This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
An image used in this article,
File:Jaden-smith-after-earth.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Jaden-smith-after-earth.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 19:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC) |
The poster that's been edit-warred into the page repeatedly is not legitimate. It was created by an enthusiast graphic designer and posted at
http://www.behance.net/gallery/After-Earth-Teaser-Poster/3156122, from which it seems to have been copied to all the bad film sites on the internet. If you look at the user (Aaron Randall)'s gallery, you'll see other unofficial materials for other movies. I've started the process of deleting the image file, but it does not belong here in the interim. —
Kerfuffler
scratch
sniff
11:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Looks like it got taken care of. 71.34.241.23 ( talk) 08:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
The plot section of this article is an exact copy of that appearing in IMDB, which is cited as being written by Columbia Pictures. Indeed, this is verifiable in Sony's press release (10th paragraph). Is this plagarism or a reference oversight?
To say that "Earth was left in its PRIME state, and continued to LIVE on its own" doesn't mean anything. 203.184.41.226 ( talk) 07:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
The article doesn't compare After Earth to any other sci-fi movies, so how is one to get a feel for how it works? There is no mention of the competing Tom Cruise movie, AE's advertising campaign isn't even mentioned, and certain important details such as when filming officially ended are completely missing. I know the official website isn't much help, but surely there are other sources this can use. 71.34.241.23 ( talk) 04:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, I added the missing Marketing section. 71.34.241.23 ( talk) 08:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Marketing was more tied in with Facebook than Google+. They even released a Facebook-themed trailer on their website. I think that a citation is needed for the Google+ reference. I also think it should be noted that as of March 2013, there have been no new trailers for the movie. There are only two so far, the main one and the "viral" Facebook-themed one. Somebody, please fix up the Marketing section a little bit, and add some more information. I would do this myself, but I don't have any sources. 63.155.145.138 ( talk) 10:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
A section on controversy related to the film's possible connections to Scientology doctrine was deleted. Any idea why? 12.154.167.231 ( talk) 16:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Sock post removed per WP:Sock
Now there are more sources making the connection. This is one such example; Google shows a few more. I think we can expand coverage in the article. Erik ( talk | contribs) 15:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Why are we presenting cinema score "B" as high? That's extremely low for cinema score, in-fact if you look at the website 'After Earth' it's one the lowest scoring movie in cinemas! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.71.100 ( talk) 13:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I understand how the grades work, but surely that's all irrelvant if most stuff on Cinema Score gets A+-B+. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.71.10 ( talk) 01:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Critical response[edit] After Earth has received negative reviews from most film critics. It is currently certified "rotten" with a rating of 12% on Rotten Tomatoes based on 130 reviews with the consensus: "After Earth is dull, ploddingly paced exercise in sentimental sci-fi -- and the latest setback for director M. Night Shyamalan's once-promising career." It holds a score of 32 on Metacritic based on 35 reviews, which indicates "generally unfavorable reviews". However, the film still earned a B grade CinemaScore surveyed from the general audience on opening day.[39] Under CinemaScore, a C grade is the equivalent of a failing grade, and a B grade signals general satisfaction.[40]
Joe Morgenstern, film critic for The Wall Street Journal, opened his review by asking: "Is After Earth the worst movie ever made?" His answer was "Maybe not; there's always Battlefield Earth to remind us how low the bar can go."[41] Like Morgenstern, Manohla Dargis of The New York Times noted the film's use of central themes in Scientology before concluding the film was nothing more than a "big-screen vanity project."[42] Peter Travers of Rolling Stone similarly compared the film to Scientology-related flop Battlefield Earth in describing the film as "an unholy mess of platitudes and posturing" that wastes the talents and charm of Will Smith.[43] Los Angeles Times reviewer Betsy Sharkey questioned how the elder Smith could go from the charismatic performance in the serious film The Pursuit of Happyness, also co-starring his son, to the performance in After Earth. She also saw compounding problems in the creative process leading to a lack of subtlety and nuance: "The script has no nuance, none. And when Shyamalan moves into the director's chair, the script problems are magnified."[44] Both Dustin Putman and Scott Foundas of Variety opined that the film was further proof that Shyamalan had become a "director-for-hire", with "his disinterest palpable from first frame to last".[45][46]
