Talk:Terror on the Prairie

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge history[edit]

Could admins please merge the history from Draft:Terror on the Prairie. Instead of moving the draft page to mainspace a new article (copy) with the same contents was created on January 19th 2023 without any history or attribution. -- 109.79.172.64 (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AngusWOOF: maybe you can do this? -- 109.79.172.64 (talk) 14:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can request a histmerge. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 17:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all [1] -- 109.79.168.171 (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gross[edit]

Gina Carona was in the news,[2] it was tangentially related to this film, as people on Twitter were mocking her and this film. Deseret News: Did Gina Carano ‘fumble the bag’ with Disney? She says no. According to The-Numbers.com the film grossed €804 domestically[3] it was released for one day, August 10th, 2022 (Limited), in one theatre. (The-Numbers.com does not list any international gross. Box Office Mojo does not list any domestic gross figure, but it does list an international gross of ~$13,115.[4])

To quote what Variety magazine said in 2007 about another low grossing film[5] :

"Like many on the dishonor roll of 60-plus titles cuming less than $1,000 over the past two decades, its stint in a single theater had more to do with contracts or four-wall rentals than mass audience desertion."

The single day release in just one theatre would seem to be a similar case, but I cannot confirm that.

As this film did not get a real theatrical release, I deliberately did not add the box office gross to the Infobox as it would be misleading to present it without context (WP:UNDUE) or say anything more than what the sources directly state (WP:OR original research). Instead I included the information about the international release in the release section with an explanation, as much as the sources allow. I would urge other editors not to add the box office gross to the Infobox, but if they do believe it appropriate to please discuss before adding it. I highlight the issue here in advance to hopefully reduce any potential risk of disagreement. -- 109.79.168.171 (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Puffery?[edit]

An editor took a hatchet to the article[6] and after having done that, only then tagged the article with the template {{puffery}}. Having already cut so much from the article it would be helpful to know what further work or cuts this editor still believes needs to be done to address the tag he added?

Firstly I disagree with the cuts[7], while I can understand why an editor might have been prompted by long quotes to do copyediting and restructuring it is unfortunate that someone would be so quick to dismiss the good faith efforts of multiple other editors are as "puffery" and make so many deletes with so little explanation. Secondly it would have been better if Carano's thoughts and feelings were rearranged and presented as part of the Production Development and Casting process. Perhaps the context[8] needs to be made clearer and it needs to be better explained that she was feeling raw and emotional after being publicly dismissed by Lucasfilm. I do not believe substantial deletes are the best way to do it improve this encyclopedia, but I do hope someone can spare the time to do the work necessary to recover and improve this article. -- 109.76.142.231 (talk) 12:35, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask the editor that added the tag and made the big cuts to please explain at the talk page. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tagged it "puffery" because it's puffed up to hell. This film verifiably exists and was barely viewed or reviewed. I've cut some out - David Gerard (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another hatchet job, and the same tag again. This death by many cuts does not make a better encyclopedia article. David Gerard keeps making assertions and has not given adequate explanations that would reasonably allow other editors to know if they have met his vague and subjective opinion that the article is too positive, and eventually remove the puffery tag.
I have tried to objectively summarize the available sources, and make as good an encyclopedia article as is reasonably possible. The WP:LEAD is supposed to summarize the article body, and the Rotten Tomatoes score is literally 83% (it is absurd to keep the caveat that it was not widely without the main point that it was _positively_ reviewed). Objectively (WP:NPOV) the reviews were positive. -- 109.78.199.9 (talk) 02:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Film Threat review,[9] I can't find anything on WP:FILM or WP:RSN that explicitly says to avoid it. Its article has one mention in the lead of paid promotion, but someone might want to look into that as original research. "Since 2011?" How is that sourced, by the Wayback Machine? 70.163.208.142 (talk) 04:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Film reviews are clearly WP:RSOPINION reliably sourced and clearly attributed opinions. The delete was a unilateral assertion, there was and is no consensus for this delete. The fact that Film Threat clearly states that filmmakers can pay them to guarantee coverage is more honest than most publications, because if you think publishers are not influenced by the groups that buy advertising I urge you to please think again. (Also, what they do not say is that positive coverage is not guaranteed.) I strongly object to deleting a review simply because one editor has decided without consensus that he objects to that publication. -- 109.76.136.61 (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An actor being a producer on a film is not nothing[10] and it might be better presented in the Production and Development section, it seems overzealous to delete it entirely. -- 109.78.199.9 (talk) 02:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This film was released on home media. If {{better source needed}} then there is a tag for that. Deleting the section entirely [11] is not constructive, and not likely to result in anyone adding better sources. --- 109.78.199.9 (talk) 02:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sea of IP promotion reverted once more. Your problem is that there aren't the RSes. Please review WP:RS and especially WP:V. I see you deleted the welcome message on your talk page pointing you at the basics you may have missed - you should go back and review these. Thanks! - David Gerard (talk) 09:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're templating a regular. 109 knows policy, it's a content dispute. I don't have an opinion on removing the stuff sourced to Daily Wire and blu-ray.com, but Film Threat is worth discussing as several articles cite it. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 10:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An editor reverting unilaterally without any consensus again. Not making any good faith effort to improve the article when no one denies this film was released on home media, just wholesale deleting the entire section. Deleting is too easy, actually making an effort to improve this encyclopedia is hard.
As for Film Threat there is no policy or discussion to justify the removal of reviews from Film Threat. They are clear and up front about their willingness to guarantee coverage for payment. What they do not guarantee is a positive review. This up front admission makes them more honest that most publications, not a reason to summarily delete their reviews and make accusations that this is some kind of a "whitewash". If you think print and web publications have not been influenced by advertising money, think again. Deleting sources you don't like instead of finding better ones is no way to make a better encyclopedia. -- 109.255.172.191 (talk) 17:28, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reception[edit]

