Talk:Terminator Salvation

Edit request from 92.12.134.84, 3 June 2010

{{editprotected}}

First paragraph: "the franchises' central character" should be "franchise's".

92.12.134.84 (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reduced the protection to semi-protection, the full protection must have been accidental. As for your request, is there any particualr reason to change it? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Because it's a singular franchise, not multiple ones. Millahnna (mouse)talk 23:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done --IllaZilla (talk) 02:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Negative vs. Mixed

The last sentence of the lead section currently states "The film was met with negative critical reception" and cites Metacritic, which gives a score of 52 and labels the reviews "mixed or average". Prem555 (talk · contribs) continually changes the sentence to say "mixed", and I've reverted him because he never leaves an explanation as to why he's doing so, but I thought we'd better discuss the sources and wording here to see if "negative" is indeed the best phrasing.

• Metacritic, as noted above, gives an average score of 52 based on 35 reviews, summarizing the review opinions as "mixed or average".
• Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 32% score based on 250 reviews, labeling it as "Rotten", with the average critic's rating being 5/10. Among RT's top critics the approval rating is even lower at 29%
• The Critical reception section of the article focuses on negative reviews, with only a couple of positive critics' opinions among a number of negative ones.

In my opinion, we could keep the "negative" wording in the lead if we switched the cite to Rotten Tomatoes rather than Metacritic. If we're leaving it as Metacritic, then Prem555 is justified in changing it to "mixed", as the site clearly gives the summation "mixed or average". However our Reception section is clearly heavier on negative opinions than positive ones, and "negative" would be a better summation of the article's contents, which is what the lead is supposed to do. Thoughts? --IllaZilla (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The race between "negative" and "mixed" is close but the section as it stands reads as mixed to me as well. Yes, the majority of the critics it quotes is negative towards the movie, but it mentions at least three critics who like it. The mixed Meatacritic score reinforces this sense. Can we say "Negative to mixed" in the infobox? YLee (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment I'd say that we shouldn't be changing a lede review to justify a phrase in the article. Average both scores (52+32)/2=42 which to my mind falls at the lower end of mixed reviews, so I think that the "mixed to negative" is acceptable.

However, I'd also say that Prem555 (talk · contribs) needs to learn how to use the summary field - especially as they've been taken to task over edits in the Terminator universe before: [1] [2] etc. My concern is that they express no desire to enter discourse. a_man_alone (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

It's ridiculous that this is still going on... the film was met with largely negative reception by the critical community, top critics, and even more so by the Sci-Fi fan base. The fact that MC weighs reviews so that the film scores a 52 may justify saying "Mostly negative" rather than just "negative", but there is nothing mixed about it.--Williamsburgland (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You know, you are absolutely correct Williamsburgland - I've followed this article for a while and it's clear to me that someone (or someones) are attempting to prevent negative PR about the film. No idea why. 76.17.123.83 (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment If Metacritic says "yellow/mixed", that's good enough for me. Best, Mdiamante (talk) 06:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a consensus here that it should say mixed to negative, or yellow/mixed, and so on. IllaZilla is therefore advised not to change it back to "negative" in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.8.56.118 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually there is no consensus so far, the discussion just sort of petered out. 213.8.56.118 (talk · contribs) is advised not to change the wording without discussion. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

if you think there is no consensus, then leave it out of the lead. Your constant meddling and reverting here is not allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.230.80.173 (talk) 15:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Possible Writing Process Source

This [3] article from CHUD.com goes into significant (and, to my knowledge, unequaled) detail regarding the various rewrites that led to the finished film. Would anyone object to its content being referred to and quoted under Wiki reliability standards? Best, Mdiamante (talk) 01:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Target Stores: Director's Cut

