Talk:The Boy (2015 film)

Reception section
The reason that Variety and The Hollywood Reporter are listed first is because they are the most prominent reviews listed. I'm guessing SPAs are moving a positive review first is because they are associated with the film and want to lead the reception with a positive review. I really don't think that's a good justification. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I see SPAs are continuing to edit war to move the most positive reviews to the top of the reception section. I have explained why I put Variety and The Hollywood Reporter first, and I haven't yet seen a single reason why every positive review should be so highlighted.  I wouldn't even care about this so much except for the sustained, questionable edits made by SPAs.  If one of you would take the time to explain yourself, maybe a consensus could be formed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I also think the reception section is getting too large. We don't need any more reviews added to the article.  In fact, I think it should probably be pruned down a little bit. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The SPAs are clearly pursuing a promotional agenda. You'd probably be better off heading over to ANI and getting them shut down if they are not willing to engage on the talk page. You shouldn't have to put up with this type of behavior. If you want a second opinion then I certainly agree that given the middling reviews it is not wise to open the section with glowing praise. The more measured reviews should ideally come first. If you don't mind me saying though I think part of the problem is with how the section is structured. It adopts a very fragmented "he said she said" approach rather than concentrating on the substance, and that style of writing can often turn into quote farm. When I construct review sections I like to break it down into little "themes" (i.e. what the critics thought of the directing, what they thought of the acting etc) so that the section has a natural conclusion (see Don't Look Now for one I baked earlier). Maybe something along those lines would work here. Betty Logan (talk) 08:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, if the promotional editing remains sustained, I'll go to ANI. I admit that many of the reception sections that I've written are a bit messy.  Most of time, they were just meant to be a rough first draft, but I get easily distracted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

It's evident that you have agenda to place negate light on this particular film - consistently placing the bad reviews up top. I continuously have to balance this off. There is a balance of positive and poor reviews listed. I'm attempted to incorporate a positive quote from Indiewire from a positive review - but you've just deleted it. This is an independent film and the New York Times and Indiewire are the most relevant, prominent reviews for this type of cinema. Please stop undoing changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreonethousand (talk • contribs) 15:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The film has received middling reviews at best, so it is perhaps misrepresentative to start off with a review that calls it "stunning". Maybe we could swap around the Variety and Hollywood Reporter reviews to start off with a review that summarizes the film's positive and negative aspects, but please address the presentation of the reviews on the talk page, not by edit-warring. If you have any suggestions then we will hear them out, but ultimately WP:NPOV compels us to take a balanced view of the film. That means for a mediocre film undue focus should not be placed on the positive reviews (or the negative ones for that matter). Betty Logan (talk) 17:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Another way to go would be to avoid the typical ratings+quote format (He gave it two stars and said, "blah blah blah") and focus instead on balanced prose that presents a comprehensive perspective of the key film elements of direction, acting, writing, etc. Something like:
 * Jane Doe of XYZ Times felt that the pace of the film was "languid", which Doe felt was attributable to Fred Bloggs' "typically self-indulgent directorial style", a sentiment that was not shared by Carmen Sandiego of The Trenchcoat Mirror who felt that the film was "upbeat, perky" and a departure from Bloggs' "usually boring piece of crap films." Other criticism of the film was focused on what Wink Martindale of The Blythe Herald described as "weird choices in direction", noting that in some scenes, the same extra kept crossing back and forth past the camera. "It was ridiculous. I felt a closer connection with the extra in the red shirt than I did with the lead character, Joanie."
 * My horrible prose aside, this shifts the focus to specific areas of discussion rather than just on shuffling positive vs. negative quotations. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I've re-edited with mixed reviews from the NYTimes and Indiewire up top as that seems most relevant. Vareity and Hollywood reporter follow. All the rest remain the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreonethousand (talk • contribs) 18:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, these are definitely workable suggestions. I think reception sections are tedious to write, and many of mine come out as quick-and-dirty citation dumps until I finally get around to rewriting them. I've been prepping one article for a GA review for over a year now, and the reception is still a mess. Besides laziness, there are two main reasons I'm sometimes reluctant to take a holistic approach like the ones suggested here: 1) I think it can easily turn way too detailed, and 2) I think it encourages a mild form of synthesis in which people insinuate that a formal consensus exists (ie, "Critics agreed that the film was boring until the climax"). However, I'm sure we can rework the reception as suggested. The way it is now certainly isn't working out. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft
This dispute has gone on long enough and we need to get a version that everyone is happy with. While Andreonethousand has made things more difficult that they needed to be I feel we have not been as pro-active as we should have been. While Andreonethousand's edits have not been neutral, I agree that some of his complaints are not without merit i.e. we should place the more measured reviews upfront before we get to the very positive or very negative stuff. I have redrafted the section below:

Hopefully I can get input from, and. I have also dropped the review from Badass Digest since I have reservations about its WP:RS status. Let's try and wrap this up for Christmas. Betty Logan (talk) 08:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for falling on the sword, Betty. While it's not as cute as my made-up example above, I think you did a good job of organizing the reviews by subject area rather than an overemphasis, or de-emphasis on critic ratings. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm a little irritated that we're giving credence to an SPA that has accused me of POV pushing, but I'm not going to make a big deal of it. I also think this engages in way too much synthesis, such as "critics generally praised the atmosphere".  But I'm tired of arguing, and I wish I'd never created this article in the first place.  Can't really support something that's engaging in synthesis, but I'm not going to oppose it, either. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I understand your frustration, NRP, though I thought that we generally agreed that a rewrite would be a better approach. Your points about synthesis are noted. Maybe instead of attempting to summarize the general critical attitude about atmosphere, which might be presumptive, something more like "While some critics praised the atmosphere, some found it to be dramatically lacking", and then follow this up with the prose and quotes so we can avoid WP:WEASEL issues? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 09:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, true enough, but I did mention that I dislike the synthesis that often results from this style. "X, Y, and Z praised the atmosphere" is fine, but "critics praised the atmosphere" is unsupported by the sources.  It's like saying that a film received critical acclaim and linking three positive reviews.  That's three discrete positive reviews, not a single source that says it received critical acclaim.  There's no reason why you can't quote Variety and The Hollywood Reporter on the atmosphere, then in the next paragraph quote them on the cinematography, then quote them on the acting.  But you can't say that there's a consensus between them.  I can write like that, but it takes a lot longer. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I've gone on the record numerous times to speak against the inclusion of generalizations of critical reaction, so I'm with you on this, though I don't have a problem with summarizing a block of opinions as presented in my last comment. "Some praised the atmosphere, and here's the proof. Some hated the atmosphere, and here are the examples." The more I edit Indian cinema articles, which are heavily edited by paid rings and sockfarms, the more vehement I get that summarizing overall response is problematic. When one reference describes the response as "mostly positive", I bristle, because to me that's a single voice being used to describe the entirety of critical response, which I feel constitutes WP:UNDUE. I often ask myself, "If the major aggregators, Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, are often at odds in describing the overall response, what makes film critic X at Glamsham.com a more scientific method?" Anyhow, I'm just going to get myself into a snit if I keep rambling, so I'll shut up now. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * First of all, only one editor has been POV pushing in this dispute and I don't consider that to be you. Both Cyphoidbomb and I entered this dispute at your behest and we've supported your position in this dispute. However, that's not to say the current version in the article has my complete unanimous support because I do think there is room for soom improvement. We objected to the SPA making the most positive reviews first and foremost while the SPA is objecting to starting the section with one of the most negative. That doesn't condone his actions but that shouldn't be a reason for us not trying to iron out the problems. Secondly, this is simply a rough draft along one of the proposals we discussed above. You seemed ok with the approach at the time. If you are not ok with the end result then we simply won't pursue this direction (although we are still stuck with the problem of dealing with the other editor once he comes off his block). Ultimately, this is not sonmething I have just gone and shoved in the article, it is a basic rough draft that can be worked on and improved. If the only deal breaker is that there is too much synthesis then maybe you can redraft the above version and tackle what you regard as deficiencies? The alternatives seem to be to keep getting the SPA blocked or we simply let him do what he wants with the section. Betty Logan (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's fine to reorganize the reception, but I don't think we need to summarize critical consensus ourselves on each issue. "The critics said this" or "the critics said that"; why not just let the critics speak for themselves on each issue?  I know lots of people write like this, but what's to stop me from saying that "critics said the B&W portions of Wizard of Oz were boring" in the first line of its reception if I can find three random RSes?  I'd likely be reverted instantly.  Subjectively, it goes against the prevailing consensus that we all know ("it's a masterpiece!!!!"), but even if you ignore that, it's clearly just the opinion of three random internet critics, not a critical consensus.  My preferred version would trim out the summarizing statements: "While critics generally praised the atmosphere and mood of the film some found it to be dramatically lacking.", "Director Craig Macneill was singled out for praise by critics.", and the bit about how someone "disagreed", as if he had read that person's review before he wrote his own.  We don't know that.  NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I will take another bash at it later. I guess it sometimes falls into synthesis mainly because I was trying to make it flow as well. When you have a bunch of unconnected quotes it can come across as disjointed if somehow don't tie them togather in some way. Betty Logan (talk) 02:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have tried to address your concerns (you can see the exact changes here). Anyway, let me know what you think, or alternatively just make any further changes you think are necessary (it's on my watchlist) and we will take it from there. Betty Logan (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that looks better. I agree this is a good compromise.  Frustration with this page has led me to be more stubborn than usual, and that's probably entirely too stubborn. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I appreciate you taking the time to write. NRP if you wouldn't mind putting the New York Times and IndieWIRE quotes up top I would greatly appreciate it. By doing so, I think this page would accurately and fairly document the film's reception. If so, I can assure you that I'll no longer edit this page. Thank you in advance for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreonethousand (talk • contribs) 17:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you're proposing that two reviews get moved up. Can you explain this? Betty has gone through the trouble of proposing a delivery mechanism that doesn't rely on placement of individual reviews, so your request seems out of place to me, but I'd like to offer you an opportunity to express yourself. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb Thank you for your note. I am just trying to simply things. I was in disagreement to the original reception page and unfortunately ended up in a back and forth editing dispute with the creator. The two reviews that I propose we put up top is my intention on finding a middle ground. They are mixed reviews that accurately summarize the majority of the critical responses. Thank you. :
 * The NY Times review is not a mixed review; in fact it is probably the most complimentary review. As it stands it is no longer an issue since the new draft reorganizes the reviews by subject i.e. first the reviews that discuss the mood/tone/narrative, then those that discussion the production aspects and then finally those that summarize the whole film. I have taken the trouble to redraft the section above so perhaps you could state what the problem is with the fresh approach? Betty Logan (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb I disagree as I believe this to be fair and accurate quote from notable news publication that comments on the both the scale and the narrative. It's the perfect opening quote for this reception.

