Talk:Bad Boys for Life

Redirect
Not very good with Wikipedia, but shouldn't we set up the 'Bad Boys 3' / 'Bad Boys III' searches to redirect here? Currently Bad Boys 3 re-directs to Bad Boys 2's sequel section and Bad Boys III redirects to the franchise page. --82.43.114.79 (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Poster for Bad Boys for Life
What happened to the Bad Boys for Life? Why did it got deleted. Please bring it back?

Mexico as Co-Producer
Don’t want to start an edit war with DiscoSlasher666, so bringing the discussion here. Bad Boys for Life was shot in-part in Mexico City, however just as Deadpool shot in Canada and Star Wars shot in the UK, this does not instantly earn a “co-production” credit. Two of the sources provided by Disco are suspect as to their dependability (bordering on gossip/celeb tracking) and two of them actually indicate the US as the sole-production company, so not sure why he even listed them. To support my stance as the US being the sole country of production (aside from there only being American producers and production companies), I linked the British Film Institute and The Numbers.com, two sites commonly used on this site as reputable sources.

If anyone has any thoughts on the matter please chime in, and if things continue to get reverted back and forth I’ll just bring it to a third-party admin. Cheers. TropicAces (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)tropicAces


 * I added correct info and references about this contribution. Bad Boys for Life is an American-Mexican co-production film. It was produced by American producers as Bill Bannerman, Will Smith, Jerry Bruckheimer, Barry H. Waldman, Mike Stenson, James Lassiter, Chad Oman and Doug Belgrad, but also this film was produced by the Mexican Peke Correa alongside Jerry Bruckheimer in Mexican locations. The film locations were in Atlanta and Florida in The United States and Naucalpan and Yautepec in Mexico. Also there was an American, Mexican crew and cast. Alongside the American crew, was a Mexican crew as Daniela Rojas who worked as set decorator, Gabriel Solana was the makeup artist, Luis Román Hernández was the set production assistant in the Mexican locations, Luis Yañez Jacques and Carlos Y. Jacques worked as art directors in Naucalpan and Yautepec locations, among others Mexicans working with the American crew. The American companies were Columbia Pictures, 2.0 Entertainment, Don Simpson/Jerry Bruckheimer Films and Overbrook Entertainment, meanwhile the Mexican company production was Columbia Pictures Mexico credited as Sony Pictures Mexico at the end credits. Bad Boys for Life is an American-Mexican co-production, my contribution is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiscoSlasher666 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * none of this justifies it as a co-production. As I stated in my section above, because a film employs people from different countries or is shot in a location for plot/budget reasons does not mean that country was an actual backer of the project. TropicAces (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)tropicAces


