Talk:God's Not Dead (film)/Reception

Reception
Is there any need or use for a 'Christian appraisal' subsection? I don't see any other such section, even on other Christian films. Is there any precedent whatsoever for this? MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  04:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a precedent for such a section, especially when numerous media sources discuss the Church's involvement with the film. The Passion of the Christ is a good example of another article that does this. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 04:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * All of the sources you cited were Christian outlets discussing the film. None of them cited any involvement of any church in the production of the film, only that numerous church groups viewed the film as collective activities. In addition, The Passion of the Christ was an international blockbuster from a highly notable producer. This film is not even in the same ballpark in terms of cultural impact. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  04:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Find some mainstream media outlets reporting on the impact this film has had in Christian circles, add those sources, and that will satisfy me. But please limit the information to what is discussed in those sources. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  04:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Michael Gerson, an Evangelical that Time named one of the most influential in the country, actually condemned the film (along with Noah) in his Washington Post column for leaving him "longing for the comparative moral simplicity and integrity of “The Wolf of Wall Street.”"  I don't mind a section dedicated to Christian response, especially considering that that is the target audience, but WP:NPOV wouldn't hurt.LM2000 (talk) 05:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment User:LM2000, I agree! Feel free to add in The Washington Post source you found to the article! Cheers, AnupamTalk 05:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * User:LM2000, I went ahead and added some information from the reference you provided to the article (diff). Let me know what you think! With regards, AnupamTalk 05:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The title of the article is "‘Noah’ and ‘God’s Not Dead’: Graceless and clueless", and the article consists of a negative review of both films, yet the only information you present from it is a jibe at liberal bloggers? MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  05:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * User:MjolnirPants, please read WP:CIVIL. From your talk page, it seems like you have had issues with this policy before. If you have a concern about any of the content, please say it in a respectful way and I'll be happy to address it. Thanks, AnupamTalk 05:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have said nothing uncivil to you, please stop trying to muddy the waters with false accusations. I have implied that your inclusion of just the single quote from LM2000's source constitutes quote mining, and you have not addressed that. The issue here is not whether I am being polite enough to suite you, but whether your edits reflect a WP:NPOV. Your inclusion of only the one statement is in violation of WP:QUOTE, which states under General guidelines "The quotation should be representative of the whole source document; editors should be very careful to avoid misrepresentation of the argument in the source."
 * Returning to the core question, I find numerous issues in the subsection you added. Specifically, the notability of endorsements from Ratio Christi and The American Catholic. In addition, MOS:FILM is quite clear that reviews and endorsements from those non film critics who have no connection to the issues at hand (such as the list of athletes you provided) are not appropriate. Whether the directors properly engage in Catholic rites is irrelevent to the movie itself. Since I believe in solutions, not blame, I'll create a new section on the talk page to highlight what I believe the Reception section should look like. Input on that would be much more constructive than further baseless accusations of incivility. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Reception proposal
This is a proposal for the named section on the main page. Feel free to modify it, but please post your reasons why for discussion.

Critical reception
The film has been panned by critics, currently holding a score of 16/100 on Metacritic indicating 'Overwhelming Dislike' based on 5 critics. It also holds a 20% favorable rating on Rotten Tomatoes Reviewer Scott Foundas of Variety wrote "...even grading on a generous curve, this strident melodrama about the insidious efforts of America's university system to silence true believers on campus is about as subtle as a stack of Bibles falling on your head...". Writing for The A.V. Club, Todd VanDerWerff gave the film a D-, saying "Even by the rather lax standards of the Christian film industry, God's Not Dead is a disaster. It's an uninspired amble past a variety of Christian-email-forward boogeymen that feels far too long at just 113 minutes". Alan Noble, of the blog Christ and Pop Culture wrote "As a friend said, this could be the first film to be based off of a chain email. There’s lots to poke fun at in this trailer. Hercules stiltedly quoting Shakespeare and Nietzsche. The title, which evokes the question: God’s not-dead what? The simplistic narrative of the evangelical standing up against the evil liberal atheist professor boogie man." Hemant Mehta, writing on his blog Friendly Atheist said "It just goes to show: Those urban legend emails your religious relatives forwarded you a decade ago can, in fact, be made into a stereotypical Christian film." Zach Seemayer of Entertainment Tonight compared the film's plot to "...a chain email popular ten years ago..." Dave White, writing for the film podcast Linoleum Knife said "There’s a vintage Jack Chick tract* all about this. It’s called Big Daddy and, like all Chick tracts, it’s wild-eyed and bizarrely funny. But this story of godly vengeance didn’t start with that goofy, histrionic comic series. It’s an apocryphal tale, one that goes back to the early part of the 20th century, a fiction passed around from Christian to Christian, one that always comes with an assertion of truth."

Steve Pulaski of Influx Magazine, however, was less critical of the film, giving it a C+ and stating "God's Not Dead has issues, many of them easy to spot and heavily distracting. However, it's surprisingly effective in terms of message, acting, and insight, which are three fields Christian cinema seems to struggle with the most".