Survey
Ok, I think the above draft is finalised and it will be useful if everyone involved states their position on the revision draft above. Andreonethousand is still insisting that the NY Times review is positioned first and foremost and has refused to negotiate on this issue. I say we all state our positions and get this discussion formally closed.


 * Support the draft revision above. Oppose moving the NY Times review to the beginning of the section for the reasons I have covered above. Betty Logan (talk) 05:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support the draft and oppose moving the NYT review. The draft provides a balanced overview of the reception. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

& : Do either of you wish to take a formal position on this? I think we should wrap this up now. Betty Logan (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support the draft above. Don't see the purpose of moving the NYT review. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Since has not formally opposed the proposed revision I am going to install it in the article. I don't see the point in wasting someoney's time getting them to formally close this discussion. Should Andreonethousand show up and formally oppose I will request formal closure then. Betty Logan (talk) 09:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose The proposed summary leans more toward negative than positive.  There are dozens of glorifying quotes from critics that support the film, actors, and the director that are not included here.  If you sincerely search online you'll notice that this is not an honest overall assessment of the film.  I would like to write a possible solution that would hopefully make everyone happy. @Andreonethousand —Preceding undated comment added 17:37, January 20, 2016‎ (UTC)

Reception
I am suggesting the following revision. The film received several universal year end honors which should be reflected up top after the rotten tomatoes and meteoritic. Like those review meters (rotten tomatoes and meteoritic) these honors are a collective consensus whereas the reviews are individual critiques - thus these honors should be reflected at the top of the page. Here is what I propose as a solution:

