Talk:Terminator Genisys/Archive 2

Mixed or negative reviews
As I stated in my edit "metacritic says 5 positive, 24 mixed, 12 negative. So most reviews it calculates are mixed)". I got reverted.  The reference in the article to the metacritic site is at .  The article currently reads "Terminator Genisys received generally negative reviews from critics".  That's not true, since metacritic listed different reliable sources reviewing it, and listed most as being "mixed".  In the section above on that site it says "Metascore, Generally unfavorable reviews based on 41 Critics" and next to that "User Score, Generally favorable reviews based on 590 Ratings".  Anyway, there are some sources that gave it favorable reviews, so saying "generally negative reviews" is misleading.  The first review it has listed as "mixed" says on their site they give it three stars out of five. That isn't really negative.  D r e a m Focus  19:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * When counting reviews on Metacritic, it's important to realize that the site's purpose is to collect multiple reviews and assign a weighted score, which in this case was 38 out of a 100. According to the site, this indicates "generally unfavorable" status. Using the term negative in place of unfavorable may be worth discussing, but in my mind, they are interchangeable in this context. Now for you to ignore their analysis of the reviews and count them yourself to determine the overall opinion as mixed, well that is simply original research. A source would need to make that determination.


 * As for user reviews...they shouldn't be taken into account here, as the nature surrounding their collection is questionable (there's no accountability preventing users from gaming the system). Past consensus has ruled against citing them in film articles. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not original research to mention that most critics gave "mixed reviews". And there out of five stars is not a "negative" review.   D r e a m Focus  19:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is true that most reviews on Metacritic are mixed. I could say, "On Metacritic, most reviews submitted were mixed", and that would be a correct statement. However, this is not the same as the change you made which stated, "the film received mixed reviews from critics". The 2nd example implies that out of all the reviews submitted, there were just as many positive as there were negative, about an even mix of both. We know that's not the case. There were 12 negative as opposed to 5 positive, which is why the weighted average calculated by the site falls into their "generally unfavorable" range. I think what you are missing here is that Metacritic focuses on the average, not on the number of each type. Mathematically, the average matters more when determining the critics' consensus. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment It is not accurate to describe the reviews as "generally negative" base don the two aggregator scores, since neither Rotten Tomatoes nor Metacritic actually states this. A "rotten" rating does not equate with "negative" on Rotten Tomatoes: the Tomatometer indicates the percentage of positive reviews, but you cannot conclude from the Tomatometer score that the remainder are negative i.e. they could be mostly mixed, or indeed they could be mainly negative, but Rotten Tomatoes does not differentiate. The average rating is 4.7 which seems to indicate that it got a lot of average reviews rather than a lot of negative reviews. Likewise with Metacritic, the Metascore may be low but the statistics indicate that bulk of the reviews are mainly "mixed"; in fact less than one third of reviews aggregated by Metacritic are deemed negative so the reviews are clearly not "generally negative". The Metascore is simply a weighted metric, which probably equates to a bunch of mediocre 2-star reviews on 4/5 star rating systems. I think it is more accurate to say "the critical response was mixed and the film received a below-average rating from reviewers." Betty Logan (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Betty, thank you for the comment. Metacritic does define the 38 out of 100 as "generally unfavorable", and their explanation page goes into detail about what this means and how it's calculated. I think one of the most important points mentioned is the part about the "weighted average". Some reviews are less notable than others, and this has been taken into account in the final score. Therefore, for us to simply count the numbers without taking that additional step completely ignores their results and methodology. In fact, doing so would make us an aggregator, performing original research to indicate something different from the same sample of reviews. Another point I'd like to make is that a "good review" on Rotten Tomatoes doesn't start at 50%; it starts at 60%. And according to its explanation page, a "rotten" review is a "bad" review. For us to assume anything else injecting plausible explanations for low scores would be outside the scope of RT as a source. Their approach is clearly more black & white, and it wouldn't be a good source to support a mixed status. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for clarifying the "rotten" rating (it really isn't clear from the individual movie pages) but the point still stands in regards to Metacritic. Metacritic actually provides the breakdown itself without needing us to count anything: for Terminator it states that 5 reviews are "positive", 24 are "mixed" and 12 are "negative". As you can see, there are twice as many "mixed" reviews as there are "negative". The Metascore is something else entirely: it is a weighted rating more akin to the Rotten Tomatoes average rating. For instance, a film where there is an even split could still get a low or high Metascore depending on how the ratings skew. For example ten 70/100 reviews and ten 10/100 reviews would yield an average score of 40/100; likewise, ten 90/100 ratings and ten 30/100 ratings would average to 60/100. Therefore you cannot really draw conclusions on the split between positive/negative reviews based on the score alone. Betty Logan (talk) 22:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand, but let's not forget "generally unfavorable" aren't my words; they're Metacritic's. In that respect, I would consider Metacritic less likely to support "mixed" over "unfavorable" or "negative". While it's true that the number of mixed reviews is higher than the number of positive and negative ones, that is not an acceptable parameter to draw a conclusion from. Metacritic goes further in assessing them, and it's this assessment that we are referring to in our statement. Furthermore, the weighted average is not simply averaging all the scores as you do in your example. They give more prominence to highly professional reviews as opposed to those from lesser-known critics. Both are counted, but in different ways. That's where the term weighted comes in. We can only assume that their conclusion is an accurate one, otherwise we wouldn't consider them a reliable source. They use the terminology; we should be able to as well. