what I know, is an interesting case.  Box office performance can be studied; studios often watch to see how films perform in their second weekend to determine if they will continue to fare well.  Some films drop off after the first weekend -- I believe the Matrix sequels did, and it was due to the hype, then the poor word-of-mouth that resulted in weak second weekends.  There are films like The Sixth Sense and My Big Fat Greek Wedding that had consistently strong box office weekends, that show how receptive audiences were.  I just disagree that user reviews from a site like Rotten Tomatoes or IMDb is an accurate gauge of audience reception; I've noticed strong inflations of user reviews of films that have strong fanbases.  Of course, that's a personal perspective, and may not be warranted. However, the film articles of Featured Article status have fared without the inclusion of user reviews, instead detailing box office performance and a variety of criticisms (positive and negative) from professional reviews. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Honestly... I'm beginning to rework my opinion, because I think you've got a solid point as far as box office indication is concerned. It's not always the case, but it is true by and large. I do maintain that many online outlets may be valid, however. One needs only to view user submitted reviews and discussions at a multitude of these sites to find that a great deal of criticism tends to balance out any fansite mentality. --AWF —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.54.155.35 (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC).


 * The Reception section is a bit of a challenge to develop especially considering that the film just debuted yesterday. My issue with the user reviews is how they're aggregated.  Like I mentioned, not everyone visits Rotten Tomatoes or IMDb.  Ideally, the best reflection of audience reception (excluding box office performance) would be a randomly conducted poll that would be neutral toward (or against) a fan base or any other number of biases (such as computer users or not, never know if that's significant).  Films, I guess, are usually made for audiences.  This film has a large budget, so I'm assuming that the studio expects a strong box office performance from Ghost Rider as opposed to an indie film.  I don't know what the estimates will be, but I'm sure if there is some notability in the revenue, it can be reflected in the article.  I just approach new content of an article based on its encyclopedic value; is it quite worthy of inclusion for a general audience to say what visitors of one or two particular sites thought of a film?  It's best to reflect the big picture; the aggregation of professional reviews, the box office performance, both domestic and overseas (Troy is a good example of something that did strongly overseas as opposed to domestically).  Take a look at film articles at WP:FA and see if you can get any ideas on how to shape an appropriate Reception section. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 00:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Following this thinking, I've removed the JoBlo site review as well, especially since his comment os more derogatory towards the audience than it is praising the film. ThuranX 04:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation for use

 * Citation for use. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Citation for use. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 16:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

production budget?
I see here on the ghost rider page that its production budget is listed as $120 mil but on boxofficemojo.com, it is listed at $110 mil, which one is correct? - RVDDP2501 22:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose we'll go with $110 million in the meantime. I thought I saw $120 million somewhere in one of the citations, so I'll have to dig that up and see if it's a more authentic source than Box Office Mojo. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Who's Who in the Fallen?
I know that the Fallen are Abigor, Grissel, and Wallow, but I don't know which name corresponds to which character. Can anybody help me out?


 * Abigor is the wind one with the dreadlocks. He has a mini toy out. Dunno which of the others is which. DeathWeed 04:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Abigor was air, Grissel earth, and Wallow was water, naturally. ThuranX 04:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Bike Design
Who was it designed by ? American Choppers ?

Box Office figures
I'm not experianced with wikipedia and don't wish to create problems with the references, but the box office numbers listed are only initial estimates and have not been updated with the final figures. It might not seem to be much of a difference, but the movie actually earned 15.4 million on opening day and 45.4 million for it's 3 day weekend.

I find the same mistake in the box office numbers on the pages for many films. You can find actual numbers at boxofficemojo.com. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.8.221.78 (talk) 14:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

In addition to the domestic and international take during its theatrical run, Ghost Rider has been quite a hit during its home market run, with DVD Sales total of $77,712,869 on August 26, 2007. A weekly breakdown can be found at http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2007/GHSTR.php?display=dvd. Is this worth mentioning in the Reception section? On a side note, all box office information referenced is also available at the-numbers.com, with as difference compared to boxofficemojo that the the detailed box office information is and will remain to be freely available. PimBeers 07:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Legion
Why do editors insist on readding over and over that blackheart's name changes? He describes himself as 'legion' referring to the multitude of souls he now controls, not as a new name for himself. Until someone can cite that this is an actual character change, I think it needs to go. Literary devices and bombastic self-description aren't name changes. ThuranX 05:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

his name does change to legion according to the extended cut DVD commentary --Aaronpark 18:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Infobox
I know you guys think it's cool, and I agree, but we can't have an image as the title of the infobox. It wouldn't pass a fair-use review. It's the same font as on the film's poster.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I was actually thinking that it seemed inappropriate and unnecessary for a while now. Just never got around to kicking it off.  Let's just do that and have a normal title in place. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 20:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

