Talk:Ocean's 8

Comedy Gold!
I thought I was being trolled when someone told me that Hollywood is SO out of touch with reality that after the regressive agenda peddling Ghost Busters failure they were doing this, I literally wouldn't believe it no matter how many times people told me it's real, but this ... this ... omfg! I can't stop laughing, I had to call and tell everyone I know. This is gold! PLEASE editors keep this up to date, this is hilarity incarnate, I can't wait to be told I'm a sexist misogynist bigot for thinking that narrative peddling 'comedies' flopping is great fun and a good lesson for the regressives out there who are capable of learning. :P 124.190.207.57 (talk) 09:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Bold edit: "Lukewarm" critical response
I am adding a sentence describing the critical response to the film as "lukewarm," based on several entertainment and news sources which have described it as such--Insider, Daily Telegraph, E! Online, The Guardian. Additionally, this can reconcile the fairly positive consensus according to Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic's assessment of "mixed or average reviews." Dan56 (talk) 10:28, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no consensus on how to report on review aggregators' scores. It also depends they use the "thumbs up/thumbs down" method for the main Rotten Tomatoes score or the "average rating" method that Metacritic uses, and that RT uses as a secondary score. Metacritic considers 40-60% to be "mixed", with 60% being the threshold for "generally positive". RT considers 60% from the first method to be the threshold for "Fresh". So if the rating falls within the 60-70% bracket, surely we can assume it was a bit better than mixed, perhaps "mixed-to-positive"?
 * I do think that the media have been trying to make the critical reception of Ocean's 8 look worse than it really was in order to stir up some controversy. This comes about a week after Brie Larsson highlighted the lack of women in film criticism. For example, this opinion piece calls it "poorly reviewed". In fact, a score of 66% on RT is hardly a disaster. Anywikiuser (talk) 15:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

No. There is no agreement to change this to "lukewarm", when both movie rating aggregators conclude otherwise. There is no justification for departing from RT and Metacritic's OWN SUMMARY of their 60+ ratings as "mostly positive" or "generally favorable". Why is this movie singled out for different subjective description? If you change this, you should change the adjectives used in 1000s of other Wikipedia entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huangdi (talk • contribs) 21:14, July 1, 2018 (UTC)
 * Combining the score from RT and the score from Metacritic to come up with "mixed to positive" or "positive" or "generally positive" or anything else is synthesis. If it is obvious, there is no need to include it. If it is not obvious, where are you getting it from?
 * Reporting what RT says and reporting what Metacritic says is verifiable. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:33, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , reporting what actual journalists with the ability to understand nuanced information beyond a (man-made) algorithm is also verifiable. So your point is not taken. Dan56 (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are arguing that RT and Metacritic refute what reliable sources have to say and thus one or the other should be ignored, I disagree. If you are arguing that we should summarize multiple sources into one statement, I also disagree. If you are saying we should directly quote RT and Metacritic's figures and summaries, with in-line attribution -- the widely-held consensus -- I agree. If your argument is something else, I'm afraid you've lost me. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 20:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What is your argument? That the reception was not lukewarm? Dan56 (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * My argument is that independent reliable sources say "lukewarm" (not something that we think sounds like it, the actual word), so we say "lukewarm" (not other words that we think mean the same-ish thing but are somehow "better"). RT says, ""Ocean's 8 isn't quite...(etc.)". We quote that and give their supporting numbers. Metacritic assigned a score. We report that. They say it indicates "generally favorable reviews". We say they said that. We don't challenge the sources saying "lukewarm" based on our interpretation of a phrase assigned by an algorithm. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 23:59, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Just what are the majority of independent reliable sources reporting (not calculating or aggregating) of the film's reception? Dan56 (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC) Dan56 (talk) 17:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "the general lukewarm response to Ocean’s 8" (Catherine Shoard, The Guardian, June 15 )
 * "...a slew of lukewarm reviews..." (Caroline Criado-Perez, i, June 15 )
 * "...the lukewarm critical reception..." (Matthew Norman, London Evening Standard, June 22 )
 * "The movie has so far attracted mixed reviews ... It currently has a 68% rating on Rotten Tomatoes..." (Bronte Coy, news.com.au via New Zealand Herald, June 18 )
 * "Critics have given broadly positive reviews to Ocean's 8 - but some say it could have been so much better... several reviews praised the film, some critics agreed it was a wasted opportunity ... Some critics were more positive, although most had some reservations. (BBC News, June 6 )
 * "Despite lukewarm reviews, Ocean's has managed to make..." (Patrick Ryan, USA Today, July 5 )
 * Like I said, "independent reliable sources say 'lukewarm'..., so we say 'lukewarm'." - Sum mer PhD v2.0 05:06, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Any term describing overall reception should be stated by at least several reliable sources. "Lukewarm" is, and it also better represents the 'generally favorable' assessment and percentage of MC & RT than "mixed", as long as that assessment holds. 19:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I saw the movie, it was lukewarm--not that it matters. But, I think when presented with "I do think that the media have been trying to make the critical reception of Ocean's 8 look worse than it really was in order to stir up some controversy." it does kind of matter. The critics seem to be praising A) Anne B) The fact it was made C) the cast...while also pointing out that it wasn't exactly either thrilling nor really funny. That seems very "lukewarm" to me as they are saying, really, it wasn't that good, but it had its moments.  That's a pretty fair statement and not at all a vast media ran controversy. To say that it was positive and met high praise, or that it was absolute trash and critically panned would also be inaccurate.  But when the reviews all seem to be along the lines of "there were good things about it, but..." than the word "lukewarm" seems pretty spot on.  2601:246:5600:AB6C:30C4:FFCE:8D7C:AB8 (talk) 07:24, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