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - The "generally negative reviews" wording on the article seems to ignore the CinemaScore poll score entirely, focusing entirely on RottenTomatoes and MetaCritic. Gistech (talk) 09:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This film is a weird case. What I see is a lot of passionate hatred for the film on behalf of some indivuals which also leads aggregators to give negative reviews much more weight than mixed or positive reviews (so that less than a third of professional reviews are now considered much more valid than more than two thirds that are either mixed or positive, which in this case appears to be done in weirdly arbitrary fashion compared to how they're weighting scores for other films). As cast & crew have already said, most of the negative reviews were written before the film was even in production, and the hatred is so great they're using the weighting much more arbitarily in this case in order to further their views that simply run counter to what most professional reviewers are saying. --80.187.106.104 (talk) 12:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, regarding the so-called "underperformance" in the US: The film made $55 million during its initial week, which is what Hollywood Reporter said prior to its release in an article used elsewhere in our WP article was exactly what it needed in order to be considered successful. The source that is used to call that an "underperfomance" uses the very same figures after they had been actually met, and then just calls that "underperfoming", going on and on about why he thinks such a "low figure" was reached. Also, with such a negative judgment in the lead, it would be only fair to mention in the very same place that it's doing very, very good business overseas so that the current box office is already a hundred million over its original budget, while it's still in its initial week in some key oversea markets (the figures for some of which are not even listed on Box Office Mojo yet, such as Germany). --80.187.106.104 (talk) 12:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. That is just total nonsense.  It can't be underperforming if its made $252.8 million in the two weeks its been out so far.  And to claim most critics reviewed it negatively, when most were mixed, is also nonsense.  I have removed that bit.   D r e a m Focus  12:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're you're right, that's also nonsense with how the reviews are actually judging the film. In order to reach a compromise with GoneIn60, we could say that Metascore suggests that some important voices among professional reviewers disliked the film, even though it had much more mixed and positive than bad reviews. --80.187.106.104 (talk) 12:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I would just drop the introductory sentence and let the stats do the talking. I would also add the positive/mixed/negtaive breakdown to make it clear the negative reviews are actually in the minority on Metacritic. On another note, Cinemascore is an audience poll so does not represent what critics think of the film. Betty Logan (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is at best 'negative to mixed reviews' check the review scores:
 * Rotten Tomatoes 26%
 * Metacritics 38/100
 * Empire 3/5
 * Telegraph 2/5 'old and obsolete'
 * Guardian 1/5, 2/5 and 2/5
 * Independent 2/5
 * IGN 6.3
 * Digital Spy 1/5
 * Rolling Stones 3/5
 * Screen Rant 2.5/5
 * Erzan (talk) 01:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Mixed to negative" is not grammatical. The reviews are either mainly negative or mainly positive, and if neither then they are mixed. If there is not a consensus either way on how the metrics should be summarized then per WP:NOCONSENSUS we should not summarize them. It is just as simple to say that "Metacritic deemed that from 41 reviews 5 were positive, 24 were mixed and 12 were negetaive, and gave the film an overall score of 38/100". Job done; readers don't need Wikipedia editors to tell them how to think and are more than capable of interpreting the statistics for themselves. Betty Logan (talk) 18:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Betty that dropping the introductory sentence would be the best compromise, if we are unable to agree on how it should be written. We have done that in other film articles. However, I disagree that we should take Metacritic's tally of positive/mixed/negative reviews and insert that into the article, because any accompanying statement you would make with those numbers would imply that they somehow conflict with Metacritic's conclusion. I don't think that's a line we want to cross here. Also, let's not forget that on Metacritic, the number of positive reviews actually represents the minority.
 * Let me just get this out of the way... I am a fan of this film, and I disagree with some of the disparaging reviews it has received – that may come as a surprise to some of you. I'm also sure that many of you following this discussion are fans as well. I only ask that we try to keep an open-minded, unbiased approach to the coverage of opinionated content in this article. The scores on both RT and MC are low by anyone's standards, and even as fans, we have to admit that, move on, and not let it bother us. If 26% on RT and 38/100 on MC aren't negative scores in your mind, then really, will any score ever meet that criteria for you? At what point do you think you've crossed the threshold into negative territory? --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * GoneIn60: That's a strawman argument. There's not only good and bad reviews. There's good, bad, and mixed reviews. The way that Metascore, RT, and the article here phrase it makes it sound like the film almost exclusively got negative reviews from professional critics, which is just plain wrong and doesn't match with how review aggregators are usually balancing their averages. In other words, Metascore and RT use a very small number of negative reviews and, contrarily to their established habits, arbitrarily call them "much more important critics" only for this one film so that they can act like a minority view would be the majority view.


 * In other words, nobody ever asked that our article should falsely proclaim that TG received overwhelmingly glowing reviews. All we ask for is fair coverage of the fact that most reviews are mixed, all by professional critics. The compromise we're offering is to gloss over the blatant lie on behalf of the two major aggregators (which you insist on keeping in the article, even though their own figures prove them wrong there) and still graciously consider them enough to mention that review aggregators found that "some important voices", while clearly the minority, disliked the film enough to give it negative reviews. --80.187.109.151 (talk) 04:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, and while we're still at it, we have two sources in our article, Hollywood Reporter and Forbes, that gave figures for how much the film should make in order to be considered successful at the box office, and the film has met those figures, and so far, it has actually even made *THREE TIMES AS MUCH* as the positive Forbes review expected it to make during its entire lifespan. And *STILL* we have it plastered over the article that the film would not only have "mostly negative reviews" (which is just plain wrong when looking at the breakdowns at the sources given) but that it would also be some "box office bomb" with a "disappointing performance", and our article claims that it would have such a "poor" turnaround that Paramount has supposedly put the sequel on-hold, when all they're saying is that they're still waiting for all the figures to come in. When in fact, it has already made all it took to be considered successful financially, and has even made three times as much so far than one of the more optimistic positive reviews thought it would, even though it's still in theaters in a number of markets. That's anything but a "box office bomb" when it's made three times over, already while it's still in theaters, than what a more optimistic review originally hoped for. --80.187.109.151 (talk) 05:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

What statement of mine are you accusing of being a straw man argument? If you are referring to my comment about the number of positive reviews being in the minority, it was in response to Betty's earlier comment that "negative reviews are actually in the minority". Also, I'm not going to debate your accusation that the aggregators made a mistake. I will, however, reinforce the notion that they are considered a reliable source. They follow an internal process to reach a conclusion that you're having a difficult time comprehending and/or agreeing with. If you have concerns about their reliability, take it up at WikiProject Film or WP:RSN.