XXDillanXX 11:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)dell-kms07XXDillanXX 11:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GhostRiderTeaser.jpg
Image:GhostRiderTeaser.jpg 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 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 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 04:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

trivia section?
I was wondering if there should be a trivia section to this article, for instance, when GR is pulling the helicopter towards him with the chain, he says, "come here", this could be a reference or tribute to scorpion from Mortal Kombat who was inspired by Ghost Rider - RVDDP2501 14:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Trivia sections are discouraged. It's better to integrate the information into another part of the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * WAIT WUT? It's better to have a separate trivia section, makes it easier to find certain information. Much more interesting to read too. And yeah, the info about the MK reference should definately be there. Plus, Curtis Slade's Ghost Rider form looks somewhat similar to the Skull Cowboy from The Crow if you ask me.


 * I thought this was a Scorpion, while i watched a first fragment of that film. --46.39.248.64 (talk) 08:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Wrong Name and Link
This: James Shaffer as Abigor (Wind Demon), is not right at all. The link for James Shaffer takes you to the guy from the band Korn. I think (not 100% though) Abigor was played by Mathew Wilkinson. I don't want to change it yet b/c Imdb has been wrong before but I know Munky from Korn is not right. J-Axe

Picture
somone should change the pic to the dvd cover of ghost rider. it would look better

Extended cut
Anyone in the know enough to actually describe the additional scenes found in the extended cut of the film? 'cause I just watched it, and danged if anything jumped out at me... - 81.157.48.154 15:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GhostRiderBigPoster.jpg
Image:GhostRiderBigPoster.jpg 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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Soundtrack Exclusions
Sorry to interrupt, but I've seen no mention of the obvious exclusions in the Ghost Rider Soundtrack. Two of the most obvious are the cover of "Ghost Riders in the Sky" used in the end titles and the symphonic choir version of "Come All Ye Faithful", played during Johnny Blaze's scene at the train yard,in which he transforms fully into the Ghost Rider.

I think that this is notable, because firstly, it would seem that a number of people were upset about the lack of the Ghost Riders cover, and even more were upset that "Come All Ye Faithful" was not only excluded from the soundtrack, but a fair number had purchased the soundtrack specifically to obtain that piece of music. Apparently, to add insult to injury, the credit for the choir/symphony that performed the piece seems to be non-existent, leaving a camp of music lovers very frustrated. Some reviews have even gone as far as to label the soundtrack as a "rip off... do not buy" on Amazon.com, due to this.

Also, sorry... I didn't realize that I was logged out :P Aces&amp;Eights (talk) 08:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Spirit of Vengeance
According to SuperHeroHype, the sequel has started shooting. Does the sequel now warrant its own article?--121.212.133.48 (talk) 02:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

...or at least a redirect to Ghost Rider (film) from Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance?--124.187.145.15 (talk) 03:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I created the article and moved the sequel details there. :) Happy editing! Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Carter Slade
Hi i was wondering if carter slade was or is a ghost from the beginning of the movie or if he just turned into one after helping Johnny?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.32.146.254 (talk) 11:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Ghost Rider (2007 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070219163749/http://www.calendarlive.com:80/movies/reviews/cl-et-ghost17feb17,0,3933369.story to http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/reviews/cl-et-ghost17feb17,0,3933369.story