No. There is no agreement or consensus to change this to "lukewarm", when both movie rating aggregators conclude otherwise. There is no justification for departing from RT and Metacritic's OWN SUMMARY of their 60+ ratings as "mostly positive" or "generally favorable". Why is this movie singled out for different subjective description? If you change this, you should change the adjectives used in 1000s of other Wikipedia entries. Huangdi (talk) 01:14, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There was no agreement or consensus for "mostly positive" either; RT does not indicate "generally favorable," while Metacritic is borderline, and this being an encyclopedia, we should be inclined to give weight to the more predominant viewpoints (WP:WEIGHT); Metacritic's indication of "generally favorable reviews" is duly noted, and it's aggregate score should not be given any more weight as the authoritative word on the film's reception, when it is just a minor aspect of this topic and there have been many other reliable sources with more nuanced reporting on this topic, as shown in the above discussion. "Lukewarm" is not opposed to "generally favorable"; the word literally means "moderately warm." Dan56 (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If there were not these extensive articles from major media sources on the film's reception, I would defer to the lazy method of relying near wholly on a few aggregates. But that there is information available, offering arguments and analysis of film critics and controversy involving gender, along with a nuanced summary that an aggregate score such as Metacritic will never be capable of... that is a boon. Dan56 (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Leading off with score aggregators and their verbal equivalents is pretty standard. We correctly give them more weight than select phrases from individual reviews because it's an *aggregate* and meta-analysis of several dozen individual reviews. Quoting standard language from an aggregator also helps us avoid the temptation to cherry pick quotes from one review to further a personal agenda.  It's not "lazy" to leave the wordsmithing alone - it's simply NPOV. Huangdi (talk) 09:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I still have seen ZERO examples of other similarly rated movies have been treated this way on WP. Oh and please stop denoting your reverts as "minor" when they are substantive and clearly it's not minor but rather approaches evangelical import for you. Huangdi (talk) 09:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * In addition, as suggested by comments above and below, there's been a disturbing tendency documented in some media (professional and amateur critics) to intentionally bring down the perceived critical opinion of movies regarded as "women-centered." We saw that with the Ghostbusters reboot. If anything, it behooves us to meddle less with the conventional wiki write-up of mainstream movies. Huangdi (talk) 09:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

This article doesn’t mention that the bad reviews were by “white men” either RedLeader98 (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have an independent reliable source for that? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 04:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

whitewashing of responses to this dreck movie clearly has taken place in the review section. it's a shame, but Wikipedia by now got corrupted by SJW swine and can no longer fulfill its agenda of being a database for quick information and research. if you want the real responses to this movie, have a look at the Youtube comments for the trailer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.170.86.132 (talk • contribs) 02:53, August 6, 2018 (UTC)
 * The published reviews disagree with you. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 11:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

, There are no "select phrases from individual reviews" being used; the sources being used for the content in question are news articles and columns reporting on the film's reception, like a literature review or a review article, which are ideal sources for finding "accepted knowledge" to summarize in a Wikipedia article, regarding the state of understanding of a topic. Dan56 (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