Rotten Tomatoes, a review aggregator, reports that 61% of 18 surveyed critics gave it a positive review with an average rating of 5.6/10,[1] while Metacritic rated it 45/100 based on reviews from eight critics.[2]Rotten Tomatoes, a review aggregator, reports that 61% of 18 surveyed critics gave it a positive review with an average rating of 5.6/10,[3] while Metacritic rated it 45/100 based on reviews from eight critics.[4]Deanna James of The Lineup named The Boy as of of the scariest moves of 2015.[5] Emily Buder of Indiewire wrote that The Boy was one of the 13 most criminally overlooked indie and foreign films of 2015.[6] Ken W. Hanley at Fangoria included The Boy in the top 10 horror films of 2015.[7] HitFix included the film in their list of 14 great under the radar films of 2015.[8]. THE BOY received two FangoriaChainsaw award nominations for best supporting actor and best score [9]. Both Eric Kohn of Indiewire and Charlie Schmidlin of The Playlist found the film to be effective but dramatically lacking. Kohn wrote that the film "maintains a gripping sense of atmospheric dread", although its "consistently grave tone sometimes threatens to suffocate the dramatic momentum",[10] while Schmidlin felt that the film has "extremely effective" parts, but it plays into negative stereotypes of "slow burn" psychological dramas.[11] These sentiments were echoed by Ain't It Cool News who praised its "dark, broody tone",[12] and by Dennis Harvey of Variety who wrote that the film seemed "endless and dull".[13]

Of the film's director, Craig Macneill, Carson Lund of Slant Magazine wrote, "Even if his talents tip the scales toward overstatement, Macneill has a command for composition and rhythm that belies his skinny résumé, and one can't help but be unnerved by Breeze's relentlessly deer-in-the-headlights performance as the sociopathic Ted."[14] Samuel Zimmerman of Shock Till You Drop commended Macneill's restraint and noted that his "disinterest in making a traditional slasher, let alone an iconic one, ultimately ends up with one of the most memorable contemporary iterations."[15] Marjorie Baumgarten of The Austin Chronicle also found it "more measured than the usual demon-child fare".[16] Dominick Suzanne-Mayer of Consequence of Sound was impressed by the acting and wrote, "If the film itself slips a little too easily into the banality it’s chronicling at times, The Boy is sustained by the measured performances of the handful of wayward souls in its sparse, bleak world."[17]

Drew Tinnin of Dread Central and Anton Bitel of Sight and Sound both believed that the film rewarded patient viewing. Tinnin wrote that "The slow start (and maybe a little of the middle) does pay off, however, with a conclusion that's shocking even after seeing what Ted’s already been up to",[18] while Bitel found it to be "a slow-burner that builds and builds to its climactic conflagration". Bitel also compared it to Richard Linklater's Boyhood and considered The Boy to be a "disturbing flipside" to Linklater's film that succeeds in creating an "austere and chilling portrait of America's abandoned margins".[19] Andy Webster of the New York Times was impressed overall; he felt that the film worked despite its dramatic shortcomings, and called it "a feature stunning to behold" despite finding it "somewhat unpersuasive in narrative".[20] However, Frank Scheck of The Hollywood Reporter took an opposing view and wrote, "While it's admirable that director Macneill and his co-scripter Clay McLeod Chapman opted to emphasize mood and psychology over the story's more exploitable elements, it nonetheless results in a listless tedium that isn't helped by the overly long running time."[21]

The code would be:

Rotten Tomatoes, a review aggregator, reports that 61% of 18 surveyed critics gave it a positive review with an average rating of 5.6/10, while Metacritic rated it 45/100 based on reviews from eight critics. Rotten Tomatoes, a review aggregator, reports that 61% of 18 surveyed critics gave it a positive review with an average rating of 5.6/10, while Metacritic rated it 45/100 based on reviews from eight critics. Deanna James of The Lineup named The Boy as of of the scariest moves of 2015. Emily Buder of Indiewire wrote that The Boy was one of the 13 most criminally overlooked indie and foreign films of 2015. Ken W. Hanley at Fangoria included The Boy in the top 10 horror films of 2015. HitFix included the film in their list of 14 great under the radar films of 2015. . THE BOY received two FangoriaChainsaw award nominations for best supporting actor and best score. Both Eric Kohn of Indiewire and Charlie Schmidlin of The Playlist found the film to be effective but dramatically lacking. Kohn wrote that the film "maintains a gripping sense of atmospheric dread", although its "consistently grave tone sometimes threatens to suffocate the dramatic momentum", while Schmidlin felt that the film has "extremely effective" parts, but it plays into negative stereotypes of "slow burn" psychological dramas. These sentiments were echoed by Ain't It Cool News who praised its "dark, broody tone", and by Dennis Harvey of Variety who wrote that the film seemed "endless and dull".