There was heavy criticism for Jaden Smith's role in the film, with Christopher Orr of The Atlantic stating, "He is entirely lacking in the big-screen charisma that made his father one of Hollywood's major stars".[47] Gory Wolcott commented that "the 15-year old Jaden doesn't appear to demonstrate much talent and has zero charisma".[48] Teddy Durgin of Screenit.com added that "The problem is that Jaden Smith is a truly, deeply limited actor."[49] Several reviewers saw nepotism as the explanation for the casting decisions,[50][51] with Colin Covert of the Star Tribune calling it: "a peculiar brand of make-believe where influential Hollywood parents present their offspring as stars in their own right, without the heavy burden of developing talent or public appeal"; he concluded the film is "mind-alteringly awful" due to a variety of reasons: "The acting is wooden, the dialogue inane, and M. Night Shyamalan's directing choices are a lesson in sci-fi cliché."[52]
However, Matt Zoller Seitz of RogerEbert.com awarded the film 3.5 stars out of 4 and commented that the movie is "a moral tale disguised as a sci-fi blockbuster. It's no classic, but it's a special movie: spectacular and wise."[53] Jim Vejvoda of IGN awarded the film a 6.7 out of 10 and commented, "M. Night Shyamalan isn't quite back in top form here, but After Earth is certainly the best movie he's made in years."[54] Charlie Jane Anders of Io9 commented that "Having suffered through Last Airbender, I can attest that this film is no Last Airbender... After Earth stays grounded, and manages to tell a pretty decent story."[55] John Hayward of Breitbart.com said the movie is not nearly as bad as its box-office thud and scathing reviews would suggest, Shyamalan does a "solid job in the director's chair", and Jaden Smith is "really a decent actor."[56]
American astronaut Buzz Aldrin said the movie is "quite action packed" and a "touching father/son story",[57] but is not realistic because "in space, you don't get that much noise."[58] Aldrin was impressed by the set design stating that "The scenes of the cities were really remarkable," but differed significantly from his experience on the moon, which he described as "'magnificent desolation' in contrast to the magnificent experience that humanity could move itself ahead to get to the moon." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.71.10 ( talk) 16:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
cheerupwillsmith.com I am not advertising the site, but it has been reported on by various sources such as MSN and other news sites. This is of cause in relation to the films perceived Scientology connections. Should it be noted somewhere in the article? Perhaps in the reception section or the external links??? Colliric ( talk) 23:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I think he's too tangentially related to the subject. If the movie was about the Apollo 11 moon landings, then his thoughts would be relevant. But it's just another sci-fi film. He's also not a recognized mainstream film reviewer. For these reasons I've removed his review. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 17:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
So, two things:
1) This section is far, far too long. A cross-section of positive and negative reviews is plenty. Breaking it down to give each point of criticism its own section is excessive and atypical of other movie pages. It should be quite simple to highlight a few critics, a few common points of criticism, and then highlight positive reviews.
2) If it MUST stay, I took a paragraph out of the nepotism section because it was misleading. First of all, the Newsone.com link was an angry editorial pushing a personal agenda - it was not a review of the film and it made unsourced accusations that other critics of the film were simply racists. Presenting this as a "review" is misleading. Second, the other source in the article was merely an article about movies which included multiple members of a family in the same movie. It was not a piece judging the quality, positive or negative, of After Earth. The paragraph attempted to present this piece as a "refutation", when in fact whoever added it as a reference was clearly doing so themselves.
So, people have constantly reverted my edits to the misleading paragraph without even attempting to read the sources to ensure they are what the paragraph claims them to be. Without discussion. Seriously? Rebochan ( talk) 00:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Sometimes a film is so bad and an acting performance so terrible that no POV charge is relevant; and this film is just that. Worst big budget ever made? Quite possibly. Jaden Smith? I'm sure he can find something worthwhile to do with his life. Acting ain't it. 109.103.81.34 ( talk) 17:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)Vaino
76.233.160.104 posted this comment on 22 June 2013 ( view all feedback).