 * Well since the Mexican producer Peke Correa is involved with Columbia Pictures Mexico is a co-production because the company and producer also paid to filming Bad Boys for Life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiscoSlasher666 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Reviewing this discussion and researching coverage in reliable sources, I cannot find anything that indicates that the film was a co-production between the United States and Mexico. When a film is made by a major film studio, in this case Columbia Pictures, it is directly driven by that studio's nationality (in this case, the US). Outside the studio system, there can be elements of other countries/nationalities being involved, but this is not such an instance. I am not seeing any reliable sources discussing any Mexican connection in terms of production or financing, so the details mentioned in this discussion are not noteworthy in the context of indicating a Mexican connection. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 23:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Quit adding that Mexico was a producer in the film which it wasn't Disco. TheBigMan720 (talk) 02:31, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Useful ref
Interesting reference discussing how it has succeeded at the Box Office for any interested editor here Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Recent lead changes
, the recent revert you made has several issues. First and foremost, it was a wholesale revert that undid changes you are NOT contesting. For example, "currently" was removed in the third paragraph, which I think you would agree is language we should not be using in an encyclopedia. Second, you already tried this change back on July 12th. When a bold edit doesn't work out, it's best to discuss as opposed to simply reverting. I've restored the status quo for now, but I'm open to suggestions and an in-depth explanation as to why you feel these changes are needed. Grammar-wise, I think the status quo version is superior. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * yeah sorry, my fat thumbs hit send before I could type my explanation. The opening line is whatever; the directors aren’t prominent so it being the third installment of a series is more relevant, but that’s opinion based. The other two are actual edits that need to be done, however. A “co-producer” is an actual job title on a film, much like executive producer. Smith is a producer on the film, not a co-producer (it’s a different technicality than “co-written” or “co-directed”). Also the “mostly positive reviews” is citing the reference next to the line, so saying it was “well-received” technically makes that statement unfounded (especially because Metacritic says “mixed or average”). Sorry again for the confusion with the edit. TropicAces (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)tropicAces
 * I agree that it is inappropriate to list the directors and the writers before anything else. Per WP:LEAD, what makes this film noteworthy is both being part of the franchise and starring Smith and Lawrence. These two elements should be mentioned upfront, followed by the directors and the writers. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , appreciate you weighing in. According to WP:FILMLEAD, we are satisfying the minimum requirements irregardless of the order. Also it's not uncommon per that guideline to mention "reputable directors" in the opening sentence. I suppose a decent case can be made that these directors aren't reputable yet, but with Beverly Hills Cop 4 in development as another notch under their belt, I'm sure that argument would only get weaker over time if not already insufficient. And if we're being truly honest here, there's really no harm in waiting until the second sentence to mention it's the third installment. That's a very prominent position in the lead paragraph. The other benefit of having it there is the fact that it helps break up the WP:SEAOFBLUE that would result in cramming the directors, writers, and headlining stars all into one area of the paragraph. That's an eyesore we should try to avoid when possible. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's undue weight to put these directors and writers ahead of the other elements for this particular film. WP:UNDUE covers "prominence of placement", and both the franchise and the starring actors meet the due-weight principle. Furthermore, per WP:LEAD, the directors and writers are not "defining" characteristics of this film. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * We'll have to agree to disagree that the level of prominence is being negatively impacted either way. Pulling the MOS:LEADREL card is essentially splitting hairs to support an editor preference. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * MOS:FIRST says, "For topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence." I find the spirit of this to mean that the reason or reasons a film is notable should be put more upfront than other descriptors. It also says, "If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist." In this vein, nonspecialists are not likely to be familiar with this film's directors and writers, so if this is upfront, they do not get the context right away. Identifying the franchise and the actors upfront provides context. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Alright, fair enough. It's debatable on the number of elements responsible for a film's notability, and the next bullet point down talks about spreading relevance throughout the lead and not overloading the first sentence (especially true when there are multiple factors involved). However, since my secondary concern about avoiding WP:SEAOFBLUE didn't become an issue, I can live with the changes you've made at this point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So I was correct in assuming you aren't challenging the removal of "currently". As for "co-produced" versus "co-producer", I think there's some gray there by saying those mean exactly the same thing in all contexts, but to avoid any possible confusion, I won't challenge that. Your proposal was: "Smith also produced the film with Jerry Bruckheimer and Doug Belgrad". Something like this would work better: "It was also produced by Smith, Jerry Bruckheimer and Doug Belgrad".Then there's the issue of "mostly positive" vs "well-received". In past discussions, the rough consensus is that when RT and MC don't fully agree with one another, the summary statement should probably be avoided. Betty and others on at least one occasion have suggested the use of "well-received" as a good compromise when both aggregators disagree, because "well-received" is simple language that embodies the range between mixed and mostly positive. It stands for anything positive basically. We need to keep in mind that MC's point scale rating here is 59, which is two points away from being called "generally positive". It's clearly at the high end of the mixed/average range. If we leave "mostly positive" in place, then it is ignoring MC's assessment and should be moved to the body instead with proper in-text attribution. If it's going to remain in the lead, we need a better solution. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe just put “the film received praise from critics for XYZ, with many noting it as an improvement over its predecessor” (would all need to be cited, of course). It’s always a pain when Rotten Tomatoes is in mid-high 70s but Metacritic is in the 50s, but I think overall the film was more well-received than not (also for disclosure, just tweaked the producer line, explanation in my edit). TropicAces (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)tropicAces
 * The IndieWire source author made the assessment only one day after the film was released, citing the RT score as its reason back when it was 75%. Something like that is fine for the body with proper in-text attribution, but that's not fit for the lead. I've removed it for now. If someone feels the need to reinstate a reception summary in the lead and wants to do the legwork of coming up with a source that lists those elements, be my guest. But as of right now, there isn't a cited source in the article to support one. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , looks like you were the one that originally finessed the language to "mostly positive" based on that single source back in January (diff). So you may have something to say here perhaps. Figured I'd ping you and let you know it's been removed at this stage. I'll continue searching for a replacement, but so far nothing I've come across fits the bill. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Found one: Why Bad Boys For Life Reviews Are So Positive – Screen Rant
 * Supports "generally positive" and mentions both the RT and MC scores in its assessment. --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with this one. I added the IndieWire one before because there was no overarching source for "the best of the series" claim. I welcome other sources too. Not all films have good prose-based recaps (hence why RT and MC are used as baselines). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Mostly positive claim
, I see you're back to your old habit of re-reverting until someone takes you to the talk page. Is it not clear to you that this source doesn't support the claim, "Critical reception was mostly positive"? The exact quote from the source is "generally positive", meaning that reviews trend positive. Injecting "mostly" into that interpretation is not something we should be doing. You are also messing with something that's been in place for 4 years now. At the very least when reverted, you should be leaving the status quo in place while seeking consensus for your proposal on the talk page. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And I see that you are still continuing with your poor writing habits. Both sources talk about the "positive". What is the logic in your writing that "A says it is a 'house' and B says it is a 'residence'"? It doesn't matter how long it stays on the page. Unnecessary/obviously prolonged sentences are always changed. (PS. IndieWire directly states that the reviews were mostly positive, we don't even need the low-quality Screen Rant, which already says almost the same thing for critics.) ภץאคгöร  18:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If you had bothered to read the discussion above (at the least the end of it) like I suggested to you originally, you would have already understood that the problem with the IndieWire source is that it made the assessment of RT only, not MC, and it did so early on. Screen Rant did an early assessment as well, but it also assessed MC which is important. I disagree that it should be discarded. And despite what you are claiming, both sources are not saying the same thing. The current version of the article doesn't make that a concern, because we use in-text attribution and quote the source directly, which is the better approach to your personal interpretation. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't need to read it, there is no consensus on this specific issue and you have come to your own conclusion. There is also no such thing as "but this low quality source also mentions XYZ aggregator (that we don't use for generalization) on their page, so we should definitely use and prioritize it above this better source". We don't make such a bizarre argument in the same way that we don't try to lengthen a sentence that can be paraphrased/summarized in four words by unnecessarily using quotes. I am not making a personal interpretation, just being reasonable. ภץאคгöร  19:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Everything you've stated is just your opinion, and we simply disagree. Guess we're at an impasse. The article remains unchanged for now per WP:NOCON. Time to move on from this pointless discussion unless others weigh in. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course when you don't want to see it, you are not buying it. ภץאคгöร  20:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That doesn't even make sense. Not really applicable to this discussion, but if it applied to anyone, that label/accusation would likely boomerang your way! This was discussed, written, and sourced 4 years ago, and the community has essentially moved on. The point you are trying to beat the drums about now isn't worth all the fuss. I took the time to engage and provide some feedback when you attempted to use BOTH sources for a claim they didn't support (twice without discussion, BTW), but the words appear to be falling on deaf ears. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, again, nothing makes sense for you and the so-called "community" is that you came to your own conclusion (an imaginary consensus) years ago. The sources definitely didn't support it. Keep on with these. ภץאคгöร  08:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * "the so-called "community" is ... (an imaginary consensus)"