Christian appraisal
Christian publications tended to be much more positive about the film. Plugged In, an entertainment site published by Focus on the Family said "The story is sometimes melodramatic. And there are moments of implausibility that emerge as the list of non-Christians behaving badly lengthens. But God's Not Dead can always be seen focusing on the simple power of testifying to the Truth, no matter the cost." The Dove Foundation wrote "This is a powerful film. Kevin Sorbo turns in a brilliant performance as a Philosophy professor who starts his new class by insisting that his students sign a paper stating “God is dead”." Alan Sears, president of Alliance Defending Freedom endorsed the film, writing "God's Not Dead is an important and wonderful family movie everyone should see. You will love it!" Rev. Austin Miles, writing for Breitbart.com praised the film, writing "This superb movie should not be missed. Christians, atheists and everybody else will get something out of this while seeing a great film with very fine actors. I encourage families to attend it and by all means take your kids. You will be glad you did."

Not all Christian reviewers praised the film, however. Evangelical op-ed columnist for The Washington Post, Michael Gerson panned the film, stating that "The main problem with “God’s Not Dead” is not its cosmology or ethics but its anthropology. It assumes that human beings are made out of cardboard. Academics are arrogant and cruel. Liberal bloggers are preening and snarky (well, maybe the movie has a point here). Unbelievers disbelieve because of personal demons. It is characterization by caricature." John Mulderig echoed similar concerns in his review for the Catholic News Service, stating: "There might be the kernel of an intriguing documentary buried within director Harold Cronk's stacked-deck drama, given the extent of real-life academic hostility toward religion. But even faith-filled moviegoers will sense the claustrophobia of the echo chamber within which this largely unrealistic picture unfolds."

Commercial performance
In its first weekend of release, the film earned $8.6 million domestically from just 780 theaters, causing Entertainment Weekly's Adam Markovitz to refer to it as "The biggest surprise of the weekend...". In addition, the film added 398 additional theaters (almost 50% increase) after its 2nd week.