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 2 May 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. I hate these kind of debates, because despite lots of discussion, and lots of individual project naming conventions, there simply is no site-wide consensus as to whether partially disambiguated titles are eligible for primary topic status among those articles which might share that partial disambiguator. WP:PDAB was an attempt to assert such a sitewide guideline, but it was demoted back to an essay shortly after gaining guidelines status. As such, arguments saying that we must disambiguate further do not outweigh those saying we should not, and with !votes roughly split this discussion has no consensus to move. I think it would be worth our while to put this issue to bed properly, one way or the other. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Ghost Rider (film) → Ghost Rider (2007 film) – I belatedly realised that there was a 1982 film sharing the same name (not a feature film, or one as recognised as this), but we could make "Ghost Rider (film)" a redirect to this, bordering on WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Kailash29792  (talk)  12:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to oppose based on the fact that the 1982 film does not appear notable at all. I'd reconsider if more sources were added, however. Nohomersryan (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above comment. Looking at the other film, it doesn't seem notable. If it went to AfD and was kept, then I'd support the move above. I'll drop a note at the Film Project for further input. Happy to do the AfD nom too, if needed.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 06:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose – the current article is far more notable. The hatnote that points to Ghost Rider (1982 film) from this article is sufficient. —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:04, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per naming conventions, as the disambiguation is incomplete when there are two films with the same name. Obviously if the 1982 film is deleted then this article can revert to its current title.  Note that WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT would not be applicable here, as (partially) disambiguated titles do not have a primary topic.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note also that this article was previously sitting at Ghost Rider (2007 film), but editor seemed to be under the impression that there were no other films with this title when it was moved. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly. That's why I said "I belatedly realised". -- Kailash29792   (talk)  15:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - as per Joeyconnick. I've had a look at the other article, watched the film and made a couple of subsequent edits to the article.  I don't think it's non-notable, but it clearly falls way below this film in notability stakes - ergo the current naming convention seems fine for both articles.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works though, we shouldn't have a primary topic for a partially disambiguated title. Article titles need to be fully disambiguated or not at all, otherwise they are still ambiguous.  --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Then you may discount my opinion. However, given the level of surprise from all here that there is a 1982 film (despite being listed in the "other uses" article), I think it's fairly safe to say that there is no ambiguity with the present situation.  Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:NCFILM. kennethaw88 • talk 03:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose – per . -  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 03:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sequel
For no apparent reason this article refers to the later Ghost Rider film as a "reboot" rather than a sequel. This article fails to explain what makes it anything other than a sequel. It doesn't say the filmmakers called the follow up a reboot. If the film makers did call it a reboot that wouldn't even necessarily be a good reason for an encyclopedia article to directly repeat their choice of words.

Strangely enough the article Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance doesn't use the word reboot at all and there's a source where the writer Goyer specifically saying the other Ghost rider film is not a reboot.

I'm going to change the incorrect information. This is not a bold change, it is correcting inaccurate information that somehow has been overlooked. -- 109.76.217.1 (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Any claims that it a "stand alone sequel" or any other type of sequel are not only irrelevant to this article, but also not sourced. -- 109.79.92.144 (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Nicholas Cage
In 2018 Nicholas Cage commented that Ghost Rider should have been R-rated and that was the original intention of the script from Goyer. The quote was short, too short and not enough context that I could add it under critical response. (Various places repeated the quote, some adding clickbait headlines such as "Nicolas Cage isn’t a fan of his Ghost Rider movies either but we cannot and should not make such assumptions.) It would be better if the Production section could mention that it was originally intended as an R-rated film, but to do that I think I need a better source, probably something from Goyer. -- 109.79.92.144 (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources with incorrect information about the role of Mephistopheles
I think that it is worth noting here that there are several websites, supposedly authoritative, that make the claim in a summary of the plot that "Johnny is charged by Mephistopheles (Donal Logue) ". As the summary has very few if any differences from one site to the next, it's likely that they have used the same source. The claim is, of course, incorrect. The role of Mephistopheles was taken by Peter Fonda. Donal Logue was "Mack". This article has the correct information. I trust that nobody will be inclined to change that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:EA01:1090:A0BB:6DC8:9789:AD77 (talk) 03:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Worst lists
Since at least 2017 the article included an unsourced claim that "IGN named the film the worst comic book film of the decade" but no source was included. This sounded unlikely but I was able to find a source and it turns out GR was only 7th on IGN's list of the 10 worst of the decade. I'm not sure that is even worth noting. I would suggest that any it is not worth including this or any other "worst of list" where it isn't at least in the top 3. If no one objects I will remove it from the article (eventually, unless someone else does it first). -- 109.76.153.121 (talk) 02:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)