, please avoid using the "other content" argument in content discussions, as you did here. You cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether or not the same or similar content exists or is formatted similarly in some other page. Dan56 (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Please stop using facetious arguments. That's not what "other content" means - that argument refers to the pure inclusion or exclusion of certain material - as in, we put a picture of a mouse in this mouse-related article, we should put a picture of a mouse in this other mouse-related article.  We're not talking about that - no one is saying we should give a summary of reviews, but rather *what kind* of summary to give it.  Metacritic or RT glossing is not the most descriptive, but UNIFORM USE of it is necessary for Neutral Point of View.  Selectively or arbitrarily abandoning that practice results in POV-pushing and UNDUE hijinks, and we find ourselves in the situation that best practices would have helped us avoid. Huangdi (talk) 05:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You're not making any sense; there is an issue of competence with you that I do not want to broach any further. You have reverted 's compromise alteration as well as my own revisions presenting the same material. Rotten Tomatoes does not say this film received mostly positive reviews, and nor do most of the other sources available. No one else is agreeing with you; please open an RfC if you wish for your bold edit to be included in the article. Dan56 (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, addressing Dan56, since apparently changing this constitutes 'vandalism', there was no rationale for you to add lukewarm as a descriptor to this movie and defy the way movies are evaluated on every other part of this site. Virtually every other movie with similar RT and Metacritic scores are described as 'generally positive' and yet you want to go against the consistency of the website to push your own agenda for a descriptor that is not featured on any movie articles I can find in that location, let alone a significant amount. So, I don't know if you have a weird bias or something but I would say that you are the one 'vandalising', if you want to be that dramatic about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.183.21 (talk) 05:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Virtually every other..." (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) Dan56 (talk) 10:37, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There was rationale; it is called good research. Dan56 (talk) 10:38, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, your edits were not vandalism; closer to disruptive editing and disregard for the core policy of neutral point of view. Dan56 (talk) 10:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems I've accidentally stepped in something "Lukewarm". Without having seen this discussion and having previously cleaned up older articles that used this unfortunate informal language, I didn't see any problem with changing lukewarm to mixed. I certainly didn't think it was a WP:BOLD change. If anything lukewarm sounds worse than mixed. I strongly disagree with the choice of language but I'll change it back since there's clearly no consensus here. -- 109.76.139.209 (talk) 00:17, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Mixed" mainly suggests an assortment of reviews; Merriam. On the other hand, "lukewarm review" appears to be common and appropriate a phrase. Neither phrasing is informal in this context. What you are saying is comparable to us not being able to describe timbres in a song as "warm" because the word is not primarily associated with this context. Dan56 (talk) 01:02, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree that "lukewarm reviews" is a common phrase, or that many film reviewers use it. I think that an encyclopedia should try to avoid common informal phrases like that, so I'm saying WP:IDIOM. -- 109.76.139.209 (talk) 01:12, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Dictionaries cite its definition and usage (not just film reviewers' usage of it), without indication that it is an idiom. And still, "mixed" does not mean the same thing as "lukewarm". Several (registered) editors in this discussion agreed with using this language. "According to..." was suggested as a compromise. There is more level of consensus and agreement to retain this language than there is to change it. Your bold edit was reverted. You can continue discussing here with me, even involve other editors, but stop restoring your copyedit. Dan56 (talk) 01:15, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I submitted an edit to restore the verbose "According to" wording but your edit went through first. After being accused of vandalism I restored the edit once because it was not vandalism. I accept that you disagree on the substance of the edit and appreciate that you explained it was a compromise text. I don't appreciate that you were so quick to call it vandalism. I don't think the verbose wording is good and I don't think the "lukewarm" wording is good either, and I think you're overstating it calling the agreement of Dan56 and SummerPhp to be a consensus. It is a minor issue, maybe the next film will get better reviews. -- 109.76.139.209 (talk) 01:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Your 'otherstuffexists' link completely proves my point about internal consistency. The fact that you are trying to introduce something diverging from precedent (and arguing for it surprisingly and unreasonably vehemently...) speaks to some sort of bias, but I have no idea why that exists. By trying to adhere to policy too rigidly, you are forgoing accuracy.
 * There is a lack of comprehension on your part: the link was cited to demonstrate that the existence of content at other articles (according to you) has no precedential value for this article (see Ignore all precedent, also). Dan56 (talk) 11:18, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it specifically says 'This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who has made a reference to how something is done somewhere else.' Your second link is invalid because you can't assert that this improves the article when it is a brand new way of describing reception, that you have yourself invented. So I'll continue to reiterate what I said before: The fact that you are trying to introduce something diverging from precedent (and arguing for it surprisingly and unreasonably vehemently...) speaks to some sort of bias, but I have no idea why that exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.183.21 (talk) 05:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no precedent; show me what policy or guideline says Wikipedia articles on films should blindly adhere to one single source (Metacritic) for determining how a film was received? Read WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." That is content policy. The preponderance of sources commenting or covering this film's reception agree that it received a "lukewarm" response, so that should be reflected. The sources listed above show this. You have shown nothing by way of policy, guideline, or even any of the useful essays Wikipedia has on improving articles. You are bastardizing my efforts and assuming bad faith by accusing me of bias. Dan56 (talk) 06:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Response from actors?
Why is this section being included? Actors' reactions to their film's reception is encyclopedic? Most actors have been asked or have commented at one point or another about the reception of a film they were in, why does this warrant a section on WP? Lapadite (talk) —Preceding undated comment added at 22:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sections usually consist of paragraphs, and there seemed to be enough in this particular case to give them a section of their own. Dan56 (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Paragraphs consist of sentences, therefore I shall write whatever I want and justify it using Wikipedia's syntax guidelines. Your bias is obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.55.76.138 (talk • contribs) 12:26, September 24, 2018 (UTC)