This page should have a section about the book, which covers a lot that is not in the movie.
Any thoughts?
JohnRatz ( talk) 12:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
The story is not based on a book?
http://www.boxoffice.com/statistics/movies/1000-ae-2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.76.235 ( talk) 06:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Fuck!!! Where the hell is soundtrack section.
I would have added it myself but I am not familiar with American film scores and soundtrack's and all. Which are the reputed sources for reviews?
Regards
--- $oHaM ❊ আড্ডা 05:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
The article devotes a lot of space to talking about similarities between the film and Scientology, yet it neglects to give any clear description of what these are.-- 86.130.116.161 ( talk) 22:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
From the entry: "Meanwhile, Cypher's son Kitai blames himself for the death of his older sister Senshi at the hands of an Ursa attack some years ago when he was a young child. The two have an estranged relationship with Cypher being away on missions."
This seems to read: the sister is dead but the two have an estranged relationship....? Risssa ( talk) 04:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
...needs cut down by about 80%.
The wiki is, overall, an overblown, sycophantic mess. I've tried to make some cuts but the plot section is overwhelming.-- 82.41.251.96 ( talk) 16:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The header paragraph talks about problems with the film being self-contradiction and plot-holes, but doesn’t go on to express these; as I don’t know what they are, but also can’t say they are not there, I have nothing to contribute, so feel that the remarks in the paragraph should either be removed, or expanded upon in the main body text. Jock123 ( talk) 12:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Regarding this,
How does Zoë Kravitz presence indicate nepotism? I find no mention of her family in this article, in the cited source, or anywhere else in relation to this film. -- Pemilligan ( talk) 22:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC) r:InternetArchiveBot|InternetArchiveBot]] ( Report bug) 19:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
An image used in this article,
File:Jaden-smith-after-earth.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Jaden-smith-after-earth.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 19:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC) |
The poster that's been edit-warred into the page repeatedly is not legitimate. It was created by an enthusiast graphic designer and posted at
http://www.behance.net/gallery/After-Earth-Teaser-Poster/3156122, from which it seems to have been copied to all the bad film sites on the internet. If you look at the user (Aaron Randall)'s gallery, you'll see other unofficial materials for other movies. I've started the process of deleting the image file, but it does not belong here in the interim. —
Kerfuffler
scratch
sniff
11:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Looks like it got taken care of. 71.34.241.23 ( talk) 08:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
The plot section of this article is an exact copy of that appearing in IMDB, which is cited as being written by Columbia Pictures. Indeed, this is verifiable in Sony's press release (10th paragraph). Is this plagarism or a reference oversight?
