Talk:The Lone Ranger (2013 film)/Archive 1

I already did this.
Michael Lewandowski, I already userfied the Lone Ranger here when it was up for deletion. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 0:46 14:24 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Moved back to user space
This was deleted at Articles for deletion/The Lone Ranger (film project) for CRYSTAL reasons. I can't agree that now the project has been shelved it has addressed that deletion so have moved it back to userspace. The film project is already mentioned in the overarching article and consensus is that this is enough unless there is progress on the project. If you disagree you can ask DRV for a view. Spartaz Humbug! 05:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess you didn't read the part that it's back in production and filming begins in February. Oh well, wait until then. RAP (talk) 18:44 12 November 2011 (UTC)

grammar
"James Badge Dale plays Dan Reid, John's brother, killed by Cavendish and heart cut out and ate.[8]" would you please fix your grammar? If you don't know how, get a teacher to tell you. 71.191.189.73 (talk) 17:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ ~ Jedi94  ( talk ) 23:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Plot.
Needs to be filled out - if anyone reading this has seen the movie take a second and save the rest of us the $10. By letting the world know what happened. --Eric James Wolf (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

There are no real sources about the plot having werewolves in an earlier draft. The source article never mentions werewolves.

Critical reception
The critical reception of the movie is cited as being mostly negative (e.g. only 27% positive reviews from RottenTomatoes), yet this portion of the article gives equal if not more space to the positive and mitigating reception of the film, leaving the general feel after reading that the movie was well-received. Is it not standard practice to represent by weight the reception of the movie? Anything else would have to qualify as bias. Yourself In Person (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Except in this case, the negative reviews don't really give critical analysis but just insult the movie ("bloated mess," etc.). The negative reviews discuss the film in a more analytic way, and part of the reason for that section is to have that sort of critical analysis. If the negative reviews won't give it because they're too busy being snarky, then we've got to get the analytical stuff from somewhere. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * While I agree there's no point in being redundant, the critical reception of the film is the critical reception of the film. If 99% of critics were in consensus that the movie was "a bag of potatoes wearing sunglasses", WP's duty in the Critical Response field is simply to record that, not to try to get at what they really meant or what truths they were hiding. Minority opinions should get minority representation. If the critics chose not to be analytical, then there will be no analyses to record - an encyclopedia can't select for data. Yourself In Person (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Of somewhat greater concern is the addition (today or yesterday) of a response from the filmmakers to the critical response to the film. I don't think this belongs in this section, or probably on WP at all. It seems understood that given the chance, almost any filmmaker would defend their work. WP is not a gossip rag and Hammer's quote adds nothing to the article except to turn it into a Variety piece. Yourself In Person (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * One way to evaluate the balance of reviews is to look at Metacritic. It identifies 6 reviews as positive, 24 as mixed, and 14 as negative. I think it is fair to remove one or two positive reviews and to add a couple more mixed reviews (as there seems to be only one right now). As for the filmmakers' response, while I agree that a defense is obvious, the press is worth reporting here. We can create a separate subsection for their response and any related commentary, like someone saying the response is an attempt to save face and boost home media sales and rentals (to make up an example). We just have to fold the points and counterpoints per WP:STRUCTURE. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 19:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't accept that this short discussion above about including a variety of reviews in the Reception section (which is good) is the same thing as consensus for the indecisive quibbling weasel words in the introduction of the article.
 * The Lone Ranger received mixed to negative reviews in the United States and mixed to positive reviews outside the country.

That is not a well phrased sentence, and I suggest a different wording
 * 'The Lone Ranger'' received negative reviews in the United States and more positive reviews elsewhere.

I understand the sentiment, but too many other articles suffer this weasel of "mixed to negative" or "mixed to positive" often added by fans. It is at least adequately supported by sources in this article but the phrasing is still terribly clunky and inelegant. Can you try to rephrase it to be less clunky while maintaining the sentiment? -- 109.78.73.145 (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * And I'm completely with you on avoiding clunkiness. What I'm seeing in the Reception section is: "The Lone Ranger received mixed to negative reviews in the US." That's already shorter than "The Lone Ranger received mixed to negative reviews in the United States and mixed to positive reviews outside the country." --Tenebrae (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It's worth noting that the extant language has been stable for over a year. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah, you were referring to the lead, not the Reception section. I agree with you again: "elsewhere" in the lead is more succinct and compact.--Tenebrae (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Both cases should probably say United States rather than US. Any rephrasing suggestion that avoids the encouraging the formulaic "mixed to negative" pattern would be an improvement. I'm trying to think of the smallest possible change, but I'll have to come back to it.
 * No one buys stability as a good reason to keep things when I suggest it either. -- 109.78.73.145 (talk) 04:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * US or United States &mdash; either one works for me. I only used US since your were addressing conciseness.


 * I agree that stability isn't be-all and end-all, and if an objective fact is incorrect, obviously it should be changed. But subjective wording that has been debated and then subsequently accepted by editors for over a year is, I believe, a different case. That said, I'm of the school &mdash; as are a number of other WP:FILM regulars &mdash; that it's best to avoid any such introductory phrasing at all and go straight to the RT and Metacritic numbers. While I myself wouldn't change the stable extant wording, I'd certainly support any editor wanting to delete a problematic opening phrase in favor of objective numbers.--Tenebrae (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)