As for the financial performance of the film, I recommend starting a separate discussion on this talk page to address that. This discussion is focusing on the critical response to the film. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The strawman argument is just what I said it is: You just acted as if there was only positive and negative reviews, in order to be able to lump in all the many mixed reviews with the few bad ones and claim we would want the article to be saying that it had all-positive reviews, which none of us ever wanted. As for the clearly biased weighting in this case, let's say I'm not making a definite statement on whether it's the aggregators or you who's doing it when none of the aggregators literally say what you keep pushing into the article: None of the aggregators say that the film would have a majority of negative reviews. Whoever keeps pushing that into the article is trying to push their own agenda, as it's not what the aggregators are saying. All RT does is count only the positive reviews, which is not the same as that all other reviews would be negative ones. MS, as far as I can see, gives a slightly fairer figure than only counting positive reviews, and still they give heavily undue weight to negative reviews for their *VERY OWN* consensus.


 * What the aggregators are doing is something else than saying the majority of professional reviews would be negative: They're using the few negative reviews and give them heavily undue weight in order to write their very own consensus, which is not the consensus among professional reviewers. But the fact that those are the consensus written by aggregators makes you believe that that would be the consensus or majority view among most professional reviewers, which it isn't. The very fact that the aggregators don't do that usually is what makes them a reliable source in general. Because they're doing it with this one film makes them an unreliable source when it comes to their biased consensus with this film.


 * It doesn't necessarily take a decision at WikiProject Film in order to see and consent to that regarding this article, and *ESPECIALLY NOT* to see and consent to the fact that none of the aggregators literally say that the majority of professional reviews would be negative. However, in case this is not a singular, let's say, "accident" on their side and we've come upon a more frequent problem with the aggregators for the first time here, which would be that they rig their consensus without openly lying by giving a few voices heavily undue weight and then write it down as their *VERY OWN* consensus rather than that of the majority of professional reviewers, then we may need new rules with a caveat for cases like this one over at WikiProject Film. --80.187.109.151 (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, now I see where you're coming from. I think you missed my 4th post above which addressed this. I acknowledged that there are more mixed reviews than positive and negative, but we cannot base any conclusion on this fact alone. Doing so is original research forming an analysis that is not properly sourced. Technically, we could say most of the reviews collected by Metacritic are mixed, but what purpose does that serve when Metacritic concludes that the critical response was "generally unfavorable"? The only purpose I can see an editor pointing that out would be to imply that Metacritic's conclusion contradicts the data they drew a conclusion from. I have no reason to believe their conclusion is wrong, simply because I don't know EXACTLY how their internal process works. However, I trust it since they are considered a trustworthy source. You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but in the end, that's all it is – an opinion.


 * Furthermore, let's clear something up that apparently has caused some confusion. I was not the editor that originally constructed the phrasing used in this section, though I tend to agree with it. It would be best if you left accusations about personal motivations and behavior out of the discussion; comment on content, not on the contributor. Last but not least, no one is pushing the notion that a "majority" of reviews were negative. The recognized trend is what's being commented on, which has trended negative. A mixed review can contain even amounts of positive and negative reaction. So if you cross them off your list as split, you have 12 negative vs 5 positive remaining. This would seem to justify Metacritic's analysis. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not original research to quote figures given by the aggregators. And there's clearly a difference between quoting a consensus on the film's quality (which in this case simply *ISN'T* the general consensus among professional reviewers, and the aggregators themselves admit to that with their very own figures) and quoting the figures given for positive, negative, and bad reviews, as there is between claiming all reviews would be clearly negative and quoting the exact figures. And none, I repeat *NONE* of the above is original research when it comes to what we're suggesting. But it's clearly original research to claim that all reviews would be clearly negative, which none of the aggregators are saying. Also, it doesn't matter much to me if you're adding the sources and statements yourself or if you're only defending them, as I'm not a 3RR warrior. Once there's serious disputes like this, the talkpage is my field.


 * And no, it would *NOT* be an "opinion" to point out the difference in the figures given by the aggregators and their *VERY OWN* consensus which is thus *NOT* the general consensus among professional reviewers. It would be OR and an "opinion" to speculate as to how they have arrived at this mess. All we have is vague descriptions on their own websites how they are "weighting" their consensus, which, if I get it right, are saying that "some professional reviewers are more important than other professional ones". That's perfectly fine. And it would also be perfectly fine to use that to make our article refer to that and state that the aggregators opine that "some important voices disliked the film enough to give it clearly negative reviews, while the majority of reviews were mixed".


 * However, what's *UTTERLY NOT RIGHT* is to improperly synthesize the biased consensus on behalf of the aggregators with some particularly scathing reviews, which are clearly the minority as less than a third of professional reviews as even the aggregators are acknowledging, in order to plaster the article with the statement that the film would have gotten "mainly negative reviews", or to justify such a behavior. --80.187.109.151 (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "But it's clearly original research to claim that all reviews would be clearly negative"
 * Where is this stated in the article? You've now claimed that the use of "majority" and "all", but all I see is the term "generally". There is a big difference.


