User talk:Steve/Reception

Commentary by Erik
Here are some ideas I had for the section:


 * Reviews should be reliable sources per this: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Reviews that have been published in print are encouraged.  (I say this because there may be specialist reviews online only, such as for comic books or historical films.)
 * Seek general commentary from reliable sources about how critics have received the film; the more in retrospect, the better
 * Films of a certain nationality may include reviews from that particular nation; include Canadian reviews for a Canadian film, Australian reviews for an Australian film, and so forth. Non-English reviews for non-English films translated into English are encouraged if possible.
 * A question: What kind of balance should we encourage for such sections? If we can establish the general consensus, do we need to tilt the type of reviews in its favor?  Or should there be a decent mix of positive, negative, and neutral reviews?  Should we exclude negative reviews from highly critically acclaimed films?  Should we seek any kind of positive mention for the most trashed of films?  I think that whatever we come up with, it should be a suggestion rather than a requirement, since this kind of issue is very flexible.
 * For the above question, make mention of the application of WP:NPOV, but we need to figure out how it applies. Should it mean that we roughly judge the number of reviews to be positive or negative based on general consensus, or are we trying to neutrally present all viewpoints?
 * Write that all user ratings that are not of a bona fide nature should be excluded (IMDb is the big one, but there can be other user ratings like at Rotten Tomatoes); maybe briefly explain why? Not a truly random sample?  (Like Iron Man having a majority of voters between 18-25)
 * Suggest creating a "Box office performance" or "Theatrical run" section separately if sufficient coverage exists; try to report box office gross in the film's national currency
 * Other B.O. details: world premieres, number of theaters, special setups (digital), surveys of gender or age mix, coverage of a notable opening in a particular country (especially the film's nationality), box office records, gross of film from film's nation, general consensus from objective (retrospective if possible) sources about how a film performed (remember Slither?)


 * I think Erik's covered all the comments pretty thoroughly. I'm interested to see how the section is written. I think once you're finished we'll be able to read it over and see if anything needs tweaking.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That was my thought too; I've been thinking about this throughout the day, and the above list pretty much encapsulates most of what I'd come up with too. My initial comment is on the balance of reviews to use. I think my opinion now chimes with what you said at the Hancock talk page. As long as a reception section details the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic views (and, ideally, reports from news publications as to the critical consensus), we should recommend a balance of positive/negative/mixed comments (where possible). I might not get a chance to work on this thoroughly until after the weekend, but I'll knock up some preliminary wording then. Thanks, Steve  T • C 21:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've got a preliminary version up for your perusal. Length would be my primary complaint at present, but I can't see much else that I'd be 100% happy to lose. And there are a lot of recommendations I'd like to make that I've excluded (maybe there's a good essay to be had out of this subject at some point). Steve T • C 11:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What are some additional recommendations that you have in mind? — Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * They were more stylistic guidees and recommendations, such as how to paraphrase succinctly, and not including juicy direct quotes just because they're, well, juicy. But to be honest, these are covered by other, more general Wikipedia guidelines on citing sources, so probably unnecessary for a section that's already quite large. Though there might be room for a line instructing people to use a dispassionate voice when relaying critics' opinions. Steve  T • C 12:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You might want to include The Numbers in the box office gross websites. I've found that they will actually include sources for some of the information they provide (namely the production budget information) for some films (here is one example).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Two pence by Alientraveller
Alientraveller (talk) 11:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Third-party sources should be noted for older films released before 1995, when RT and its ilk were established. Because RT is a web-based website they won't list negative reviews for classic films, like Pauline Kael's hatred of George Lucas.
 * Even people who love a film to bits can nitpick it. This is worth mentioning for films with mostly positive reviews.


 * I agree with AT. Fight Club has this problem, having a "polarized" reaction at the time of its release, but when you look at Rotten Tomatoes, it seems like it's been acclaimed all this time. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 12:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And of course, Fight Club is 1999, which throws a little more doubt at the 1995 reliability date. Steve  T • C 12:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for those, AT. I didn't realise that Rotten Tomatoes ratings are only any good for post-1995 films. If we're happy with that date, I'll include it in the draft. It seems OK, but having checked the entry for Independence Day (1996), the rating of 63% (89% for top critics!) is a little higher than my memory of that film's reception. Steve'  T • C 12:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions
The section is very comprehensive so far! I think this is very close to the final draft. I think there are a couple of points to clear up: What do you think? — Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "In the case of films not in the English language, the section may contain quotes translated into English from non-English reviews." This strikes me as a little awkward.  I think that non-English reviews should be a little more encouraged.
 * Should we create a separate section for "Box office performance"/"Theatrical run"? It seems like we would have plenty more to say about it... I think we could elaborate on some points if we didn't feel like we had to squeeze everything under "Reception".


 * To cover the first point, the "may" can become a "should", which turns it more into an instruction without being too prescriptive. The second point is one I was toying with in an earlier draft. Perhaps the "Reception" section could contain two subsections: "Reviews" (or "Critical reception" or some other, better title) and "Box office" ("Commercial", "Theatrical run", "DVD", whatever). Or would this be better distinct from the "Reception" section? Steve  T • C 12:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think "Critical reaction" may be more suitable. I've found "Reception" as a better catch-all, encompassing reviews and box office grosses.  Sometimes I use "Release" if there is content that is not quite reception-related, like the setup of the film's release.  What about having a paragraph under the main section explaining the different possible section headings?  I just think that it may be worthwhile to have a stand-alone commercial-esque section, considering I just expanded Hancock with a buttload of detail about its opening weekend...


