![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
This article is currently - 20210118 - locked after a short edit war between someone who added the fact that this movie was lauded by the audience at the Venice film festival where it was premiered while critics for the most panned it. On Rotten Tomatoes the critical score lies at 22% while the audience rates it at 98%. Usually when movies receive positive reviews from viewers but negative ones from critics this indicates there is a political motive for the discrepancy, as seems to be the case here as well.
By consistently reverting the edit which adds information which is certain to be of interest to readers looking for information on this movie, the article and the editor who did the reverting and the locking clearly violates the NPOV. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a political action platform, if you want to publish op-eds you should apply to the likes of Variety, the New York Times or Vogue. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. By turning Wikipedia into a political pamphlet, one article at a time, you dramatically reduce the perceived reliability of the platform for everybody, not just those on the "conservative" side but also those on the "progressive" whose standpoints you think you defend. An echo chamber is not a place where truth is told, that is the definition of the term. Stop turning Wikipedia into an echo chamber, don't be so afraid of opinions which go against your narrative and, most of all, do not destroy this valuable asset.
Yetanwiki ( talk) 19:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
You might want to read that section you quoted as it proves my point wrt. the Rotten Tomatoes score. Yetanwiki ( talk) 20:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database, Metacritic, or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew.Come again? Vaselineeeeeeee ★★★ 20:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that part as well now, strange that it is here since Rotten Tomatoes is generally seen as the place to go for this type of information as well as to gauge the difference between critical and audience response. Disallowing this type of information here makes it more or less impossible to keep a NPOV wrt. movie reviews on Wikipedia since professional movie critics tend to be a rather homogeneous group. Alas. Yetanwiki ( talk) 20:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
If the movie was well received at the Venice Film Festival would that be notable? Trying to find a compromise here. The discrepancy between Critic and Audience is notable in my opinion, but clearly against current policy.
David587320 (
talk)
04:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I looked for about 30 minutes and couldn't find anything about how the movie was received in Venice as it was listed as "out of competition." If anyone has anything, it looks like we have a decent compromise, otherwise, I'd say wait and see if any reliable/approved audience polling comes out. Until then, disagree with the rules all you want, and try to change them if you will, but follow them regardless. David587320 ( talk) 16:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Erik: Speaking of which, and this is getting a little off-topic for this talk page, why does the Last Jedi list Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores under the "Audience Reception" page? Isn't that a violation of current policy? I'm new to the whole editing thing so I hope I did the reply right. David587320 ( talk) 00:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
So the distinction is purely based on whether another source mentions the Rotten Tomatoes audience score? If that's the case it seems like it is only a matter of time until someone writes an article about the Tomatometer being broken again, which will restart this whole debate. Am I just grossly misunderstanding your point? David587320 ( talk) 04:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
The discrepancy between critic and audience score is notable, one that has been discussed on the national stage (see Ben Shapiro of the Daily Wire, one of the largest conservative news sources), while other critics such as https://filmschoolrejects.com/run-hide-fight-review/ also give it a good review, but are not included.
While one can debate the reliability of a user score and its merits for inclusion, the debate surrounding the difference is something readers should be aware of. I aim to remain fair, neutral, and keep my own political beliefs at home. I hope you all do too. ASuperEditor ( talk) 02:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Please can someone explain something to me?
How can a site be accepted as a reliable source for critics review yet not accepted for audience review?
Secondly, between the critics and the audience, who should have more weight. I would argue the audience. The critics are as susceptible to politics as the audience are. I would argue even more.
I have seen a lot of movies with positive critics review that I regretted going to see at the cinema and for a while I err on the side of the audience. The number of movies I have seen that were good when the audience gave a positive review while critics gave a negative review are much more than that of the opposite.
Finally, what happens when the movies are not listed on metametrics?
I would argue that if there is no way to get the user score from metametrics, then the critics score should be left out of the movie article.
That for me would provide balance. I have seen quite a number of movies with good critical review that I and almost every one I know ended up hating. If that is not a sign that the critics can be swayed I don't know what else can be.
Finally, what process do you take to change or at least debate the rules? Moreh GAI ( talk) 16:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
How can a site be accepted as a reliable source for critics review yet not accepted for audience review?To paraphrase what I read elsewhere: how can the The New York Times be considered a reliable when the letters to the editor are not? Wikipedia does not allow WP:USERGENERATED content as a source, user voted web polls (audience scores) are not a reliable source WP:RS. -- 109.78.196.88 ( talk) 18:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I would argue that instead of the rules stating that audience review cannot be added to the movie article. Let it be allowed with a notation that it might not be accurate due to it being suceptible to vote stacking and demographic view, same way a warning label is added to cigarette packs.