Not as obvious as your ad hominem response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.134.5.219 (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Shipping
Like, OMG, y'know what would be so cool? Like, what if these two characters in the film were totally a couple? In the movie discussed here, they aren't. Were they? Weren't they? We don't know. Feel free to gush about it on your blog and link to it on Twitter so all you friends can obsess about it with you. It does not belong here. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 18:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Relationship Between Lou and Debbie
hi all. so i just did some investigating and found that the characters of Debbie and Lou were never in a romantic relationship (Said so by Bullock herself, but wouldn't be closed to the idea in the future) so i just took that little bit out of their character description to make it more accurate until if there is a change for a future storyline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeaBiscuit159 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Actor's response
Shouldn't this section be titled "Actors' response" rather than "Actor's response", given that both Kaling and Blanchett are mentioned? I would just change it but I can see the argument either way. 5.198.76.62 (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 15 January 2023

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 21:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Ocean's 8 → Ocean's Eight – The first sentence in this article's lead states that Ocean's Eight is the actual/official title of this film, and Ocean's 8 is a stylization. The billing block of the film, seen at the bottom of this poster, corroborates that. In accordance with the convention on film articles, the article's title should reflect the actual title rather than the stylization, see examples: Alien 3, Fantastic Four (2015 film), F9 (film), XXX (2002 film), etc. Spelling out the number after "Ocean's" would also be WP:CONSISTENT with the previous films in this series, namely Ocean's Eleven, Ocean's Twelve, and Ocean's Thirteen. Notice that Ocean's Thirteen is similarly stylized as Ocean's 13 on that film's poster. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose. Since the poster as well as on-screen credits indicate this film's title as Ocean's 8, then that is its official form. Numerous films have numbers in their titles — BUtterfield 8, The Devil's 8, The Case Against 8, Mister 880, Around the World in 80 Days (1956 film), Star 80, Junction 88, Gypsy 83, 8 Seconds, 8 Mile (film), to name but ten. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 22:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * A stylized name is not the same as the official name, and those other films are irrelevant. Their billing blocks use "8" instead of "Eight", indicating this is not a stylization. Onscreen stylizations are also ubiquitous in cinema. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The official website seems to make it clear that the number '8' is both used and highlighted, which would seem to count for something. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I am generally against stylizations in article titles, but whether to use a numeral or spell out a number isn't the type of stylization that matters. A majority of the sources used in the article use the number, so that's good enough to pass the common name test in my opinion. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose per discussion, official website designating the use of and actually highlighting the '8' in the title, Rreagan007's assessment of the sources, and what seems to be the common name of the film. A semi-correction to the nom: the original Sinatra film Ocean's 11, which if not in the series inspired the series, uses the number 11, giving precedent to using a number instead of the full spelling used by the other films. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)