I never said "consensus" (those are your words), but I did say "discussed", of which there were no objections among 3 editors and 2 that supported back in 2020. There have also been many dozens, if not hundreds of edits to that section since without any changes to these two lines, indicating some level of silent acceptance. The community in this case is the activity level in the article. As with most films, it dies down several months after the film's release. 4 years later, the community has certainly moved on for the most part, which is why I said "essentially". I also linked to NOCON above, which is the policy on how to treat discussions that end in "no consensus". The only "imaginary" things happening here are the tricks your eyes are playing on you and what you think is being said.
 * "The sources definitely didn't support it."

This is another confusing statement from you. The current version of the Critical response section quotes the two sources directly. How can a quote not be supported by the source? It appears you are arguing for the sake of winning and not really paying attention to what you are saying. You have yet to produce a convincing argument. How about you stop wasting time here? --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't know if it helps to look at other sources. RT editorial has some context. DigitalSpy says it was worth the wait. The New York Times said "generally favorable reviews" (from the snippet I can see).
 * Another consideration, though -- Metacritic's breakdown is 23 positive, 22 mixed, and 1 negative (and considers the overall reception "mixed" due to considering some critics with more weight than others). That means it's in a weird space between a positive and mixed category in the statistical sense. RT, with the 76%, has an average score of 6.2. For a random comparison, Upgraded has 77% and an average score of 7.1, which I think shows that the positive reviews liked more than loved this one. (Of course, we can't interpret that in the article body, just providing food for thought on the trickiness of capturing the "right" reception tone.) Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, for weighing in with some common sense. It's like a breath of fresh air! I am not married to any particular source, and I welcome the consideration of additional sources! It seems like "generally positive", "generally favorable" or just "positive" are all in line with the NYT source and Screen Rant. The DigitalSpy source we can probably set aside, only because it was a really early assessment on 2020/01/15.Again, I don't see any benefit to Nyxaros' attempt to try to tweak the phrasing to "mostly positive". That change ignores Metacritic and these other sources. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)