Talk:Old Dogs (film)

Quality of article

Did the person who wrote this article have no more than a Grade 6 education? I do not mean that with disrespect; I am genuinely curious. The article is very poorly constructed, especially the actual recap of the movie story line. Please have someone rewrite it with proper sentence construction and logical flow of information. Jeepers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.89.185.171 (talk) 05:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The Plot section was written by Special:Contributions/99.147.204.236. Cirt (talk) 05:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

And then a modified version by Special:Contributions/68.94.27.14. Cirt (talk) 05:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Too many reviews and they're bias

I just to recommend that I think they are too many reviews. Can we try to trim them down to at least 10?. One thing I want to add is that the whole reception section of the page is completely negative reception towards the film making the whole section "BIAS". But's there one exception I read which was Carrie Rickey for The Philadelphia Inquirer who gave the film a mixed response. So can we try to find some positive reviews or something? Well, I would love to hear from you! (talk 04:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see Old Dogs at Rotten Tomatoes. With a rating of 7%, that is pretty much negative. Cirt (talk) 06:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I added back Pete Hammond, but Rickey was already included. Cirt (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note that Rotten Tomatoes is not a good source. Please check the rating from the community, it is 73%. Rotten Tomatoes is EXTREMELY biased it would seem. Also, this article is not a neutral point of view, it feels more like a review. Shicoco (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes is accepted on film articles to show aggregated critics' reviews. "Community" votes are not an WP:RS source. In this instance, Rotten Tomatoes is most certainly not "biased". Cirt (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing bias in the reception section. If the reviews are negative, they are negative. Neutrality does not mean we ignore the negative reception and somehow pretend it is less so. Rotten Tomatoes aggregate numbers for the critics numbers. Nor are they biased. Sorry if you liked the film, but it seems pretty clear that critics do not. If you have some positive reliable critical reviews to demonstrate some liked it, feel free to list, but otherwise your tagging is inappropriate/ The article is not biased, it is neutral, and there are not "too many reviews". Film articles are not limited to X reviews, but try to cover as many RS critical reviews as feasible. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that this film was panned by critics, I find it awkard that comments from critics are found in the intro section of the article. Also, too many reviews for this unnotable film when compared to others. There are so many films that have no reception section that are much more notable than this film.

Going back to the biased thing, I partly agree with shicoco. I know this topic has already been discussed before, but professional critics don't reflect the reception by average movie goers. Maybe the "reception" section should be changed to "reception by professionals" or something similar. Just my opinion though. Ricardoread (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the lede of the article should function as a summary of the entire article itself. And Wikipedia articles use independent reliable secondary sources, and not "average movie goers", as sources. Cirt (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I can see no good reason to tag this article as not neutral. I'm sorry the film stinks. I'm sorry because it's Bernie Mac's last film. I'm sorry because Travolta should have had a hit due to him. And it's regrettable that Travolta already has the worst picture of all time on his resume, and now may have the second worst. But it is not biased or non-neutral to report what critics have said about it. And it isn't professional to report what the average movie goer might think. The box office reflects that, and the box office ain't that great [1]. Even 40% of the Box Office Mojo members rate it at an F. Sometimes writing about a film that is considered bad may look negative, but it isn't the editors biasing it. That honor belongs to the film. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It is possible that over at Rotten Tomatoes there is some socking/spamming going on to drive up ratings at "RT Community". Cirt (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Which just goes to show why the community reviews are not used :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. :P Cirt (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Like mentioned above, we do need to ensure that articles include reliable, cited information, even if there is negative reactions to the subject. Striking a neutral balance can be difficult, but it appears that this article has provided an accurate representation from multiple critical ratings. Although I consider the article to be neutral, if others want to drive the focus away from the negative reviews, then I'd suggest looking to expand the article. Adding sections such as production, soundtrack, marketing, etc. can be helpful in both balancing out the article (readers get a better view of the film's various elements besides just its reaction) while also improving it at the same time. Of course, we can't sugar coat the article, some film plots are beyond saving. However, we can provide a better resource for readers who have watched the film, want to learn about it, or are considering watching it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Good points. :) Cirt (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to get too much into discussion with this film, but how many films starts with too many comments in the intro. I agree this film was a critical failure, but the article shoud start with "this film was critically panned" or something like that. I mean how many films start with critics comments in the lead section? Ricardoread (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)