Talk:The Color of Money/Archive 1

TV Show
ITV are also planning a tv programme called The Colour of Money. Should this be mentioned in this article also? I'm not sure if its related to the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.69.126 (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarized?
The items listed under 'spoilers' bear an uncanny resemblance to those found on imbd.com's page for [| The Color of Money]. I realized this after I committed several edits to the wording of these entries - the wording seemed stilted and forced. This suggests to me that the entries were simply lifted from the aforementioned imbd.com page, with trivial obfuscation performed by modifying the wording. Of course, the possibility exists that the plagiarism was reversed, but something tells me it wasn't, particularly considering the higher quality of the wording on imdb's page (when compared before my recent edits). thoughts? Anastrophe 07:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I overhauled the entire article (in part for this reason). &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 10:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect information
The article says that critical reviews for the movie were mixed. This is untrue. It had overwhelmingly positive reviews and maintains a 90% on the Rotten Tomatoes meter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.162.0.37 (talk) 11:58, 13 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Rotten Tomatoes? Since when is that a reliable source?  (And note that you didn't actually cite the source; mentioning a website is not a source citation). Especially for a movie released in 1986, before the Web even existed?  RT might or might not be a reliable source for current public opinion (I lean toward not for reasons I won't get into unless they're demanded), but has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with critical reception at and shortly after the film's release.   This material does need sourcing (a Who template would probably encourage that, for the statement at issue), but replacing it with seemingly opposite but actually radically noncomparative information is not the answer. &mdash;  SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 12:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: I did a verb twiddle to reduce conflict with the (questionable) RT results. &mdash; SMcCandlish &#91;talk&#93; &#91;contrib&#93; ツ 12:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Rotten Tomatoes is a compilation of critical opinion and any "public opinion" there is secondary. Until Rotten Tomatoes came into existence, there was NO consensus of critical opinions on films. Variety used to run a page (with no quotes or commentary) giving the "pro/con" reactions of a handful of newspaper critics in five or six major cities, and that was it. I'm not sure whether Rotten Tomatoes gets reactions to a 1986 film by polling the critics or by surveying DVD review recaps, but a check reveals only three negatives among the 29 reviews counted. Pepso2 03:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)