Talk:Ghostbusters II/Archive 1

Intro Paragraph
the sci-fi comedy films are about three parapsychologists and their organization

Aren't there four of them? Egon, Ray, Peter and Winston? I don't want to change this without consulting since I don't know if there's a reason it says three, so... any reason it says three? --user.lain 18:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Good question... well, I'm not sure if I'd call Winston a Parapsychologist in GBII, there's nothing showing he's got the certificate for it even though by rights he is an equal member in the organisation. Kingpin1055 21:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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 16:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think someone agrees with your idea, Kingpin, if the merge statement is any indication. --Jb-adder (using the IP 129.180.1.224) 02:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I got that impression quickly... you can't win with the shifting policy goalposts here... one person complains that the trivia section is too long, but when I give it it's own article they figure it should be part of the main article... -Kingpin1055 19:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge The trivia section isn't that long. --JYMoore 01:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The solution was simple. Reorganize, and integrate the trivia section here, making the trivia unnessecerry, and as all the information from that page was already here, merging was unnessecerry, but I carried out the actions anyway. I have deleted very little, I'm hoping you guys will know better what should be deleted and what should not. TheGreenFaerae 21:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Article needs contributions
It's a shame that this article is only Start-class. There's enough interest in this page to get it up to GA class pretty quickly. Things that I have noticed about the article's structure:- - Nreive (talk) 08:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Lead section - a little short. The lead should summarize the article as a whole.
 * Plot - Plot tag may be removed now. Someone has edited the plot down to just over 800 words - well done anon - under the 900 max stated at Wikiproject film style guideline. I've also noticed a little inconsistency in stating actor names after the characters e.g. Ray Stantz now owns an book shop... (no actor in brackets), where as late we have Judge Wexler (Harris Yulin).
 * Development - just a touch too short maybe.
 * Cast - as per film style guidelines cast should come after Development/Production. Also preferrable to write the section with a summary for each character/actor instead of just a list.
 * Reception - No section yet for Reception.
 * Production notes - has a trivia tag and with good cause. Unsourced bulleted trivia is discouraged and the section should be removed or useful lines merged with Development.
 * Novelization - a two liner trivia fact on the book. Is this necessary?
 * References - not enough of them.

Re-typed the plot
I thought the version of the plot that was here was a little all over the place and there were also grammatical errors, so I've edited it the best I can. If anybody else wants to add more to it, go for it. 195.92.168.176 14:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the end credits have scenes that were cut from the film, like when Ecto-1 (2?) is being driven haphazardly. I found out it ocurred after Ray made eye contact with the painting of Vigo. He suffered a bit of road rage.

"The logo used in the movie is unique. Unlike the logo that appears in marketing materials, it is the original, lost design: the ghost has two legs stepping through the red symbol. After it was designed for the movie title intro, the design was lost, so it had to be redone. However, when it was redrawn, they forgot to add in the second leg, so it appears the ghost has only one leg, or a funny-looking tail. It is apparently meant to be a leg, as there is an indication of a foot and an ankle." - I'd like to request a source for this information. To me, the logo appears to have the ghost stepping out of it, with his right leg coming out and his left leg still behind him, as if he were pulling himself though a hole. His arm pushing out on the logo lends to this. I couldn't find anything about an art mistake, but I am willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. If no source is found, I think this should be deleted. Animedude360 09:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you Venkman? or the actor who playes the figure Venkman? or where do you know the words so exactly from? In german translation the baby is called Donald, two dimensions missing. May be the museum is a nice room for fancies!--Danaide (talk) 11:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It is fairly obvious if one watches the original opening credits and then looks at any other promotional images for the movie, the loss of the other leg is quite noticable. Despite the fact that no source is currently available that suggests a "loss" of the original image, it remains quite apparent that the two images differ considerably, and I believe this information should be reassimilated into the Trivia section.

"As the shell encasing the museum disintegrates, Louis Tully reaches the museum, exclaiming "I did it!". The Ghostbusters emerge as heroes."

The above statement is incorrect and needs to be changed as Louis Tully reached the museum and fired the proton pack for around 30 seconds to a minute before the slime shell encasing the museum disintegrated and after which he exclaimed "I did it, I am a Ghostbuster".

The reason why I don't want to do it myself is because I am very new to Wikipedia and I am still trying to learn all the formatting and commands that is used here and don't want to make any mistake. --Sleepless In Canada (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Who is Matthew Thurmon
He is listed as the 5th Ghostbuster but I could not find him on IMDB. I also could not find any reference to him even being an actor on the internet at large. I think a reference may be in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.210.222.150 (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ghostbusters III
In the Sequel section, the article says: Considering there is an announcement of Ghostbusters III (here), shouldn't this statement be deleted, or at least rephrased? BAPACop (converse) 05:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Dan Aykroyd has stated over and over that there will not be a 3rd movie.