Of the film's director, Craig Macneill, Carson Lund of Slant Magazine wrote, "Even if his talents tip the scales toward overstatement, Macneill has a command for composition and rhythm that belies his skinny résumé, and one can't help but be unnerved by Breeze's relentlessly deer-in-the-headlights performance as the sociopathic Ted." Samuel Zimmerman of Shock Till You Drop commended Macneill's restraint and noted that his "disinterest in making a traditional slasher, let alone an iconic one, ultimately ends up with one of the most memorable contemporary iterations." Marjorie Baumgarten of The Austin Chronicle also found it "more measured than the usual demon-child fare". Dominick Suzanne-Mayer of Consequence of Sound was impressed by the acting and wrote, "If the film itself slips a little too easily into the banality it’s chronicling at times, The Boy is sustained by the measured performances of the handful of wayward souls in its sparse, bleak world."

Drew Tinnin of Dread Central and Anton Bitel of Sight and Sound both believed that the film rewarded patient viewing. Tinnin wrote that "The slow start (and maybe a little of the middle) does pay off, however, with a conclusion that's shocking even after seeing what Ted’s already been up to", while Bitel found it to be "a slow-burner that builds and builds to its climactic conflagration". Bitel also compared it to Richard Linklater's Boyhood and considered The Boy to be a "disturbing flipside" to Linklater's film that succeeds in creating an "austere and chilling portrait of America's abandoned margins". Andy Webster of the New York Times was impressed overall; he felt that the film worked despite its dramatic shortcomings, and called it "a feature stunning to behold" despite finding it "somewhat unpersuasive in narrative". However, Frank Scheck of The Hollywood Reporter took an opposing view and wrote, "While it's admirable that director Macneill and his co-scripter Clay McLeod Chapman opted to emphasize mood and psychology over the story's more exploitable elements, it nonetheless results in a listless tedium that isn't helped by the overly long running time."

Blancanieva (User talk:Blancanievatalk) 12:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Firstly, the film hasn't received "universal honors": it was nominated for a couple of awards and made the year-end lists of a few critics. There are thousands of critics who did not include it among their favorite films of the year. Secondly, awards and honors usually come after the critical reception in film articles, and I see no reason to break with that convention here. The reason we don't place them at the beginning of the section is because they tend to paint an extremely positive and non-neutral view of the film. As you can see from the section above the neutrality of the reception section has been thoroughly discussed and formally closed in favor of the current version. While the Fangoria awards are valid, I generally don't see the point of these year-end lists since they do not reflect the critical consensus nor do they convey any critical analysis, but if we are going to have them then the end of the section is the more appropriate location for them. The POV pushing on this article has really got to stop. Betty Logan (talk) 19:57, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Firstly the film has received several honors, not a couple.  It's evident that that you and the original creator of this page continue to shed a negative light on this film and there are several of us who are unsure why this is happening.  The negative POV pushing has got to stop.  The proposed quotes you included above, for the most part, continue to only shed the film with a negative light.  Look closely at each quote and you'll notice this.Blancanieva (User talk:Blancanievatalk)
 * The reception section has been independently reviewed as you can see above, and found to be neutral. If you take a look at any GA or FA rated film article you will see "awards and honors" are located after the critical reception, not before it, for the reasons I have given you. If you believe that this article should be treated differently feel free solicit further opinions at the relevant Wikiprojects. Betty Logan (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Eventually, someone is going to ask, "Why are there so many promotional single-purpose accounts who edit this article and the articles on Craig William Macneill and his wife, Ana Asensio?" I don't think that day is going to end well for the SPAs. So, please just stop being so pushy about promoting Macneill's work on Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 6:27 am, Yesterday (UTC−5)

"Comment""Okay, will leave as is and seek out Wikiprojects to find out more. Blancanieva ([[User talk:Blancanievatalk]

School??!??!?!
Why the boy doesn´t go to school?!?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:9C40:25E0:451A:2FC:BB85:D2A6 (talk) 22:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's summer. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Copyright infringement
A new plot was added in. I did a few Google searches, and the "synopsis" section was an obvious copyright violation. However, the plot itself also seems to be a copy-paste copyright violation. Parts of it seem to copy this article on TV Tropes, and pretty much the entirety of it is found inside the HTML source of this web page. If you view the HTML source of the CultureCrypt.com review, it has an extensive plot summary, which seems to have been copied verbatim. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've removed it entirely, as we cannot have this on Wikipedia. It's better there's no plot at all than to have something lifted almost verbaitm from somewhere else. The footnote does not excuse it either. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)