I have come to see that most of the critics are one sided in their political thinking and if politics can sway audience review which are capable of being corrected by an equal number of audience with an opposite political view, should I think it won't sway the critics who basically belong to one political group? Moreh GAI ( talk) 16:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add "The film has an audience score of 92% on Rotten Tomatoes" after the sentence "Run Hide Fight received mostly negative reviews from critics and has a score of 22% on Rotten Tomatoes based on nine reviews with an average rating of 4.20/10." 47.145.224.130 ( talk) 03:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Update the sentence "Run Hide Fight received mostly negative reviews from critics and has a score of 22% on Rotten Tomatoes based on nine reviews with an average rating of 4.20/10." to "Run Hide Fight received mostly negative reviews from critics and has a score of 30% on Rotten Tomatoes based on nine reviews with an average rating of 4.20/10." This change reflects more recent updates to Rotten Tomatoes. David587320 ( talk) 04:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
The link to Rotten Tomatoes reviews is not working. Did Rotten Tomatoes take the movie down or move it? I couldn't find anything. The IMDb link is still working. David587320 ( talk) 19:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Film critics, like game critics and the mainstream media generally, tend to be on the left politically and culturally - they would not be expected to like a conservative film. If the hostile rating of the critics on "Rotten Tomatoes" is reported then the support of the audience for the film, on the same site, should also be supported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:96F6:5300:C405:8E2C:AB55:1D33 ( talk) 15:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes the first section does cover this to a certain extent, but it is rather convoluted and the article itself has not been corrected. If you are going to give the critics scores of a product you need to give the counter balancing audience scores. After all mainstream media critics are not going to like anything at all produced by a conservative company such as the "Daily Wire". 2A02:C7F:96F6:5300:C405:8E2C:AB55:1D33 ( talk) 15:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand, which do you think is more probable Erik, the film being bad despite it receiving an over whelming audience review (even with vote stacking) and a bad critics review or the film being good despite it recieving bad critic reviews but good audience reviews?
Also, are you telling me the only measure of accuracy in movies is critics review?
Anyhow, I would argue a balance need to be made. Let us stop pretending as if critics cannot be swayed by politics in their reviews.
Once again I have seen a lot of movies with great critics review that everyone I know hated watching. Moreh GAI ( talk) 17:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I would argue that even if the exact audience review might not be mentioned in the article, the decripancy should be mentioned.
It could go something like this "The gap between audience and critics review is quite large although it may be due to vote stacking." Moreh GAI ( talk) 17:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Please put the audience score in critical reception, or even in it's own section, since it is vastly different from the critic's score. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.16.166.109 ( talk) 14:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Why are you guys hating on rotten tomatoes? Use google please ( talk) 08:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Because the “HEYGUYS” reviewed is source directly from rotten tomatoes, only people hate rotten tomatoes would remove direct content from rotten tomatoes Use google please ( talk) 18:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Critics' reception of this movie was overwhelmingly negative, not "mixed". 46.97.170.40 ( talk) 09:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
IP users have recently made a series of edits to the lede and the critical reception section, adding information that straight up contradict the sources. They falsely claim that the film received positive reviews in the lede, and that it received mixed reviews in the article itself, both of which is false. Critical reception of the film was overwhelmingly negative, as evidenced by sources, as well as the article itself. I also recommend protecting this article. 46.97.170.40 ( talk) 11:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
poor or negative" would be reasonable yes, only that that is not what 46.97.170.40 did, instead he went further and more negative and said the film was "panned". Unless you have a WP:SECONDARY source that specifically uses the word "panned" it would be better not to use that more harsh description. There is a difference between "generally negative", "
overwhelmingly negative" and "
panned", so if an editor decided to change the intro to say the reviews were "generally negative" instead of "mixed", I might disagree but I would not need to revert as that would be enough to satisfy WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. -- 109.76.203.12 ( talk) 17:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
The plot description only mentions that he is Zoe's father. How is it that he is in a position to shoot Chris? Is Todd a law enforcement officer? Is he just a devoted father who owns and is comfortable with firearms? If might be useful for people reading the article, if that is explained. TheBaron0530 ( talk) 14:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Maybe it is a good sign that new editors are not yet familiar with the many rules and guidelines of Wikipedia or maybe it is a bad sign that old editors are just terrible at following the rules (see above), but someone has once again added the Rotten Tomatoes user score to this article and it needs to be reverted ASAP. [3] (I would have reverted it already myself but it appears this article is locked until 2023.)