 * "...it would *NOT* be an "opinion" to point out the difference in the figures given by the aggregators and their *VERY OWN* consensus"
 * I disagree for the reasons I've outlined above. They use a methodology that gives greater weight to some reviews over others, and it is pure speculation to assume they are doing this unfairly or improperly as you are claiming. We should not insert such speculation into the article, nor should we allude to it.


 * "...plaster the article with the statement that the film would have gotten "mainly negative reviews""
 * In addition to "majority" and "all", now you are claiming the use of "mainly". These are all fabrications of what's actually being used, which again is the term "generally". Let's call it what it is.


 * I don't assume we will agree on much, based on your escalation to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, but I suggest you make a proposal on how you would change the wording in the critical response section. Perhaps we can find some common ground. Also, other editors would be more likely to jump in and provide some feedback when they are able to look at a concrete proposal. Right now, the bickering is not helping that cause. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've gone and asked for a second opinion or dispute resolution at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film. If I got him right, staff member Erik II said that a.) the system used by aggregators can be buggy or unfair when it comes to films like TG that are either on the edge or where a few big names have intense opinions about it, and b.) the huge and expansive issue of "general consensus" just cannot be fairly judged with a brief label such as "generally x". Thus, their general rule at WPF is to avoid brief labels when it comes to "general consensus" and their rules read that "sourced detailed discussions" within articles is encouraged when it comes to it. In other words, the established rules want us to discuss the general consensus within the article by using many reliable sources that talk about its general reception to gather all available significant aspects regarding the issue. It's not so much a counting game as to count "x number said good, y number said bad, and z number said mixed", but rather giving due weight by counting and weighing relevant aspects given by sources that discuss the general consensus in depth. And until such, dare I say scholarly, sources appear and the dust settles, we're only allowed to say what can be agreed upon without a doubt: That the film didn't exactly have glowing reviews, but that there are a variety of different opinions by professional reviewers beyond that.


 * Oh, and while we're at such in-depth aspects, I think we can agree upon the fact that many reviews, whether primary ones or such summing up the general reception, agreed that it was a very bad idea to spoil the main plot twist in the trailer and that they consider it hurt both the reviews and the box office. That should certainly be both relevant and non-controversial enough to make it into the article. Even if none of those two are nearly as bad as our current article claims they were, due to its error in relying too much upon the desire for brief labels and relying too much on aggregators. --80.187.109.151 (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * No need to call me a staff member! :) I am just another editor who has worked on film articles for quite some time. I read up about Metacritic, and I did not account for specific weighting of each critic. Apparently the straightforward average score would be 44.7. I suspect that more weight is given to The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Variety, and The Hollywood Reporter than other critics, and these tend to have lower scores for this film and probably pulled the overall score down from a straightforward average. As for reporting this kind of thing, as I mentioned on the talk page, aggregators are designed to tell users whether or not a film is worth seeing. Aggregators will have their own one-number approach, but they do provide other detail that can outline how critics received a film. I like using Metacritic's breakdown for this reason, it shows readers a rough grouping of reviews. It doesn't mean that the groupings are the answer; it just lends a general sense of where critics may fall. If needed, we can clarify that Metacritic's score is a weighted average. The grouping is just another detail (which Metacritic provides in a bar graph) that readers can take in. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, Erik II, it's good to see an experienced user chime in who is in favor of more transparency when it comes to aggregator grades. I think what you're suggesting sounds pretty much like what I and others have suggested all along, "Some influential voices [i. e. those you mentioned, they could be pointed out in this statement] severely disliked the film, thus pulling down the overall average on weighted review aggregators, but the majority of professional reviews were mixed." --80.187.109.151 (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That would not be the ideal language to use, unfortunately. It is appropriate to report the summary that Metacritic provides, in addition to other summaries available to us. That's why I suggest adding "weighted average" to Metacritic's score, to indicate to readers that Metacritic did some weighing. It does not invalidate the summary, it just explains that website's approach better. If another summary says "mixed" in some capacity, we can add that before or after Metacritic (basically juxtaposing conflicting statements with in-text attributions of who reported what). The grouping detail is just a secondary aspect available to us and one that I do not mind reporting with the aggregate score and summary as they are. If I was writing this, I would focus more on context, using the references to state that critics highlighted Arnie's return but that the film was disappointing for these specific reasons. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm not against quoting MC's consensus, i. e. their "mini-review", as the site's own consensus. I'd only consider it more transparent to briefly explain that way what "weighted" means, which is that they give more weight to the big names, and that that's what's pulling down their average. I'd also have nothing against saying something along the lines, "Due to this weighting, Metascore suggests that the majority of reviews would be negative, while their own figures state that only less than a third of professional reviews were negative and the majority was mixed."