Although Target claims to be the only store to distribute the Director's Cut, it is possible that this is only applicable in the United States. I purchased the Director's Cut at a Walmart in Canada (Ref: http://www.walmart.ca/Movies-Music-Books/Movies-TV/DVD-Movies/TERMINATOR-SALVATION-WS-SPECIAL-EDITION-2-DISC-BIL). As such, the entry should probably be removed. --66.110.6.119 (talk) 14:45, 18 May 2011 (UTC) (RedKnight... login difficulties)

Negative Vs. Mixed, Take 2

I'm adding a new section because the old one has degraded such that it no longer serves its purpose in gathering a consensus either way. Given that, in an orderly fashion, could each of the editors involved simply vote once as to whether the lead of the article should reflect "Mostly Negative", "Negative to Mixed" or "Mostly Mixed"? Include your reasoning if you wish, but let's try to keep it to one post per without this turning into an argument. Once a concensus is reached, perhaps we can all simply leave it that way regardless of who 'wins'. I'll go first. --Williamsburgland (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I vote for "Mostly Negative"--Williamsburgland (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I prefer "Generally Negative" myself. In any event, "Mostly Mixed" sounds completely unhelpful, and "Negative to Mixed" strikes me as needlessly ambiguous; I don't believe we should use a range like that. Doniago (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I generally like to avoid "mixed" where possible unless something is clearly polarising. "Middle of the road" review scores aren't "mixed", they're mediocre - and even at that, they're usually negative. GRAPPLE X 21:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Metacritic says "mixed to average". There are many prominent positive reviews, also in the article itself. As for rotten tomatoes - Mostly negative in Rotten Tomatoes I would consider as 20% or even less. Above 30% especially with a score of 5/10 is definitely mixed. One could define it more interestingly - there was definite disappointment with the script with many reviewers but at the same time admiration of some of the actors' work, many (like WSJ) defining them even as revelations, especially Sam Worthington but also Anton Yelchin, Bloodgood, not to mention special effects etc. Rolling Stone summarized it very well: "T4 is a mixed bag, but it's not fucking amateur".[4] 94.230.85.129 (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The actors aren't the subject of the review, the film is. Including a note saying that some of the actors were praised may be appropriate, but that doesn't alter the fact that the film itself received a negative review if that's the case. I might call 40-60% mixed, and that's being generous, but I certainly wouldn't call 35% mixed. In any event, if we're going to get wound up about this perhaps we should remove the terminology entirely and just state exactly what the sites themselves state rather than interpreting. "Many prominent positive reviews" doesn't mean anything if there are many more prominent negative reviews, and I would be wary of citing what's currently in the article, as that may indicate the article is being inappropriately weighted. Doniago (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Anything that goes to sources and not saying "mostly negative" without any sources is better. Metacritic is a good source saying "mixed to average". The article I posted saying "mixed bag" is another good source as examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.230.85.129 (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Again - Let's try to keep this from being a debate with multiple posts - just a simple vote to create consensus. --Williamsburgland (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. A simple vote among 3 or 4 editors will not suffice. This is a debate issue, and we can go through the Wikipedia lines for moderation and debates, and third party opinions on the matter. The discussions above showed strong support for "mixed". My approach clearly showed there's no merit to saying "negative" without explaining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.230.85.129 (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Metacritic shows 52, which I'd call mixed. RT says 33%, which I'd call negative. I loathe phrases like "mixed to negative" and will not support that type of ambiguous language. I'm not familiar enough with the underlying rationales behind the scores to comment on that, but it may be relevant in this case. That being said, the RT score appears to involve a larger sample size, which I'd think means it paints a better picture overall. Consequently, provided I'm interpreting the data correctly, I'd go with "negative". Doniago (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

"Mixed" is the simplest and most straightforward way to categorize the metascores. Rottentomatoes uses a simple up/down system to categorize votes, while Metacritic attempts to interpret reviews into numerical scores. Since very few movies are utterly, completely, 100% awful, this tends to (more accurately) pull Metacritic scores closer to the 50% middle. Ylee (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