User generated content (including user voted web polls) is not reliable and not allowed as source for Wikipedia. Please read the guidelines on user generated content WP:UGC and WP:RS. -- 109.78.200.247 ( talk) 02:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
This article is currently - 20210118 - locked after a short edit war between someone who added the fact that this movie was lauded by the audience at the Venice film festival where it was premiered while critics for the most panned it. On Rotten Tomatoes the critical score lies at 22% while the audience rates it at 98%. Usually when movies receive positive reviews from viewers but negative ones from critics this indicates there is a political motive for the discrepancy, as seems to be the case here as well.
By consistently reverting the edit which adds information which is certain to be of interest to readers looking for information on this movie, the article and the editor who did the reverting and the locking clearly violates the NPOV. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a political action platform, if you want to publish op-eds you should apply to the likes of Variety, the New York Times or Vogue. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. By turning Wikipedia into a political pamphlet, one article at a time, you dramatically reduce the perceived reliability of the platform for everybody, not just those on the "conservative" side but also those on the "progressive" whose standpoints you think you defend. An echo chamber is not a place where truth is told, that is the definition of the term. Stop turning Wikipedia into an echo chamber, don't be so afraid of opinions which go against your narrative and, most of all, do not destroy this valuable asset.
Yetanwiki ( talk) 19:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
You might want to read that section you quoted as it proves my point wrt. the Rotten Tomatoes score. Yetanwiki ( talk) 20:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database, Metacritic, or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew.Come again? Vaselineeeeeeee ★★★ 20:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that part as well now, strange that it is here since Rotten Tomatoes is generally seen as the place to go for this type of information as well as to gauge the difference between critical and audience response. Disallowing this type of information here makes it more or less impossible to keep a NPOV wrt. movie reviews on Wikipedia since professional movie critics tend to be a rather homogeneous group. Alas. Yetanwiki ( talk) 20:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
If the movie was well received at the Venice Film Festival would that be notable? Trying to find a compromise here. The discrepancy between Critic and Audience is notable in my opinion, but clearly against current policy.
David587320 (
talk)
04:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
I looked for about 30 minutes and couldn't find anything about how the movie was received in Venice as it was listed as "out of competition." If anyone has anything, it looks like we have a decent compromise, otherwise, I'd say wait and see if any reliable/approved audience polling comes out. Until then, disagree with the rules all you want, and try to change them if you will, but follow them regardless. David587320 ( talk) 16:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
@ Erik: Speaking of which, and this is getting a little off-topic for this talk page, why does the Last Jedi list Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores under the "Audience Reception" page? Isn't that a violation of current policy? I'm new to the whole editing thing so I hope I did the reply right. David587320 ( talk) 00:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
So the distinction is purely based on whether another source mentions the Rotten Tomatoes audience score? If that's the case it seems like it is only a matter of time until someone writes an article about the Tomatometer being broken again, which will restart this whole debate. Am I just grossly misunderstanding your point? David587320 ( talk) 04:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
The discrepancy between critic and audience score is notable, one that has been discussed on the national stage (see Ben Shapiro of the Daily Wire, one of the largest conservative news sources), while other critics such as https://filmschoolrejects.com/run-hide-fight-review/ also give it a good review, but are not included.
While one can debate the reliability of a user score and its merits for inclusion, the debate surrounding the difference is something readers should be aware of. I aim to remain fair, neutral, and keep my own political beliefs at home. I hope you all do too. ASuperEditor ( talk) 02:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
Please can someone explain something to me?
How can a site be accepted as a reliable source for critics review yet not accepted for audience review?
Secondly, between the critics and the audience, who should have more weight. I would argue the audience. The critics are as susceptible to politics as the audience are. I would argue even more.
I have seen a lot of movies with positive critics review that I regretted going to see at the cinema and for a while I err on the side of the audience. The number of movies I have seen that were good when the audience gave a positive review while critics gave a negative review are much more than that of the opposite.
Finally, what happens when the movies are not listed on metametrics?
I would argue that if there is no way to get the user score from metametrics, then the critics score should be left out of the movie article.
That for me would provide balance. I have seen quite a number of movies with good critical review that I and almost every one I know ended up hating. If that is not a sign that the critics can be swayed I don't know what else can be.
Finally, what process do you take to change or at least debate the rules? Moreh GAI ( talk) 16:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
How can a site be accepted as a reliable source for critics review yet not accepted for audience review?To paraphrase what I read elsewhere: how can the The New York Times be considered a reliable when the letters to the editor are not? Wikipedia does not allow WP:USERGENERATED content as a source, user voted web polls (audience scores) are not a reliable source WP:RS. -- 109.78.196.88 ( talk) 18:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
I would argue that instead of the rules stating that audience review cannot be added to the movie article. Let it be allowed with a notation that it might not be accurate due to it being suceptible to vote stacking and demographic view, same way a warning label is added to cigarette packs.