 * I'm also in favor of mentioning the positive response to Ahnie's return in the Critical reception section, which is probably less controversial for a general consensus. I'd also agree to writing, "Many reviews disliked the plot, calling it 'muddled'. Many reviews also disliked the general casting choices besides Schwarzenegger" in the same section. *BUT*, I think out of fairness it should also be mentioned that there have been reviews that have pointedly disagreed on one or even both issues. When going really in-depth, we could also make break-downs for every key actor besides Ahnie. --80.187.109.151 (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

It is interesting that you find yourself agreeing with Erik II, who ironically is telling you a lot of the same things I was. We can't say "mixed" in any capacity, unless there is a source out there that supports that view. The main problem with your position is that you don't agree with Metacritic's analysis, because when you look at their raw data, you see that a majority of the reviews are mixed. You prefer to focus on the raw data in an attempt to discredit their conclusion. I disagree that we should be doing that. I'm in favor, however, of Erik's suggestion to call Metacritic's score a "weighted average" and leave it at that. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Also your proposed text, "Metascore suggests that the majority of reviews would be negative", is incorrect. That is not what they are suggesting. They are simply reporting that reviews have been generally unfavorable, not "would be negative". They are not making a prediction here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Now you're in disagreement with yourself, GoneIn60. "We can't say 'mixed' in any capacity, unless there is a source out there that supports that view. [...] you don't agree with Metacritic's analysis, because when you look at their raw data, you see that a majority of the reviews are mixed." So I'm not "in disagreement with MS" and you're agreeing with it, we both are in disagreement with a part of what MS is saying, and yet you're trying to push a one-sided view of what MS is saying, while I and others are in favor of not selectively leaving out a part. And no, I'm not trying to discredit their consensus, I'm okay with us citing it as just what it is: Their *PERSONAL* consensus, which becomes clear with this film where their own figures don't match with what they're saying because MS's scoring system is faulty when it comes to films like TG. Plus, you're *ALSO* in disagreement with Erik II (not to mention everybody else on this talkpage, *AND* the established rules at WPF for a case like this) who said that a.) such brief labels are counterproductive, b.) that we should bring more transparency to aggregator data than just citing a brief label, and c.) use more and better sources than just the aggregators.


 * So you have me, Erik II, the rules at WPF, and most of the users of this talkpage against pushing a manipulative synthesis that you can't even source from the aggregators. --80.187.109.151 (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Can we please assume good faith here? To clarify the approach I advocate taking, I've gone ahead with a write-up based on similar write-ups I've done elsewhere. Here we are not even doing "mixed" or "negative" upfront, but we implicitly say that the reception was not positive and why exactly that was the case. The RT and MC sentences are written to show the details behind the main scores and exactly how each calculates their overall score. Feel free to revert or rewrite. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, Betty and I touched on the idea of removing the opening line to the section, if there was desire to do so by enough editors. This has been done in a number of other film articles, so I'm definitely fine with it at this point. Appreciate your help on this one, Erik II. I actually prefer the way it reads now. Nice work! --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Emilia and Jason Clarke are not related - this should be mentioned in the article
Two of the co-stars in the film have the same last name. However, they are not related, as this Collider article points out here. I did not have a source for my initial edits, which were reverted, but there is a source now. Editor FreeKnowledgeCreator stated that indicating to readers that the two co-stars with the same last name are not related is trivia. No, trivia is informing the reader about a certain co-star's favourite take-out food or about the director's preferred brand of French Champagne. When the reader sees that two co-stars have the same last name, it is a reasonable inference to make that they may be related. Since Collider informs us that the two are not related, it would be helpful to inform the reader that Ms. Clarke and Mr. Clarke are not related. As well, the idea of indicating that two people with the same last name are not related is not just some strange idea I just came up with, it is a practice attested to in the MacMillan Dictionary: see here OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 03:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I see it pretty random too. It's like adding a notice in the article for Louis Armstrong saying he is not related to the guy that went to the moon. The article doesn't need to refute every weird assumption the reader may be able to come up with. --uKER (talk) 04:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with uKER. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * UKER's example does not parallel the Terminator 5 situation. An example that would parallel the Terminator 5 situation would be an article lead that stated "The co-defendents in the trial were Michael Smithe and John Smithe (no relation)" or "The fall fashion line was introduced by designers Kaye Smithe and Carole Smithe (no relation)". In the two made-up examples given, the article itself lists two people with the same last name. The parenthetical phrase "(no relation)" is used to indicate to the reader that the two individuals with the same last name are not related. It is not "random", it is a practice that is used in articles outside of Wikipedia to provide information to the reader. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 10:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The use of the phrase "no relation" is not a neologism, either. The use of "no relation" to mean "not in the same family" is attested to since 1930, according to Roget's Thesaurus.
 * see here OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 16:33, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I see this used in periodicals, so I understand this approach. However, for an encyclopedia, do we know if this is a common approach? Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In an article about a law trial, I can see how this sort of information would be important. I don't see it as being important in an article about a movie. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The presence or absence of family relationships between people in an article with the same last name is not important to the same degree as key facts about the article topic. It is a minor point of information provided to the reader. However, there is not a requirement that all content in an article be important. In addition to the key, important information in an article, articles often provide minor points of information to the reader. For example, an article about a company will state important information (revenue, profits, etc.), but it may also have a footnote explaining how the company calculates its revenues or profits. That is what I am proposing here: a footnote that will indicate that Ms. Clarke and Mr. Clarke are not related, with the source cited. Is this footnote important? Well, it is no more important than a footnote explaining how revenues were calculated. But there is a place in WP articles for footnotes on minor points of information. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 16:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a side note to point out, this article already makes reference to family relationships between people with the same last name, and in the lead. We hear about Megan Ellison, and then when David Ellison is mentioned, the lead mentions that he is her brother. Why does the lead clarify their family relationship? I don't know, but I suspect that the family relationship is indicated because to mention two people with the same last name in the lead without clarifying their relationship or lack thereof would lead to ambiguity. That is what I am trying to do here--remove the ambiguity. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 16:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not sure. Wouldn't we also have to mention that Douglas Smith is not related to Matt Smith then? Why are we singling out Emilia and Jason? Nymf (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Smith is the most common surname in the US (see here), so two Smiths in the billing block (or any of the top ten, such as Brown or Jones) is less likely to make the reader think that the two people may be related. However, when a name is unusual in the US, like Clarke with an "e" (Clark is number 25 in the US, but Clarke is ranked 476th), it is more likely that the reader might think that the two individuals might be related. As I indicated in my earlier posts, the standard scenario in which the phrase (no relation) is used is when two individuals who have the same last name are listed one after the other. In this article, Jason and Emilia Clarke are listed one after the other in the billing block in the Infobox and then again as co-stars in the lead.The two Smiths are not both listed in the Infobox or the lead. They only appear in the Cast section. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 22:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wall Street (film), On Golden Pond, Donnie Darko, Paper Moon (film), I Am Legend, The Pursuit of Happyness, Rocky V, Big Jake, It Runs in the Family, After Earth, and Honkytonk Man are among the films that star people with the same last name who are related (list courtesy of Ranker.com). In this case, two of the co-stars have the same last name, but they are not related. I am proposing a footnote on Emilia Clarke's entry in the cast list with the phrase "Emilia Clarke and Jason Clarke are not related" OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 00:16, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Well done on providing some backing here. I have to agree that as a footnote, there's really no harm in including it, and if anything, it's a benefit to the reader since the names are located so closely together. I support the proposal. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm still not convinced that detail is crucial information, but I thank OnBeyondZebrax for at least finding a less obtrusive way of including it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Cast section cleanup
I removed all of the minor characters and general regurgitating of plot information as per the Tag. Here is a link to the previous version of the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terminator_Genisys&oldid=696489012 There's no need for such extensive detail. AyrtonProst  Radio  20:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