To say that "Earth was left in its PRIME state, and continued to LIVE on its own" doesn't mean anything. 203.184.41.226 ( talk) 07:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
The article doesn't compare After Earth to any other sci-fi movies, so how is one to get a feel for how it works? There is no mention of the competing Tom Cruise movie, AE's advertising campaign isn't even mentioned, and certain important details such as when filming officially ended are completely missing. I know the official website isn't much help, but surely there are other sources this can use. 71.34.241.23 ( talk) 04:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
OK, I added the missing Marketing section. 71.34.241.23 ( talk) 08:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Marketing was more tied in with Facebook than Google+. They even released a Facebook-themed trailer on their website. I think that a citation is needed for the Google+ reference. I also think it should be noted that as of March 2013, there have been no new trailers for the movie. There are only two so far, the main one and the "viral" Facebook-themed one. Somebody, please fix up the Marketing section a little bit, and add some more information. I would do this myself, but I don't have any sources. 63.155.145.138 ( talk) 10:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
A section on controversy related to the film's possible connections to Scientology doctrine was deleted. Any idea why? 12.154.167.231 ( talk) 16:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Sock post removed per WP:Sock
Now there are more sources making the connection. This is one such example; Google shows a few more. I think we can expand coverage in the article. Erik ( talk | contribs) 15:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Why are we presenting cinema score "B" as high? That's extremely low for cinema score, in-fact if you look at the website 'After Earth' it's one the lowest scoring movie in cinemas! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.71.100 ( talk) 13:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I understand how the grades work, but surely that's all irrelvant if most stuff on Cinema Score gets A+-B+. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.71.10 ( talk) 01:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Critical response[edit] After Earth has received negative reviews from most film critics. It is currently certified "rotten" with a rating of 12% on Rotten Tomatoes based on 130 reviews with the consensus: "After Earth is dull, ploddingly paced exercise in sentimental sci-fi -- and the latest setback for director M. Night Shyamalan's once-promising career." It holds a score of 32 on Metacritic based on 35 reviews, which indicates "generally unfavorable reviews". However, the film still earned a B grade CinemaScore surveyed from the general audience on opening day.[39] Under CinemaScore, a C grade is the equivalent of a failing grade, and a B grade signals general satisfaction.[40]
Joe Morgenstern, film critic for The Wall Street Journal, opened his review by asking: "Is After Earth the worst movie ever made?" His answer was "Maybe not; there's always Battlefield Earth to remind us how low the bar can go."[41] Like Morgenstern, Manohla Dargis of The New York Times noted the film's use of central themes in Scientology before concluding the film was nothing more than a "big-screen vanity project."[42] Peter Travers of Rolling Stone similarly compared the film to Scientology-related flop Battlefield Earth in describing the film as "an unholy mess of platitudes and posturing" that wastes the talents and charm of Will Smith.[43] Los Angeles Times reviewer Betsy Sharkey questioned how the elder Smith could go from the charismatic performance in the serious film The Pursuit of Happyness, also co-starring his son, to the performance in After Earth. She also saw compounding problems in the creative process leading to a lack of subtlety and nuance: "The script has no nuance, none. And when Shyamalan moves into the director's chair, the script problems are magnified."[44] Both Dustin Putman and Scott Foundas of Variety opined that the film was further proof that Shyamalan had become a "director-for-hire", with "his disinterest palpable from first frame to last".[45][46]
There was heavy criticism for Jaden Smith's role in the film, with Christopher Orr of The Atlantic stating, "He is entirely lacking in the big-screen charisma that made his father one of Hollywood's major stars".[47] Gory Wolcott commented that "the 15-year old Jaden doesn't appear to demonstrate much talent and has zero charisma".[48] Teddy Durgin of Screenit.com added that "The problem is that Jaden Smith is a truly, deeply limited actor."[49] Several reviewers saw nepotism as the explanation for the casting decisions,[50][51] with Colin Covert of the Star Tribune calling it: "a peculiar brand of make-believe where influential Hollywood parents present their offspring as stars in their own right, without the heavy burden of developing talent or public appeal"; he concluded the film is "mind-alteringly awful" due to a variety of reasons: "The acting is wooden, the dialogue inane, and M. Night Shyamalan's directing choices are a lesson in sci-fi cliché."[52]
However, Matt Zoller Seitz of RogerEbert.com awarded the film 3.5 stars out of 4 and commented that the movie is "a moral tale disguised as a sci-fi blockbuster. It's no classic, but it's a special movie: spectacular and wise."[53] Jim Vejvoda of IGN awarded the film a 6.7 out of 10 and commented, "M. Night Shyamalan isn't quite back in top form here, but After Earth is certainly the best movie he's made in years."[54] Charlie Jane Anders of Io9 commented that "Having suffered through Last Airbender, I can attest that this film is no Last Airbender... After Earth stays grounded, and manages to tell a pretty decent story."[55] John Hayward of Breitbart.com said the movie is not nearly as bad as its box-office thud and scathing reviews would suggest, Shyamalan does a "solid job in the director's chair", and Jaden Smith is "really a decent actor."[56]
American astronaut Buzz Aldrin said the movie is "quite action packed" and a "touching father/son story",[57] but is not realistic because "in space, you don't get that much noise."[58] Aldrin was impressed by the set design stating that "The scenes of the cities were really remarkable," but differed significantly from his experience on the moon, which he described as "'magnificent desolation' in contrast to the magnificent experience that humanity could move itself ahead to get to the moon." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.71.10 ( talk) 16:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
cheerupwillsmith.com I am not advertising the site, but it has been reported on by various sources such as MSN and other news sites. This is of cause in relation to the films perceived Scientology connections. Should it be noted somewhere in the article? Perhaps in the reception section or the external links??? Colliric ( talk) 23:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I think he's too tangentially related to the subject. If the movie was about the Apollo 11 moon landings, then his thoughts would be relevant. But it's just another sci-fi film. He's also not a recognized mainstream film reviewer. For these reasons I've removed his review. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 17:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
So, two things:
1) This section is far, far too long. A cross-section of positive and negative reviews is plenty. Breaking it down to give each point of criticism its own section is excessive and atypical of other movie pages. It should be quite simple to highlight a few critics, a few common points of criticism, and then highlight positive reviews.
