This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Independence Day: Resurgence article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-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 3 times. The weeks in which this happened:
|
So Rotten Tomatoes has a premise for the film. I believe this can be added to the page. As with Fantastic Four (2015) had its premise revealed on RT as well. Npamusic ( talk) 02:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The titles Independence Day 2 and ID Forever were never official or even previously known. Before the title was revealed to be "Independence Day: Resurgence", the film was merely referred to as the sequel to Independence Day 2. Stop adding the code names into the header, please. DARTHBOTTO talk• cont 19:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
There's something I don't understand. Dr. Okun returning, I mean? Wasn't he killed by that alien that used him as a communicator in the original? Visokor ( talk) 06:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
There was an ad for this film and at the end it said the release date is the 23rd of June, this is also the date of the EU Referendum for Great Britain not the 24th. I live in Ireland in case that helps. Is this date wrong in the article or is the North American release date the 24th? AlanS181824 ( talk) 23:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Proposal for a new article for Indepenence Day series Talk:Independence Day (book series)#Independence Day (franchise).-- NeoBatfreak ( talk) 02:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
TropicAces: Yes, Metacritic scores have dipped into negative territory, but as numerous discussions revealed in other articles, we can't actually say "negative" without a concrete, reliable source drawing that specific conclusion. Saying "not well-received" has been a common compromise in the past, especially for the lead. Also, there's nothing wrong with making a single statement summary in the lead that focuses on the main criticisms and praises. Further elaboration beyond a single statement should be reserved for the article's reception section. See Terminator Genisys and its talk page as a good example. I'm open to suggestions, but let's take precedence into account as well. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 17:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
This phrasing is being used to satisfy both sides of the debate, as there is no specific threshold on RT between mixed and negative. We need a source other than RT and MC that states otherwise. Until then, both should be kept in place. Discuss here if needed. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 22:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Other than this 'one' editor, are there OTHER editors who object to including sources and content acknowledging the generally negative response by critics? Between the RT source, the MC score and the many sources in the press making the post-mortem on the negative critical reception for the movie, this appears to be a no-brainer. This source, one among many (( https://littlewordstudio.com/2016/06/24/independence-day-resurgence-invades-theaters-worldwide/) is calling this. I see ONE vote for, ONE vote against. I'm also for "generally negative", or some paraphrasing along those lines. You can clearly infer this conclusion from the littlewordstudio citation, for instance. Other sources are plenty confidence in this observation as well. We shouldn't need an exact word for word quote. We can safely infer from this source and others the 'meaning' and conclusions about the critical consensus. In terms of precedent, that burden has been acceptable for other film articles of the ilk and satisfies wikipedia's standards of ettiquette ... If other editors swoop in and care to object here, or revert my content, then I will let it be. Let's try this for now, and see how 'other editors' feel about it and not just this stubborn one. For now, with my voiced added, it is TWO votes for, ONE against. That is enough to support this change for now and vet this trial edit with the readers and community-at-large. 174.29.191.40 ( talk) 16:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
A major publication, Variety, is now making a postmortem on this: acknowledging the film's failure to catch on with audiences AND critics. http://variety.com/2016/film/news/independence-day-resurgence-box-office-bombs-liam-hemsworth-will-smith-1201804315/ Again, like I said, this is a no-brainer. 174.29.191.40 ( talk) 19:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Also, to address the editor on this page regarding a statement he made in the edit summary, I had originally removed the attempt to synthesize the source, since it wasn't really discussed here. Also, if the minority opinion is that this will was praised for this or that, why does it belong in the article? Isn't that what the critical section is for, to elaborate? I see the TOP for the place to briefly summary the bare-talking points about this. In other words, the top is where we briefly summarize the subject, hitting all the right notes and mention what was notable and newsworthy about the subject. It is notable to mention that this film didn't do well with critics. The minority opinion held by some critics that this film was good was not notable about this film. I will leave it for now since it doesn't do any harm leaving it there. However, if the film continues to tank with critics and the tastes of the public, then maybe we should remove it since it comes of as spin or WP:SYNTH. Also, I saw that you left the change about the film's "generally negative reception," reflecting the reality and consensus about this film. Thank you for that. 174.29.191.40 ( talk) 20:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the score and the way a majority of the reviews are worded, I'd say it's definitely "generally negative". Parsley Man ( talk) 03:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Considering me, NeoBatfreak, and User:174.29.191.40 are involved in this, I would like to create this discussion to give some sort of clarity to the situation and hopefully sort it out.