plot point omitted
I have added two minor edits that clear up, that the childhood visions Kyle experiences are not from his own childhood (as the article implied) and how they originate at the end of the film. This is an important plot point, since it is the reason why Kyle and Sarah go to 2017 instead of 1997 for the second half of the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.23.157.146 (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Box office
There is a quote in the Box office section that says:


 * Given its $155 million production budget and the $50–100 million analysts estimate was spent on marketing, Bloomberg Business estimated that the film would have needed to earn at least $450 million during its theatrical run to break even.

Why $450 million - if they have spent an estimated $250 million on production and marketing, wouldn't a ~$300 million international box office allow to break-even when you remove VAT/GST? Where do these additional $150 million come from?--Dmitry (talk•contibs) 17:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Might be that theaters keep a percent of box office receipts?, what is your impression? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, if venue owners are keeping ~35% of all ticket receipts, that would explain these figures. Thanks!--Dmitry (talk•contibs) 18:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * In the U.S., studios get 50-55% of the revenue, but overseas, that percentage can drop to as low as 15% depending on the country. The average return overseas is closer to 40%. For this film, that's where a bulk of the revenue is being generated, so the break-even numbers are going to be higher than usual for a domestic film. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Bloomberg helps to clarify this: That suggests the film will have to generate worldwide ticket sales of at least $450 million to break even during its theatrical run ... Studios split ticket sales about evenly with theaters in the U.S., and typically get 40 percent to 45 percent of the international box office, according to Wade Holden, an analyst at SNL Kagan. They get additional sales later from DVDs, TV and streaming. So to recoup a $200–250 million investment it would need to earn roughly twice that in box office receipts. Deadline did a profit breakdown for last year's films which shed some light on the finances: . Using the same ratios as Transformers, then the studio income for Terminator would be $46 million for the US (51%), $28 million for China (25%) and $93 million for the rest of the world (39%), for a total of $167 million. Going by those figures it is unlikely that Terminator will have broken even yet even with a gross of $440 million. That said, Transformers earned more in total from its ancillary markets (home video/TV/merchandise) than it did from its theatrical run, so it is important to not misinterpret the Bloomberg source: it is simply conjecturing the break-even point, not saying it is a "flop". Betty Logan (talk) 20:42, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Sounds like it's made a little over $440 million on its theatrical run, and will only have to make about $10 million on TV airings, streaming, and home video to break even? --79.242.222.168 (talk) 11:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but that is a moot point. Studios mostly rate a film's performance based on its theatrical run. The home market is such a small chunk of the revenue, that it is not usually relied upon to help a film move from being in the red to being in the black. Even if the home market does technically get it out of the red, it wouldn't likely change the studio's mind about how successful the film was in the end. They want to be turning a sizeable profit long before the film hits the home market. And when it comes to making a decision to green-light a sequel, the risk of losing money or simply not making any needs to be low. Barely breaking even on a film that was supposed to reinvigorate a franchise will not instill much confidence in studio execs about how future sequels will perform. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Uhhhh...AFAIK, that mighta been true back in the 70s. But ever since the advent of VHS in the 80s, the home movie market has come to surpass theatrical revenues for any given film. So only pointing towards domestic theatrical figures is just as unfair as only pointing to domestic figures when most films make their theatrical money overseas. --79.242.222.168 (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * "the home movie market has come to surpass theatrical revenues for any given film" – I'm not sure why you believe that, but it is simply not true for most films. Take Furious 7 for example. According to The Numbers, it made roughly $68 million in domestic DVD sales compared to $351 million in domestic theatrical revenue. Even if the film only made $200 million at the box office, its home market revenue still wouldn't come close. Sure, that doesn't include streaming, TV airings, etc., but those other venues are just drops in the bucket compared to DVD and Blu-ray sales. At most, they'd probably tack on another $5-10 million, and that's being generous. If we look at Terminator Genisys which hit the home market on November 10, 2015, the numbers are even lower. I'm focused on domestic sales here, simply because that's all we have home market figures for. I wouldn't be surprised if the overseas home market was a similar ratio to overseas theatrical sales, if not worse.
 * "...only pointing towards domestic theatrical figures is just as unfair as only pointing to domestic figures..." – Since when did we limit the discussion to domestic figures? The $440 million mentioned earlier includes overseas revenue. Hell, if we were only talking about domestic figures, this film would have been a total bomb at under $90 million domestically. Thankfully, it has the overseas market, otherwise you and I wouldn't be here talking about it.
 * While I enjoy a good debate, we need to stay focused here on article content. Wikipedia talk pages are not forums. If there is something you'd like to discuss specifically about the article, let's do so, but this is just financial speculation that can't be used to improve the article without a proper source supporting it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You're forgetting the very fact that the home video releases last much longer than theatrical releases, and that's exactly why home video releases have a much higher revenue than theatrical releases. And it's also why it's wrong to point towards recent home video releases, which would be like complaining that a film hasn't made a billion within its first hour after its theatrical release. That's why it's much easier since the advent of VHS for films to return their production costs without the need to rely upon a few weeks in theaters. But even within this short a time of the home video release, Genisys has made more than 7 times the amount it required to break even.