 * EDIT I added the reflist template to make things easier, and modified the cited references to maintain a continuity of style. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * EDIT I added three additional citations to the sentence about the urban legend, including two film reviews and an additional independent review per "notable persons or experts connected to the topics covered by the film may also be cited." MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  16:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Your proposal removes the "Christian appraisal" section entirely, which both User:User:LM2000 and I found useful. I do not see any issue with the section as it is (apart from your use of Patheos blogs in addition to the snopes and chick links). I mentioned that at WP:RSN and I'll be happy to go along with whatever the Wikipedia community decides there. Thanks, AnupamTalk 17:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * LM2000 did not state that he found the "Christian appraisal" section useful, he stated that he did not mind it. I myself do not mind it, so long as it is sourced properly and contains only notable information. The endorsements from athletes, purported quotes from Christian groups which are not reflected in the cited source and the mention of the filmmaker's religious practices are all excessive and should be removed. If you insist on maintaining a separate "Christian appraisal" subsection, modify the above proposal to one that excludes those aspects I just mentioned and watch me jump on board with you. As far as the patheos blog citation goes, Hemant Mehta is a notable person, arguably an expert on the issue of Christian/atheist confluence, and unarguably connected to the topics covered by the film. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.   — Preceding undated comment added 18:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * My problem with this proposed version is that it is undue in its presentation of negative reviews, which is ironically the opposite of the WP:NPOV concerns I raised last night. The Christian Post, National Review, and The Chattanoogan are WP:RS, as far as I know, and I don't see the harm in using Pure Flix Entertainment as a primary source.  I do not have an opinion on whether parts of this should be shortened or merged, or whether the section should be renamed, but total removal of the section does seem a bit much.  Surely some of it is salvageable.LM2000 (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:LM2000's comment. User:MjolnirPants's version seems to present a one-sided version of the film. I agreed with User:LM2000's comments on WP:NPOV and supported his addition of The Washington Post and CNS sources to address that problem. It seems like there's consensus here to keep that section as the sources used therein are notable and reliable. As far as the Mehta source is concerned, I think that if we're going to leave it in, which I will do as a compromise to please you, we should attribute that statement to him in the article. Let me know your thoughts. Cheers, AnupamTalk 18:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with adding more positive reviews, however I disagree that the proposal above violates WP:NPOV because reviews of the film are -in fact- overwhelmingly negative. I'm not disputing The Christian Post, National Review, or The Chattanoogan as reliable sources. I excluded them because they seemed to be citing the description of the filmmaker's religious participation. If they support something else, please add them back in. I have encountered a small number of positive reviews not hitherto included, and I've added those to the proposal above in the interest of reachign a consensus. I've also re-created the "Christian appraisal" subsection. Please review and comment.  MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  18:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Your revision is a little better, but is still unsatisfactory. It removes the quote from the President of Ratio Christi as well as all the organizations and individuals who have publicly come out to support the film. In addition, you supplant a deep quote by the Alliance Defending Freedom with a more lighthearted one. I still support the current version of the section. However, I would be open to removing the sentence that states "Some Christian youth groups in the Methodist, Catholic, and Baptist traditions are watching God's Not Dead together" as a compromise. Have you thought about attributing your urban myth sentence to Mehta yet? That's an issue that needs addressed. I look forward to hearing from you soon. With regards, AnupamTalk 20:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't feel that an endorsement (which is patently not a review) is appropriate for inclusion in the article, especially given the apparent lack of notability from which it stems. Your 'deep quote' was not supported by the source, that is why I removed it. If you want to replace the one I have kept with that one, simply add an appropriate source and I will accept that. Your offer to remove a single sentence doesn't address the core issue, which is that your section puts undue weight on endorsements from Christian groups and extraneous information, when it should properly be about reviews of the film from Christian sources, or barring that; mainstream news media discussing the film's impact in the Christian community. I don't have any problem attributing the description to Mehta, but I should point out that given the number of sources supporting my claim, that would change the description of reviewers comparing the film to the legend from a mention that "numerous sources" make the comparison to a longer paragraph about all the individual reviewers who made the comparison. I've made an appropriate change to the proposal for your consideration, including removing some of the references. Please review and comment. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  20:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I think it's very important to list which organizations and individuals endorsed the film. The section does not only need to contain reviews. User:LM2000 also saw no problem with this information, supplied by The Christian Post and Pure Flix Entertainment. Based on this fact, I think WP:STICK applies here and we should work on other issues in the article. The quote that you removed appears on the Alliance Defending Freedom website. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 23:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you come up with a logical reason why it's important to contain endorsements? Can you cite other examples of film articles listing endorsements? Can you differentiate the endorsements Christian organizations offer this film from the endorsements they offer any overtly Christian film? If you can answer those questions, I'll get on board. Until then, bear in mind that you're standing over the horse as well, and engaging in no demonstrable willingness to compromise (agreeing to drop a single sentence from a two paragraph monologue is hardly a compromise). I'm still waiting for you to address your quote mining and the relevance of the filmmaker's religious observances as well. I have every intention of replacing what exists on the page with what is contained in this section sometime soon, and if you refuse to work with me on that, then your input won't be included.
 * Also, please stop putting words in other people's mouths. LM2000 has not mentioned endorsements once and your habit of attempting to speak for other people is disturbing and reeks of dishonesty. Please stick to expressing your own opinions. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  02:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The Christian Post, a major paper, felt the need to include the endorsements in their article so I included them in this one. The film's website itself has a whole page devoted to organizations that support the film Furthermore, you do not WP:OWN this article - if you replace your version without consensus, I will revert you. There is no need to censor information from this article and I would suggest being patient and allowing other users to express their opinions here. My compromise was allowing your blog sources (that do not belong in an encyclopedia article) to remain there. However if you remain obstinate and uncivil, I will remove them too. Thanks, AnupamTalk 02:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you be willing to have the endorsements moved to a separate section by that name? Also, please refrain from being dishonest. User:LM2000 clearly stated that " The Christian Post, National Review, and The Chattanoogan are WP:RS, as far as I know, and I don't see the harm in using Pure Flix Entertainment as a primary source." In the article, The Christian Post and Pure Flix Entertainment exist as references that support the endorsement. Please read carefully before making capricious statements. I look forward to your reply. Thanks, AnupamTalk 02:25, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You are continuing to inaccurately attack my character and behavior, misrepresenting much of what I've said while refusing to engage in discussion about a number of issues I've raised. That is not helpful. If you honestly want to change my mind, you could at least attempt to make a case for the importance of endorsements, the precedent of including them, their meaningfulness, and the necessity of including information about the filmmaker's religious practices instead of trying to make this a conflict of personalities. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  03:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * User:MjolnirPants, I responded to your moot comment about "habit of attempting to speak for other people is disturbing and reeks of dishonesty". If you notice my conversation with User:LM2000, you will not notice such conversation because the latter conversation is amicable and constructive. I made the case for the endorsements being mentioned in a major newspaper, as well as the official website of the film having a prominent tab for it. I tried to suggest moving the endorsements to another section if that is satisfying to you and have yet to hear from you on that. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 03:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, moving endorsements to another section is not sufficient. If your only case for including them is that you found a reliable source that listed them, then I must respond by referring you to INDISCRIMINATE, to the specific passage which reads "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." At this point I ask again: What makes these endorsements important enough to be worth including? If you can make a case for it, I am willing to listen, but if you can only continue to attempt to reduce this to a clash of personalities, I will simply proceed with editing the article on my own initiative. That is not a threat, merely a statement of the only alternative left open to me, if I wish to see this article improve. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  03:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Notable organizations and individuals that support and help fund a project, and influence others to do so, are definitely worth including in the article. The fact that a major newspaper reports this further supports inclusion. Is there a reason why you would support censoring this content from the article? Since we seem to disagree, I would be more than happy to start an RfC to obtain the opinions of other editors and will gladly accept the outcome of it. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 05:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I've made changes to the article per the discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I am, of course, open to making further changes, so long as they are not to mostly or entirely revert this back to the way it was before. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  14:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)