The original sentence was this:
The IP user's edit was this:
Which one's supposed to be preferable? Because the IP user seems pretty insistent in his/her edit. Parsley Man ( talk) 19:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
To be honest, I think the IP's sentence is too wordy, not to mention the film now including other extraterrestrial races and thus should not continuously call the harvesters "aliens". I think it should be like :"Okun reveals the sphere has asked them to lead the resistance, and offered them new technology in preparation to take the fight to their enemy's home world."-- NeoBatfreak ( talk) 19:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Ok, so it seems silly go back and forth. Say something if you disagree. The Alien race is called the Harvesters, just like we are Humans. Therefore: Singular - Harvester Plural - Harvesters Ownership - Harvester's Per WP:BRD, let's discuss. MisterShiney ✉ 22:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
In October 2011, however, discussions for Will Smith returning were halted, due to Fox's refusal to provide the $50 million salary demanded by Smith for the two sequels.
This needs to be clearer for the reader. 68.101.77.142 ( talk) 10:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I have not seen this film and I found these two sentences confusing and in need of tweeks. In the first, it is not clear if the spaceship sets down on land or the water or just hovers over the ocean. Note that it says "The mothership lands." Also, is it drilling into the ocean bed or the Eastern Seaboard? In the second, there appears to be a typo or missing word.
Thanks. Please mark this topic "fixed" or "resolved" when completed. 5Q5 ( talk) 14:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
In the ending sentence of the plot, isn't it supposed to be "Harvesters' home planet" instead of "Harvester's home planet"? Harvesters are obviously an alien race and should be addressed as plural, but the "Harvester's" tidbit implies there's only one Harvester. Parsley Man ( talk) 02:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Independence Day: Resurgence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Has Fox announced whether or not there will be a third movie? Did Resurgence earn enough to justify it? I can't find anything sequel related after the end of June, 2016. 108.185.37.78 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
In the Casting section, it's stated: "William Fichtner was cast as a General, a role that will be larger in the next two films." The source is an old article mentioning these alleged "next two films", but I strongly believe it was a mistake of that reporter, since at no point it was ever implied by anyone that Resurgence would span TWO further sequels, taking the overall franchise count to 4 films. A second sequel (i.e. a third film) was planned, and it's currently uncertain if it will ever be made, but no more than that. Also, the current statement seems to imply that these two other films with an expanded role for Fichtner are a given, which they are not. At the very least, just one more may be. Kumagoro-42 00:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I am responding to a request to Copy Edit this page. This will take place over the next 24-48 hours so please keep other editing to a minimum throughout this process. I will mark as complete when ready for further review. Thanks. ( Stingray Trainer ( talk) 19:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC))
In the cast section, under the entry for Bill Pullman, describing the character of President Whitmore, there is the following: "[...]and some still refer him as the country's leader as the result of his role during the first invasion and its aftermath." I know that the books and other media from between the two films (which I haven't read) are canon, and this might be referring to something from there. But I wonder if the original writer simply noticed that a number of times Whitmore is called "Mr. President" and presumed a reason for it other than the correct one—namely, that by convention all American ex-Presidents are properly addressed as "Mr. (or Ms.) President" for the rest of their lives. Since I can't be certain of the rationale for that sentence I wouldn't want to presumptively edit it, but it might bear looking at. Wild Pikachu ( talk) 01:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Independence Day: Resurgence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
This section is currently hard to follow as it is unclear whether some of the totals are to-date, monthly, 5 day etc. Slipandslide ( talk) 20:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Independence Day: Resurgence article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-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 3 times. The weeks in which this happened:
|
So Rotten Tomatoes has a premise for the film. I believe this can be added to the page. As with Fantastic Four (2015) had its premise revealed on RT as well. Npamusic ( talk) 02:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The titles Independence Day 2 and ID Forever were never official or even previously known. Before the title was revealed to be "Independence Day: Resurgence", the film was merely referred to as the sequel to Independence Day 2. Stop adding the code names into the header, please. DARTHBOTTO talk• cont 19:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