 * Plus, your statements on when exactly a studio expects profits are pure speculation, as are those about how the exact time of the break-even point influences plans for sequels, if and when they will be made, and how high their individual budget will be. The studio itself say they were happy with the revenues but not overwhelmed, so they'll poll oversea audiences (as the franchise's main theatrical market at this point, obviously) to find out what they can do better with the next entry until which development is on-hold, and once the data will be in and they'll find a new strategy on where to go with the next one(s), the sequels will go into development. Regarding all the aforementioned, it can't count for nothing that the film's main actor has recently (long after the theatrical release was over) gone on record in interviews there's gonna be more films. That's all the information we have so far, and it all sounds a far cry from an upset studio and a deficitary film.


 * Oh, and it's just now that I realize that even by the Bloomberg formula above, the film has earned 12 million over its production budget already while it was still in theaters. Whether that is considered a success is a different matter (particularly with marketing costs factored in), but a.) we don't know how correct the Bloomberg formula for Transformers is for Genisys, and b.) you simply can't use that formula to claim the film didn't break even, as the formula tells us that the film broke even while it was still in theaters. The only source which claims the film didn't break even for a definitive fact is Hollywood Reporter, which followed a lot of speculation sold as definite fact to the effect that started way before the film was even released and continued after its release. We've been over it many times before on this talkpage how speculation and bias have been sold as fact about this film, and breaking even is just one issue of many here. In any case, I seriously doubt that the studio can officially proclaim they're happy with the profits if the film didn't make even. --79.242.222.168 (talk) 11:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The amount of money studios make off a single home media purchase declines significantly after the first few months. When first released, a Blu-ray copy may sell for $20 or more, but six months later that may drop to $10 and then eventually the bargain bin at most retail outlets for $5-7. In addition, the number of sales drops off significantly over time. If you were looking at a graphical chart showing the exponentially declining curve, it's true that it would never hit zero. After a couple years, however, it would reach a point of great insignificance to the studio and distribution companies. We could debate this all day, but getting back to the article for a second, what is it exactly that you're trying to change? Are there sources that paint a different picture that we haven't considered? Ultimately, it comes down to the sources and not our personal opinion on the matter. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Another interesting comparison: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, another recent critically polarizing action film, cost $30 million more, and only had to make $400 million to break even, whereas Genisys has made $40 million more than more expensive Crystal Skull's required break-even point. And still, they're calling one a flop and the other a hit. The evaluation of box-office figures are just as skewed as the evaluation of the critical response here. --79.242.222.168 (talk) 04:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what numbers you're looking at, but Crystal Skull made over $786 million worldwide. That's probably why it was generally regarded as a success. It's true that this LA Times article claimed $400 million was the break-even point for that film, but there's more to the story if you read the article. Ford, Lucas, and Spielberg made an arrangement with Paramount to let the studio recover its costs and turn a small profit before they received a cut of ticket sales. While arrangements like that are becoming more common in today's film market, there's no evidence this was the case for Genisys. Also keep in mind that Genisys made most of its revenue overseas, which generally pays less to the studios than when a bulk of the revenue is made domestically in the US. It seems like you're reaching for straws again, and the one you grabbed didn't do you any favors. You're also missing the point that has been raised more than once in this discussion: get some sources to back up your original research. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Reviews section
I object to this edit by Betty Logan. "Not positively" is only a euphemism for "negatively", and a cheezy euphemism at that. It counts as weasel words, per WP:WEASEL. Betty Logan argued that "not positive can indicate the reviews were negative, average, or a mix of both"; but again "average" is really only a wishy-washy euphemism for saying that a film isn't any good. Not positive = negative by definition. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * While one aggregator (Rotten Tomatoes) does indeed equate "negative" with "not positive" this is not the case with the second aggregator (Metacritic) which divides its reviews into three grades: positive/average/negative. The majority of the reviews graded by Metacritic were "average" not negative, so your edit does not correctly summarize the findings of both aggregators. This has already been discussed in depth at Talk:Terminator Genisys/Archive 2 and the current wording reflects the consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 00:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it does readers of the article a disservice to use vague language such as "generally not positively received by critics". If what that means is that the film received either negative or average reviews, then the lead should say so, in as many words. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem though is that "the film received either average or negative reviews" doesn't really make sense, and saying the film received "average and negative" reviews isn't really accurate i.e. if one aggregator grades a review "negative" while the other grades it "average" it can't be both an average and a negative review, it is just the victim or harsher/softer grading. I actually agree with you that "not positively received" is not ideal terminology, but in the absence of any better ideas I am happy to support it. Betty Logan (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think a better idea would be to follow the aggregator that grades reviews negative and ignore the other one. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that would violate WP:NPOV, since there is no good reason for choosing one over the other. If we had to choose one—which we don't—it would make more sense to go with the aggregator with the more refined grading system anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "not positively" or "not negatively" would both sound stupid. Just say mixed ratings.   D r e a m Focus  16:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment/Suggestion – As Betty pointed out, there have been previous discussions that have gone to great lengths to explain why "mixed" and "negative" cannot stand on their own. Each term can give a different impression of the film's critical consensus. We know from the aggegators that the overall scores of both films fall well below what is considered a positive score and somewhat below what is considered an average score. How far below average is where the controversy sets in from several editors including myself. If it was as simple as picking "mixed", we would have done it by now. On the other hand, "generally not positively" covers both negative and mixed and so far is the best choice, but it is awkward phrasing for sure. How does everyone feel about changing it from:
 * to something more simple like:
 * The proposed change means the same thing as "not positive" but is easier on the eyes. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I can live with that revision. In regards to Dream Focus' comment above, I would again say "mixed ratings" is slightly misleading for a film that received hardly any positive praise. Betty Logan (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also fine with "not well-received". The word "mixed" is not a great one, either... mixed reviews meaning they were both positive and negative? That they were "lukewarm"/"indifferent"? Too much obsession with applying such simplistic labels when we should substantially summarize what critics thought of a film. Erik II (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. If there aren't any objections, I'll change the wording in the next day or so. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. If there aren't any objections, I'll change the wording in the next day or so. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