So at the moment we have 3 for negative, 1 for mixed, and another editor who refuses to accept anything but his view. Unless someone steps in, the consensus is negative. --Williamsburgland (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Consensus means unanimous so I don't see any. This discussion and the above make it clear that there's a majority of people who think it's mixed actually. 213.8.56.118 (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean unanimous.[5][6][7]
Personally, I enjoyed the film, but with it getting mixed reviews at Metacritic and slammed by Rotten Tomatoes, I'd call that negative. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Consensus may not mean unanimous but the statement that 3 are negative, and 1 for mixed is a clear lie. There at least 2 here for, and the first discussion had 3 more "for". Willamsburgland has continuously displayed bad faith here and tried to hijack the article. He claimed people were vandalizing the page simply because he disagreed with them. That is obscene. As to the point, I wouldn't say this is slammed by RT. Again, it has a 5/10 score. That's average. I would say that the movie either had mixed reviews, or perhaps - mediocre/average. But negative is far too harsh in this case. That's simply the fact of the matter. People shouldn't be this sensitive. I realize fans were angry, but "mostly negative" films and this are completely two different things. 213.8.56.118 (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

YOU are the monkey wrench in the gears, and YOU are the reason this article is locked. --Williamsburgland (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, there is one verifiable vote from Ylee - I'm in favor of ignoring yours all together since you've A) ignored the process for consensus and B)Used multiple IP's to vote. There are now at least 4 votes for negative. --Williamsburgland (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Your conspiracy theories are better left to the trash bin of history. There are many users here who agree that the general view of the film is that it is probably more leaning to mixed than negative. I think leaving it out altogether from the lead, like it was before this childish name-calling (mostly by you), is the best course of action. 212.68.144.42 (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit- comment retracted--Williamsburgland (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC))--Williamsburgland (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

This is the kind of thread that needs to stop if we are to reach consensus. I am going to ask each of you to halt the personal attacks. Malinaccier (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's all cool down :). Looking at your discussion of the issue, I would like to offer a third opinion and refer you to some Wiki policy (though you may already know about it of course--I am not trying to talk down to anyone). We can see in WP:VERIFIABLE that Wikipedia articles are not to make biased or normative statements. I have heard it explained this way: "In the article about Hitler, we do not need to write that he is a very evil man. We let the facts stand for themselves and the result is the same." While this is a little drastic, we can apply this here. No qualifier signifying positive or negative review should be used; instead, provide a wealth of sources and let the reader judge for him or herself. Also, I want to remind everyone to keep their cool from now on. Perhaps we can take a short break from this discussion for 24 hours and come back to it with a clean slate? Lastly, consensus is not unanimity--neither is it a vote. We just need to get a general sense of what is right. Malinaccier (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. 212.68.144.42 (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

This sounds rather familiar to me. Also, agreed. Doniago (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Great, so can anyone suggest the new wording and add it? Something that combines both the metacritiv view and the rotten tomatoes, or something else, using sources. Until that is used, I propose to remove "received mostly negative reviews" from the lead. Thoughts anyone? There is no particular policy that says we have to have that determination in the lead. Just looking randomly at a recent film, for example, Immortals (2011 film) I observed that it has no such saying in the lead, and the film, which currently holds 36% on RT, 27% with top critics and a LOWER metacritic score, is described as "mixed to negative reviews". This is just one example that reflects that there is no sourced justification in saying that Termination: Salvation had mostly negative reviews. Another example which I've noticed one of the users above actually edited, is The Expendables (2010 film). This film has a 40% RT, but a LOWER score on Metacritic than T:Salvation. This is interesting because it has 45 and is described as "mixed". Salvation has 52 (!) and is described as negative. This is absurd. I think Malinaccier explained it well. The sources say both. We can either use both, or remove the sentence from the lead, for the meantime (like it used to be for a long time in the article). Best, 11:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.8.56.118 (talk)