2) If it MUST stay, I took a paragraph out of the nepotism section because it was misleading. First of all, the Newsone.com link was an angry editorial pushing a personal agenda - it was not a review of the film and it made unsourced accusations that other critics of the film were simply racists. Presenting this as a "review" is misleading. Second, the other source in the article was merely an article about movies which included multiple members of a family in the same movie. It was not a piece judging the quality, positive or negative, of After Earth. The paragraph attempted to present this piece as a "refutation", when in fact whoever added it as a reference was clearly doing so themselves.
So, people have constantly reverted my edits to the misleading paragraph without even attempting to read the sources to ensure they are what the paragraph claims them to be. Without discussion. Seriously? Rebochan ( talk) 00:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Sometimes a film is so bad and an acting performance so terrible that no POV charge is relevant; and this film is just that. Worst big budget ever made? Quite possibly. Jaden Smith? I'm sure he can find something worthwhile to do with his life. Acting ain't it. 109.103.81.34 ( talk) 17:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)Vaino
76.233.160.104 posted this comment on 22 June 2013 ( view all feedback).
This page should have a section about the book, which covers a lot that is not in the movie.
Any thoughts?
JohnRatz ( talk) 12:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
The story is not based on a book?
http://www.boxoffice.com/statistics/movies/1000-ae-2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.76.235 ( talk) 06:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Fuck!!! Where the hell is soundtrack section.
I would have added it myself but I am not familiar with American film scores and soundtrack's and all. Which are the reputed sources for reviews?
Regards
--- $oHaM ❊ আড্ডা 05:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
The article devotes a lot of space to talking about similarities between the film and Scientology, yet it neglects to give any clear description of what these are.-- 86.130.116.161 ( talk) 22:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
From the entry: "Meanwhile, Cypher's son Kitai blames himself for the death of his older sister Senshi at the hands of an Ursa attack some years ago when he was a young child. The two have an estranged relationship with Cypher being away on missions."
This seems to read: the sister is dead but the two have an estranged relationship....? Risssa ( talk) 04:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
...needs cut down by about 80%.
The wiki is, overall, an overblown, sycophantic mess. I've tried to make some cuts but the plot section is overwhelming.-- 82.41.251.96 ( talk) 16:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The header paragraph talks about problems with the film being self-contradiction and plot-holes, but doesn’t go on to express these; as I don’t know what they are, but also can’t say they are not there, I have nothing to contribute, so feel that the remarks in the paragraph should either be removed, or expanded upon in the main body text. Jock123 ( talk) 12:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Regarding this,
How does Zoë Kravitz presence indicate nepotism? I find no mention of her family in this article, in the cited source, or anywhere else in relation to this film. -- Pemilligan ( talk) 22:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC) r:InternetArchiveBot|InternetArchiveBot]] ( Report bug) 19:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)