Talk:The New Mutants (film)

Infobox Sources
Hey! I'm trying to add a source to the infobox of the article, but I don't know how to. If anybody here can send me a link of how to, or just tell how here, it would be much appreciated. FilmLover72 (talk) 19:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you think needs to be sourced in the infobox? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I want to update the runtime to say that the runtime is 98 minutes and not 94, and I even have a source ready to be used, but I don’t know how to include a source in an info box. FilmLover72 (talk) 11:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , if you want to learn how to do it, read Template:Cite web or look at how other citations are entered on the article. OR you can just give us the link here and if it's a reliable source, one of us can update it for you. — Starforce13  13:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for the help. This is the link that I'm trying to include. I hope you consider it a reliable source: https://collider.com/the-new-mutants-runtime/ FilmLover72 (talk) 13:11, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * - Collider is not a reliable source and even in this case when they quoted the director, they went ahead and twisted his words. In the quote, Boone says I think it's 98 minutes or something like that.... It's clear from his quote that he's not giving the exact number, the only thing he's sure about is that it's less than 104 mins. In that case, we should stick to the 94 mins obtained from a reliable source. — Starforce13  14:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Collider is a reliable source, FYI. But I was about to say the same thing regardless that he does not give an exact number in his quote. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:20, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , Collider is only "reliable" in that it's acceptable, but you can't take the editor or writer's word for it. You have to take most of their claims with a grain of salt. Most of their articles are rumors, fan theories and things out of contexts. You always have to read carefully to determine where they got the information from and if it matches the source. Like what I had to do in this case. — Starforce13  14:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I was just pointing out that by you saying Collider is not a reliable source, that is incorrect. It can be used to cite information, but yes, in this exact instance, we are looking at the context of the quoted material and it shouldn't be used as both of us have said. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Also this Most of their articles are rumors, fan theories and things out of contexts. is not true. That's actually the opposite of what Collider is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not upcoming
It's not upcoming, it has been released today in Poland, Spain and some other countries. Mike210381 (talk) 09:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Adding on to this, since it is now out, I feel like it's time to change the wording from "It is intended to be the last installment in the "X-Men" film series" to "It is the thirteenth and final installment in the "X-Men" film series. ChristianJosephAllbee (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Critics Reviews Consensus
I think we need a consensus on how to summarize the critics reaction in the lead since this back and forth seems to be still going on. There seems to be 3 sides:
 * 1) using the first review (THR) in the article which calls it "unoriginal"
 * 2) choosing TheWrap's article which randomly selects 3 critics
 * 3) following regular ranges like unfavorable/negative/mixed-to-negative as we do in most films/series

I think choosing 1 or 3 critics out of about 40 critics who have reviewed the film is misleading and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. It's worse if the chosen 3 critics are quoted by some writer at TheWrap which isn't even a review aggregator like Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic.

It also violates MOS:LEAD because the lead section is supposed to summarize the article; yet these random 3 critics here weren't even notable enough to be included in the "Reception" section of the article. So, the "summary" is misleading. It's so out of touch with the rest of the article that someone has to put a direct ref in the lead which is discouraged.

I think we should use option 3, which gives a general assessment based on rating, and then the audience can figure out for themselves what's wrong with the film by reading further. — Starforce13  15:58, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I am a bit late, but I agree. ~ BOD ~ TALK 16:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Were the reviews mixed or negative? Pick one or the other, don't equivocate, don't try to have it both ways at the same time, don't say "mixed to negative". (Wikipedia Project Games makes it clear that they think this wording to summarize reviews is terrible WP:VG/MIXED, there's only an informal consensus against it from Project film, so far.)
 * Mixed includes negative and I prefer not to contradict Metacritic so I'd go with mixed personally but just pick one or the other. (You were right about the other part, see WP:FILMLEAD, was updated a while back to make it clear that the LEAD should be based on what is actually in the Critical response section.) -- 109.79.174.193 (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Could use Metacritic to say that the majority of reviews were mixed, indicating the breakdown of sample reviews to be 10 mixed, 5 negative, and 3 positive. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:31, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be too verbose for the intro I think. What I'm saying specifically that the line following line from the LEAD:
 * X "The film received mostly mixed to negative reviews"
 * should be changed to either
 * Y "The film received mixed reviews" or alternatively
 * Z "The film received generally negative reviews"
 * and I don't particularly mind which of those editors pick. I just wish film articles followed the same WP:VG/MIXED policy as games articles do already. -- 109.79.174.193 (talk) 02:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

This movie has the same average rating as Dark Phoenix. But Phoenix is labeled as negative. I think there should be some consistency.—-98.110.50.133 (talk) 01:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Ending
"the group, now calling themselves the New Mutants" – That's absolutely not what happens. They don't define themselves as a group, let alone give themselves a collective name. They just walk out of the facility together, and then the movie ends. Kumagoro-42 (talk) 13:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)