 * Also, WP:MOSFILM may be worth merging... we may want to see about including theatrical information with "Box office performance"/"Theatrical run" and have another MOS section, "Home media", to detail DVD and Blu-ray. Am I getting ahead of myself here? :) — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 13:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Let me see if I can throw some wording together; I'll try to mention the different ways in which the sections can be organised/named too. Steve  T • C 14:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think we need to avoid tinkering too much. I recommend leaving the guideline at two sections for now (as shown in this version). This will give greater scope for using that old chestnut "best judgment" in order to determine the makeup of the article, how it should be organised, and what the section titles should be. Anything beyond this, no matter how softly worded, is open to use in too dictatorial a manner. Besides, I'm all for diversity in articles (despite the identikit wording I've been using in films' reception sections of late—that's just my being lazy :) ). Steve  T • C 14:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You sure? :) Feel free to weigh in about "Home media" below.  Remember that we'll get some feedback from other editors, too, so there may be some trimming or expansion in some areas. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 14:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Home media
First of all, with my proposal of this subsection, "Commercial performance" may not be the most accurate title for details related to a film's theatrical release. The commercial performance can be tied to the DVD and Blu-Ray release, like 10,000 BC recently making headlines. Secondly, it may be worthwhile to provide some guidance with this topic. There are two issues I've seen with details related to home media. One is listing all the special features on the film's disc, and the other is including disc covers without any significance being established for its appearance. It may be worth explaining the best approach for these and to suggest reporting any details that third-party sources have found relevant, like the Reuters article about 10,000 BC's ranking. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I meant to include something about this in the wording as it happens, but plum forgot. Any section detailing the commercial performance needs this information. As for what information to include exactly... that's a trickier one. In terms of extras and whatnot, determining what's trivia and what isn't needs some picking over. I think a separate "Home media" section is the best way to go, but this disconnects it from the theatrical release details, and I'm not sure it fits well as a subsection alongside it (under "Reception"). On the other hand, having both "Theatrical run" and "Home media" as subsections of "Release" means "Critical reaction" is out on its own. Now, that's fine by me, but I know some like to keep the connection between a film's commercial and critical reception. Steve  T • C 15:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that we should remain flexible on this section heading issue; I definitely have readjusted the headings based on the available content. The problem is sectioning it within the guideline.  For some films, there may be very little information available, and there would be only one or two paragraphs to go under a "Release" or "Reception" section.  We four have done a lot of work with current films, so we're used to having a lot of release information.  I would say to include a note that section headings can be added, retitled, or removed depending on what details are available for the film.  I don't see "Home media" itself being any more than a paragraph; just cover the two points I made (feedback would be appreciated) and indicate that any significant coverage by third-party sources should be incorporated whenever available. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 15:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thinking about this, I suggest we go with "Release" as the catch-all section heading. We can then begin with a paragraph explaining that depending on the available content, section headings can be added, retitled, or removed. We could list examples of headings like "Reception", "Critical reception", "Critical reaction", "Box office performance", "Theatrical run", "Theatrical release", "Home media", etc. We can say "not limited to" as well. With the "Release" section heading, I think we should go with three sections -- "Critical reception", "Theatrical run", and "Home media" (I choose these so there is no redundant wording and they are broad enough usages). — Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm still a little unsure that the critical reaction really belongs in something named "Release". Though I suppose it might provide some context for films that undergo critical reappraisal at some point. Later on I'll reorganise what we have so far and see how it looks. Cheers, Steve  T • C 15:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with your assessment; it would be appropriate for the critical reaction to be apart from the "Release" section. "Release" is pretty generic; "Reception" would be OK in most cases, though it may not be the best place to address the technical setup, like the digital screenings of Hancock.  Don't forget "Marketing", either... I suggest saving this for later and putting it in "Other article components". — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 15:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to the special features, how inclusive should we be? I don't think it's necessary to list every featurette, but is it too much to say, "The DVD contains an audio commentary, deleted scenes, and five featurettes"? Also, I am thinking we may need to clarify the inclusion of a cover (first, don't specify DVD or Blu-Ray as there is VHS and a brief HD-DVD stint). I think we need to establish to readers that there needs to be critical commentary about the cover itself. My personal example is Fight Club (film). I'm just trying to see if we're covering all bases with this particular section, since I think it would be a good idea to get the existing draft evaluated by other editors. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I've reworded the section according to these recommendations, trying not to be too restrictive or permissive. I'm reasonably happy with the current version, so if anyone has any additional thoughts, let's hear 'em. Thanks, Steve  T • C 08:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Feedback
Should we introduce the draft to the community at large? I think we should paste it at WT:MOSFILM and conduct discussion there so everyone will have the content immediately available to them. We can leave a note at WT:FILM to point them to the discussion and get feedback. Unless there's something else to cover? — Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we could tweak this back and forth for another couple of weeks yet, and still not be satisfied. So now's probably the time to get wider feedback, before that happens. I think it's worth making clear that this expansion is based upon what many of the project recommend on a day-to-day basis; I can't see anything controversial in here. Still, I've placed a brief introduction on the page now. If it looks OK, I'll post it to WT:MOSFILM. Steve  T • C 13:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)