I have come to see that most of the critics are one sided in their political thinking and if politics can sway audience review which are capable of being corrected by an equal number of audience with an opposite political view, should I think it won't sway the critics who basically belong to one political group? Moreh GAI ( talk) 16:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add "The film has an audience score of 92% on Rotten Tomatoes" after the sentence "Run Hide Fight received mostly negative reviews from critics and has a score of 22% on Rotten Tomatoes based on nine reviews with an average rating of 4.20/10." 47.145.224.130 ( talk) 03:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Update the sentence "Run Hide Fight received mostly negative reviews from critics and has a score of 22% on Rotten Tomatoes based on nine reviews with an average rating of 4.20/10." to "Run Hide Fight received mostly negative reviews from critics and has a score of 30% on Rotten Tomatoes based on nine reviews with an average rating of 4.20/10." This change reflects more recent updates to Rotten Tomatoes. David587320 ( talk) 04:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
The link to Rotten Tomatoes reviews is not working. Did Rotten Tomatoes take the movie down or move it? I couldn't find anything. The IMDb link is still working. David587320 ( talk) 19:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Film critics, like game critics and the mainstream media generally, tend to be on the left politically and culturally - they would not be expected to like a conservative film. If the hostile rating of the critics on "Rotten Tomatoes" is reported then the support of the audience for the film, on the same site, should also be supported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:96F6:5300:C405:8E2C:AB55:1D33 ( talk) 15:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes the first section does cover this to a certain extent, but it is rather convoluted and the article itself has not been corrected. If you are going to give the critics scores of a product you need to give the counter balancing audience scores. After all mainstream media critics are not going to like anything at all produced by a conservative company such as the "Daily Wire". 2A02:C7F:96F6:5300:C405:8E2C:AB55:1D33 ( talk) 15:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand, which do you think is more probable Erik, the film being bad despite it receiving an over whelming audience review (even with vote stacking) and a bad critics review or the film being good despite it recieving bad critic reviews but good audience reviews?
Also, are you telling me the only measure of accuracy in movies is critics review?
Anyhow, I would argue a balance need to be made. Let us stop pretending as if critics cannot be swayed by politics in their reviews.
Once again I have seen a lot of movies with great critics review that everyone I know hated watching. Moreh GAI ( talk) 17:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
I would argue that even if the exact audience review might not be mentioned in the article, the decripancy should be mentioned.
It could go something like this "The gap between audience and critics review is quite large although it may be due to vote stacking." Moreh GAI ( talk) 17:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Please put the audience score in critical reception, or even in it's own section, since it is vastly different from the critic's score. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.16.166.109 ( talk) 14:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Why are you guys hating on rotten tomatoes? Use google please ( talk) 08:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Because the “HEYGUYS” reviewed is source directly from rotten tomatoes, only people hate rotten tomatoes would remove direct content from rotten tomatoes Use google please ( talk) 18:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Critics' reception of this movie was overwhelmingly negative, not "mixed". 46.97.170.40 ( talk) 09:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
IP users have recently made a series of edits to the lede and the critical reception section, adding information that straight up contradict the sources. They falsely claim that the film received positive reviews in the lede, and that it received mixed reviews in the article itself, both of which is false. Critical reception of the film was overwhelmingly negative, as evidenced by sources, as well as the article itself. I also recommend protecting this article. 46.97.170.40 ( talk) 11:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
poor or negative" would be reasonable yes, only that that is not what 46.97.170.40 did, instead he went further and more negative and said the film was "panned". Unless you have a WP:SECONDARY source that specifically uses the word "panned" it would be better not to use that more harsh description. There is a difference between "generally negative", "
overwhelmingly negative" and "
panned", so if an editor decided to change the intro to say the reviews were "generally negative" instead of "mixed", I might disagree but I would not need to revert as that would be enough to satisfy WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. -- 109.76.203.12 ( talk) 17:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
The plot description only mentions that he is Zoe's father. How is it that he is in a position to shoot Chris? Is Todd a law enforcement officer? Is he just a devoted father who owns and is comfortable with firearms? If might be useful for people reading the article, if that is explained. TheBaron0530 ( talk) 14:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Maybe it is a good sign that new editors are not yet familiar with the many rules and guidelines of Wikipedia or maybe it is a bad sign that old editors are just terrible at following the rules (see above), but someone has once again added the Rotten Tomatoes user score to this article and it needs to be reverted ASAP. [3] (I would have reverted it already myself but it appears this article is locked until 2023.)
User generated content (including user voted web polls) is not reliable and not allowed as source for Wikipedia. Please read the guidelines on user generated content WP:UGC and WP:RS. -- 109.78.200.247 ( talk) 02:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)