There's something I don't understand. Dr. Okun returning, I mean? Wasn't he killed by that alien that used him as a communicator in the original? Visokor ( talk) 06:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
There was an ad for this film and at the end it said the release date is the 23rd of June, this is also the date of the EU Referendum for Great Britain not the 24th. I live in Ireland in case that helps. Is this date wrong in the article or is the North American release date the 24th? AlanS181824 ( talk) 23:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Proposal for a new article for Indepenence Day series Talk:Independence Day (book series)#Independence Day (franchise).-- NeoBatfreak ( talk) 02:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
TropicAces: Yes, Metacritic scores have dipped into negative territory, but as numerous discussions revealed in other articles, we can't actually say "negative" without a concrete, reliable source drawing that specific conclusion. Saying "not well-received" has been a common compromise in the past, especially for the lead. Also, there's nothing wrong with making a single statement summary in the lead that focuses on the main criticisms and praises. Further elaboration beyond a single statement should be reserved for the article's reception section. See Terminator Genisys and its talk page as a good example. I'm open to suggestions, but let's take precedence into account as well. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 17:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
This phrasing is being used to satisfy both sides of the debate, as there is no specific threshold on RT between mixed and negative. We need a source other than RT and MC that states otherwise. Until then, both should be kept in place. Discuss here if needed. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 22:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Other than this 'one' editor, are there OTHER editors who object to including sources and content acknowledging the generally negative response by critics? Between the RT source, the MC score and the many sources in the press making the post-mortem on the negative critical reception for the movie, this appears to be a no-brainer. This source, one among many (( https://littlewordstudio.com/2016/06/24/independence-day-resurgence-invades-theaters-worldwide/) is calling this. I see ONE vote for, ONE vote against. I'm also for "generally negative", or some paraphrasing along those lines. You can clearly infer this conclusion from the littlewordstudio citation, for instance. Other sources are plenty confidence in this observation as well. We shouldn't need an exact word for word quote. We can safely infer from this source and others the 'meaning' and conclusions about the critical consensus. In terms of precedent, that burden has been acceptable for other film articles of the ilk and satisfies wikipedia's standards of ettiquette ... If other editors swoop in and care to object here, or revert my content, then I will let it be. Let's try this for now, and see how 'other editors' feel about it and not just this stubborn one. For now, with my voiced added, it is TWO votes for, ONE against. That is enough to support this change for now and vet this trial edit with the readers and community-at-large. 174.29.191.40 ( talk) 16:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
A major publication, Variety, is now making a postmortem on this: acknowledging the film's failure to catch on with audiences AND critics. http://variety.com/2016/film/news/independence-day-resurgence-box-office-bombs-liam-hemsworth-will-smith-1201804315/ Again, like I said, this is a no-brainer. 174.29.191.40 ( talk) 19:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Also, to address the editor on this page regarding a statement he made in the edit summary, I had originally removed the attempt to synthesize the source, since it wasn't really discussed here. Also, if the minority opinion is that this will was praised for this or that, why does it belong in the article? Isn't that what the critical section is for, to elaborate? I see the TOP for the place to briefly summary the bare-talking points about this. In other words, the top is where we briefly summarize the subject, hitting all the right notes and mention what was notable and newsworthy about the subject. It is notable to mention that this film didn't do well with critics. The minority opinion held by some critics that this film was good was not notable about this film. I will leave it for now since it doesn't do any harm leaving it there. However, if the film continues to tank with critics and the tastes of the public, then maybe we should remove it since it comes of as spin or WP:SYNTH. Also, I saw that you left the change about the film's "generally negative reception," reflecting the reality and consensus about this film. Thank you for that. 174.29.191.40 ( talk) 20:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the score and the way a majority of the reviews are worded, I'd say it's definitely "generally negative". Parsley Man ( talk) 03:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Considering me, NeoBatfreak, and User:174.29.191.40 are involved in this, I would like to create this discussion to give some sort of clarity to the situation and hopefully sort it out.