IMO GB3 Should be given it;s own page. And also some of the info on the main artical maybe out of date saying that Bill Murray is a hold out is most likely incorect since his IMDB page shows him as announced to be in the new movie. Just a thought BXCanada (talk) 08:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As it is noted already, there is a place to read about ghostbusters III and if it happens. Stop using the Ghostbusters II article to spread false fanboy information. The Movie has yet to be confirmed by Bill Murray so your only wasting time posting it. Devilmanozzy (talk) 05:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

References in Popular Culture...Really?!
===References in Popular Culture===

The Sorrowful Putto of Prague webcomic referenced ths film in the story 'The Faithful Witness' by having the hero, Xavier of the Sorrowful Snows, fight a zombie version of Saint John of Nepomuk to defend what he feels is unfair public and professional criticism of the film.

Been to the link. Where is there anything related to Ghostbusters II? For that matter, how is this webcomic Popular Culture?! Devilmanozzy (talk) 07:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Reason for divorce
Are Americans really so anti-British that Dana would have divorced her husband "when he received an offer to join the London Symphony Orchestra"? I think that is not an accurate summary of what she saidRoyalcourtier (talk) 05:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Gathering sources

 * https://news.tfw2005.com/2019/07/16/idw-transformers-x-ghostbusters-2-full-preview-391509
 * https://www.cbr.com/movie-legends-revealed-did-ghostbusters-ii-have-a-secret-slimer-ending/
 * https://mentalfloss.com/article/71284/creating-vigo-carpathian-and-ghostbusters-ii-ending-you-never-saw
 * https://www.mrbreakfast.com/cereal_detail.asp?id=638
 * https://geektyrant.com/news/10-trivia-bits-you-may-not-know-from-ghostbusters-ii
 * https://medium.com/cuepoint/the-ghastly-legacy-of-the-ghostbusters-theme-song-28094f0e71a1
 * https://www.cryptozoic.com/ghostbusters-board-game-ii-0
 * https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/16/18185309/ghostbusters-sequel-jason-reitman-2020
 * https://bbfc.co.uk/releases/ghostbusters-2-1989
 * https://io9.gizmodo.com/playmobils-ghostbusters-ii-toys-actually-make-the-disap-1832402595
 * https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/bobby-brown-on-our-own-ghostbusters-2-video-865147/
 * https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/195275/ghostbusters-board-game-ii
 * https://archive.org/details/SFX.Special.Edition.The.Complete.Guide.to.Ghostbusters.2016.True.PDF/page/n53
 * https://screencrush.com/in-defense-of-ghostbusters-2/

Archives for sites blocking me because of stupid GDPR

 * http://archive.is/z9Ik0
 * http://archive.is/Lkgoh
 * http://archive.is/RSXwN
 * Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Reboot in the lead
Is it necessary to describe the 2016 reboot as "controversial" in the lead? The lead should only contain the most important information in summarizing the content of an article and while I believe it is necessary to identify the reboot as financially unsuccessful because it better explains why the producers opted to continue the original franchise instead of a new series, also identifying it as "controversial" doesn't have that benefit. The sentence also flows better without the additional "and". Bluerules (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, because it explains why it reverted to a direct sequel. It also read better before it was changed, since it established that they gave up trying to make a sequel, made a terrible film, and reverted to the original series.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:54, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That is all explained with the "financially unsuccessful" identification. Because it wasn't a financial success, the producers didn't see the primary justification (money) in continuing it and came to the conclusion that there was more money in reverting to a direct sequel. Poorly-received properties have received sequels if there was a financial benefit (e.g. the Transformers films), but commercial failure will dissuade producers from investing further money when there's a loss. "Controversial" doesn't translate to "terrible" either; Star Wars: The Last Jedi was "controversial", but a critical and commercial success. So it not necessary to identify the reboot as also "controversial" when "financially unsuccessful" alone explains why the it was replaced by a direct sequel. The previous revision also contradicted itself by saying that the development of a direct sequel ended before stating that a direct sequel is scheduled for release, therefore acknowledging that they did not give up for good and the development of a direct sequel did not end. The lead should be succinct and only state the most necessary facts about the reboot, not reflecting any personal feelings felt about it. Bluerules (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Von Sydow
Is he Vigo's voice? The game already has him as the voice in the game. (JoeLoeb (talk) 05:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC))

Not in the Movie, in the game he is because the original German actor who portrayed Vigo passed away in 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.55.188 (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Von Sydow did voice Vigo in the movie. They did not use the original voice of the actual actor portraying him. SummeRStorM79 (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)