An anon IP editor added another review to the reception section[12] It is good to have another review so I am in no rush to remove it but this critic doesn't appear to be notable (not even well established enough to be listed on Rotten Tomatoes) and the comments selected from the review appear redundant. (We already selected plenty of criticism from within the positive reviews, and one negative review.) Do other editors want to keep the review from Jim Morazzini of Voices from the Balcony or revert this addition? -- 109.76.142.231 (talk) 12:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that a good chunk of the other critics listed as just as non-notable as Jim / Voices. Ideally, there should be better critical reception from notable newspapers and magazines. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 16:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"just as non-notable". would I like better more notable critics, sure of course, but these were the ones that were available. But not all critics are the _just_ the same and and a critic that is listed on Rotten Tomatoes is at least marginally more noteworthy than those that are not. -- 109.78.197.234 (talk) 03:02, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That IP editor seems to be a single-purpose account, and I reverted their edit for a different film because of this, but that film didn't suffer from lack of notable reviews. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 13:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
btw, Jim is the owner of that Voices from the Balcony website. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 18:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voices from the Balcony was added back to the article again[13] (simply called "one review" rather than clearly attributing the source of the review). I remain skeptical of including this review from a source that doesn't even pass the low low bar of being considered good enough for Rotten Tomatoes. -- 109.76.136.61 (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should "The Daily Wire" be italicized?[edit]

I was going to make a simple wikignome edit and italicize one instance of "The Daily Wire" in the lead, but then noticed several more instances un-italicized and started to wonder. "The Daily Wire" is a news website and a media company, should we italicize based on its use or does it make more sense to just be consistent throughout the article? 70.163.208.142 (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Generally positive reviews" is misleading[edit]

As with most Daily Wire movies, with the possible exception of the particularly bad ones, respectable critics avoid this film on principle. Using the few reviews available, which will inevitably come from people who are subscribed to DW and are inherently biased towards it. Movies that are so fringe, they're outright ignored by critics and the general public, should not be measured by the same metric as every other film. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. The "generally positive reviews" were because it was little-reviewed (or, indeed, viewed) - David Gerard (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IP 46 that's your own original research. The involvement of Daily Wire is not the only possible explanation. There are many horror films that do not get a lot of reviews. This is a small very violent cowboy movie released direct to streaming, this is a decent amount of reviews considering. You are also assuming that film critics are biased and cannot be objective, that is a big assumption. (I just wanted to know if this film was anything like Bone Tomahawk, I don't think it is.) The lead should summarize the critical response section WP:LEAD. This encyclopedia should be able to objectively inform readers that this film was positively reviewed while also addressing any concerns about it not having been widely reviewed and potentially only appealing to a limited audience.
Arguments have been made before against using Rotten Tomatoes when a film does not have many reviews, do you propose to exclude Rotten Tomatoes? Do you IP 46 have any specific suggestions about how to improve the article to actually address your concerns? -- 109.78.199.9 (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments are weird and spammy - David Gerard (talk) 09:47, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming that film critics who are subscribed to the Daily Wire specifically are biased and cannot be objective, as people who ARE objective don't generally give their money to a media outlet that is infamous for spreading misinformation and right wing propaganda. But more importantly I'm arguing that critics who would've given negative reviews to this film found that the most damning negative review of a film is for them not to watch it in the first place. The film didn't get positive reviews. It got NO reviews, except from people who already have a vested interest in seeing it succeed, because they technically already paid for it when they subscribed to DW.
I also agree that this Encyclopedia should objectively inform readers. And by all objective metric, this film hardly even deserves a mention on the site,, except for maybe a brief mention on the DW's own article. 46.97.170.112 (talk) 10:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
yes, it's entirely unclear it passes WP:NFILM at all. Tagged accordingly - David Gerard (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I scoured the whole net and found a second review! It's at yellow-rated site Media Matters for America. At least it's not a blog - David Gerard (talk) 10:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I remain skeptical of including a review from a politics site such as "Media Matters for America" that doesn't even pass the low low bar of being considered good enough for Rotten Tomatoes, especially while at the same time excluding a review from actual film critics and a long established publisher like Film Threat. -- 109.76.136.61 (talk) 22:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to somewhere on The Daily Wire?[edit]

Should this movie be redirected to DW (preferably a section on their film stuff)? The only reason it’s particularly notable is because it’s made by DW (which is no longer novel since it’s their third fourth film) and is possibly the only major appearance of Gina Carano post-cancellation thus far. Dronebogus (talk) 01:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
No, I don't think so. I've added 2 reviews, rather mixed. There are many other reviews available, showing a certain notability of the film itself. I therefore removed the notability tag. Best, — MY, OH, MY! 23:09, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1; 2 3 4; 5 and much more ....
On a practical level a think a short film article works best rather than trying to awkwardly cram details about the film into a larger Dailywire article, but I do care far more about films than I do politics. -- 109.255.172.191 (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Home media[edit]

Despite no one actually disagreeing with the fact that this film was released on home media (DVD and Bluray) an editor thinks the best way to improve this encyclopedia article was to delete the section in its entirity[14] rather than keep the factually undisputed content and use the tags {{better source needed}} or {{citation needed}}.

Perhaps someone could find the time to restore this section at some point in the future. -- 109.255.172.191 (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terror_on_the_Prairie&oldid=1205603526"