The original sentence was this:
The IP user's edit was this:
Which one's supposed to be preferable? Because the IP user seems pretty insistent in his/her edit. Parsley Man ( talk) 19:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
To be honest, I think the IP's sentence is too wordy, not to mention the film now including other extraterrestrial races and thus should not continuously call the harvesters "aliens". I think it should be like :"Okun reveals the sphere has asked them to lead the resistance, and offered them new technology in preparation to take the fight to their enemy's home world."-- NeoBatfreak ( talk) 19:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Ok, so it seems silly go back and forth. Say something if you disagree. The Alien race is called the Harvesters, just like we are Humans. Therefore: Singular - Harvester Plural - Harvesters Ownership - Harvester's Per WP:BRD, let's discuss. MisterShiney ✉ 22:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
In October 2011, however, discussions for Will Smith returning were halted, due to Fox's refusal to provide the $50 million salary demanded by Smith for the two sequels.
This needs to be clearer for the reader. 68.101.77.142 ( talk) 10:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I have not seen this film and I found these two sentences confusing and in need of tweeks. In the first, it is not clear if the spaceship sets down on land or the water or just hovers over the ocean. Note that it says "The mothership lands." Also, is it drilling into the ocean bed or the Eastern Seaboard? In the second, there appears to be a typo or missing word.
Thanks. Please mark this topic "fixed" or "resolved" when completed. 5Q5 ( talk) 14:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
In the ending sentence of the plot, isn't it supposed to be "Harvesters' home planet" instead of "Harvester's home planet"? Harvesters are obviously an alien race and should be addressed as plural, but the "Harvester's" tidbit implies there's only one Harvester. Parsley Man ( talk) 02:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Independence Day: Resurgence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Has Fox announced whether or not there will be a third movie? Did Resurgence earn enough to justify it? I can't find anything sequel related after the end of June, 2016. 108.185.37.78 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
In the Casting section, it's stated: "William Fichtner was cast as a General, a role that will be larger in the next two films." The source is an old article mentioning these alleged "next two films", but I strongly believe it was a mistake of that reporter, since at no point it was ever implied by anyone that Resurgence would span TWO further sequels, taking the overall franchise count to 4 films. A second sequel (i.e. a third film) was planned, and it's currently uncertain if it will ever be made, but no more than that. Also, the current statement seems to imply that these two other films with an expanded role for Fichtner are a given, which they are not. At the very least, just one more may be. Kumagoro-42 00:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I am responding to a request to Copy Edit this page. This will take place over the next 24-48 hours so please keep other editing to a minimum throughout this process. I will mark as complete when ready for further review. Thanks. ( Stingray Trainer ( talk) 19:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC))
In the cast section, under the entry for Bill Pullman, describing the character of President Whitmore, there is the following: "[...]and some still refer him as the country's leader as the result of his role during the first invasion and its aftermath." I know that the books and other media from between the two films (which I haven't read) are canon, and this might be referring to something from there. But I wonder if the original writer simply noticed that a number of times Whitmore is called "Mr. President" and presumed a reason for it other than the correct one—namely, that by convention all American ex-Presidents are properly addressed as "Mr. (or Ms.) President" for the rest of their lives. Since I can't be certain of the rationale for that sentence I wouldn't want to presumptively edit it, but it might bear looking at. Wild Pikachu ( talk) 01:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Independence Day: Resurgence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
This section is currently hard to follow as it is unclear whether some of the totals are to-date, monthly, 5 day etc. Slipandslide ( talk) 20:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)