There really isn't a consensus present on this section. Just rationalizing. A lot of trying to water this down and bury the truth that this film simply didn't do very well (though, I have to say, personally it was cool to see Arnuld back in the roll. Most people seemed to dig on that). Anyhow, RT is at a low 25% with a not so healthy 4.7/10. MetaCritic the film has a score of 38 out of 100 based on 41 critics, indicating "generally unfavorable reviews". The press is all but unanimous that this movie was panned by the critics. This movie is not more special than other covered by wikipedia. The idea that we can't use the word "negative" just to respect the sensitivity of critic haters or fans that don't think people should criticize a movie like this has no place here. The movie clearly got a negative reception by critics. Most analysts also concede that the film, at best, broke even but was still considered a box office disappointment considering these movies USED TO BE the gold standard of big budget money-raking blockbuster. Oh, how the mighty have fallen. In either case, cleaning up the article to reflect reality and respect the guidelines of proper sourced and evidenced content.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Read WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Not only was there a discussion above involving a handful of editors that agreed, but the previous revision existed for over a year without being challenged. It is implicitly assumed to have achieved consensus. Also, you should read this earlier discussion: Talk:Terminator Genisys/Archive 2. As you can see, there were several editors that strongly opposed the use of "negative" and actually preferred "mixed". I was one of the editors that preferred "generally unfavorable", but since we couldn't agree on one over the other, the compromise was to use "not positive". Later on, this discussion was formed to change "not positive" to "not well-received". You are now attempting to change it back to "negative" which clearly has no consensus. I assume you were unaware of the past discussion, so I've restored the previous wording. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:28, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Guardian or Pops
I realize it was discussed shortly after the film's release, but referring to Schwarzenegger's character as "the Guardian" throughout the entire article doesn't make sense to me. As others pointed out, the term "Guardian" is not used in the dialogue of the film. Rather, every time the character is called by name (around a half a dozen times if I remember correctly), it's "Pops". How is using film dialogue fancruft? I argue that it is a relevant plot point to show how strong the bond is between Connor and her protector.

I'm going to add "Pops" to the cast section, but would prefer replacing the term in the Plot section as well - introduced with a statement such as, '...a guardian terminator Connor calls "Pops"' Is the consensus still to have no mention of the nickname which is used throughout the film? Hoof Hearted (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As there has been no objection in over two weeks, I've gone ahead and done that. :) MisterShiney <b style="color:red;font-size:larger">✉</b> 22:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Future "re-boot"
The source used for the fact that Cameron will return for the next Terminator film may incautiously call it a "re-boot" in the sub-header blurb, but the actual article further down openly denies that it's known whether it's gonna be a re-boot or a direct sequel to Genisys. Thus, the claim that the sequel is planned as a "re-boot" and the Genisys storyline has been "discarded" should be removed. --2003:71:4E33:E539:1CD8:F96:3364:A218 (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Similarly about the NY Daily News article: The article only quotes an anonymous "source" which is basically parroting the false synthesis offered by this here Wikipedia article for months. At best, their anonymous source is referencing the fact Emilia Clarke has bowed out. But the NY Daily News article may be good for at least one thing, as it confirms that financially, Genisys has turned in huge profits for the producers. So you can't have both: Have this article here claim that it was some "box office bomb" *AND* keep this source in the article. *AFTER* this bad source has been pretty much only parroting this article's false synthesis, Schwarzenegger and Cameron have both confirmed that another film is well underway, and the only source that claims it wouldn't be a direct sequel to Genisys up front admits further down that their sub-header blurb is making up BS and that there's no confirmation whatsoever for Genisys having been discarded at all. Plus, Paramount even refuses to comment on the BS brought by the NY Daily News that they've supposedly canceled it, which alone should be proof enough that the NY Daily News is pulling their information out of their own behinds.


 * Especially regarding the sequel to Genisys, I find this article has been tendentiously edited very much like the one for Prometheus (2012 film) has been for a long time: Some rouge editors hated Prometheus so bad they didn't want a seqel to come out, so they pretty much deleted every single mention of the sequel upon sight until pretty much the very day Alien: Covenant hit theaters. This article here has been operating very similarly to that when it comes to general critical consensus, the box office evaluation, and especially the sequel. --79.242.203.134 (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)