Talk:Atlas Shrugged: Part II

More Headings

Hi everyone, I think that there should be more headings for this article! This would allow people to add to it more efficiently, and this would also make it easier to read. In any case, I am up to any suggestions, but wanted to convey my opinion. Thanks! 98.218.230.126 (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this will be a natural evolution in time, but can think of one to add now.... Spike-from-NH (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Page is Mis-Titled

I'm new at WP, so I don't know how to make this correction. Properly, the correct title should be Atlas Shrugged: Part II (with a Roman numeral.) So "Atlas Shrugged: Part 2" should be turned into a referring page thingie. Help from someone with this experience would be appreciated. Chipenge (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• I think that the page might still be mistitled now. I just saw a commercial that seemed to say that the film had been retitled "Atlas Shrugged II: The Strike". Alphius (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

No, that's just a throw away logo or something. If you look at the billing block on that same commercial, the correct title is Atlas Shrugged: Part II. Jonathan Hemlock (talk) 03:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done — Tnks, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Where's the section on the plot ?

A short description of the basic plot would be useful. The movie opens in theaters today, and many want to know. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

As an example, here is the text from the first of our external links. This, and others, could be rewritten:

"Brief Synopsis: The second installment of the Atlas Shrugged movie trilogy is set in a near future with a global economy on the brink of collapse and brilliant creators, from artists to industrialists, mysteriously disappearing at the hands of the unknown." — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed the rather long plot-paragraph in the WP page on the first move:

> Atlas_Shrugged#Plot_summary < . . . I'll read through it. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Absurd lies in the Production and Reception sections

"Despite the box office success of Atlas Shrugged: Part I, there was some doubt as to whether or not any more of the proposed trilogy would be put into production given the tremendous bias Hollywood has against movies that espouse conservative values."

1. The first movie, per its own Wikipedia page, "was regarded as a flop...recouping less than a quarter of the production budget." There was no box office success to speak of.

2. That "tremendous" Hollywood bias against conservative movies is utter bullshit as a statement by anyone, and as a statement on Wikipedia it is unsourced and non-neutral.

3. The first movie received "overwhelmingly negative reviews," which coupled with the tanking at the box office were the reasons the sequels were in doubt. Not some institutional prejudice that the filmmakers heroically overcame.

"Critics give the film an 0% rating on Rotten Tomatoes based on a mere 7 reviews. However, audiences give the film a 74% rating with over 1,975 votes."

Source for the (certainly nonexistent or at least ingenuine) positive audience reception? It ain't IMDB, there's eleven reviews on there, and the overall rating is 4.6.

Interestingly, though, most of the IMDB user reviews are gushing and positive, which makes me wonder how much of the sequel's "increased advertising budget" has gone into shilling on websites and perhaps even here on Wikipedia? Either that, or some noble joker has attempted to make the Wiki page almost as laughable as the movie itself (which has been successfully accomplished: it is almost as laughable as the movie.

Anyway, can these sections get cleaned up and properly written? 50.4.137.100 (talk) 05:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I feel that 50.4.137.100 is discredited with not only foul words, but bad analysis. I stopped reading with point 2. Of course there is bias in Hollywood leaning left towards Democrat Liberals. Look at the reception of Stacey Dash when she endorsed Republican Mitt Romney, and where are the other Hollywood types endorsing Romney/Ryan, besides Clint Eastwood? Just like media, except FoxNews, there is a bias that everyone understands, but it does not need to be pointed out. Calling truth an absurd lie, is itself absurd. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It is good practice to read all of someone's points before commenting on them - especially if there's only three. His first and third had some merit, the second not so much, at least the first half. Then you could point out his obvious bias in calling a film "laughable" that he presumably hasn't seen. Jonathan Hemlock (talk) 22:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hollywood liberal bias? Puhleeeeze. Certainly there are very liberal friendly movies out there. But what about all those gung-ho action "I've got to save my family from the terrorists" movies? Some of those movies are very good (e.g. Ransom, starring the very conservative Mel Gibson) and if anything they have a conservative bias, at least insofar as that is how conservatives see themselves. Vincent (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Rather off the point, unless you're saying liberals are against fighting terrorism. Jonathan Hemlock (talk) 22:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It is not of the point, it is just as relevant as the other poster bringing up the claimed bias. They brought up the point, not it has to stand under scrutiny. For every left leaning film out there others can point out those with "conservative" themes, or and many more moderate themes. 96.31.177.52 (talk) 01:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Will this Film be in Overseas Cinemas?

Does anyone know if the film will be shown in european theatres? --147.86.196.5 (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Unlikely. At this rate, in two weeks it'll hardly be showing in US theaters. 98.212.202.46 (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

User score on Rotten Tomatoes not reliable source

A reminder that, just like in the entry for Part 1 in which the same issue came up, the user score at Rotten Tomatoes is not a reliable source on its own, unless reported elsewhere as well. Please do not keep inserting it. 98.212.202.46 (talk) 13:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

This from a guy who moved the Cast section below Reception, to the bottom of the page, which is clearly against policy. Look at most WP film pages - the Cast section is usually third after the plot, well above the Reception section. The fact this page didn't have a proper plot section doesn't mean you move the cast to the bottom. Glad to see this was reverted in the last few hours.

As for the issue of Rotten Tomatoes' listing of Audience reviews, multiple editors have put it in. Taking it out is against consensus. The fact that audiences that go to see the film have such a contrasting opinion of it from that of film critics is certainly noteworthy, as it was with the first film. Jonathan Hemlock (talk) 22:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hemlock's clear POV editing suggests that he is unfamiliar with the principle that Wikipedia is not a democracy. If he wants to cite the user figure, let him do so not simply because he likes it but because he has found an independent and reliable third party that reports it. 98.212.202.46 (talk) 17:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I just made an update that shows a THIRD PARTY report (from Fox News) that cites the Rotten Tomatoes user reviews figure of 72% DiligenceDude (talk) 18:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we do not reference user ratings in Wikipedia articles because they are subject to vote stacking and demographic skew. Not just here, but with many other films. For example, Transformers was actually in IMDb's Top 250 due to user ratings. The proper metrics are box office performance and CinemaScore, though I could not find a CinemaScore grade for this film. The guidelines are at MOS:FILM#Audience response. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

First, that is a guideline, not a rule. And the top of that page you offer says:

This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions. Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus.

It gives a link to WP:IAR, which says:

This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

Despite what the anon IP says above, WP is ruled by consensus, and the clear consensus here it to include the clearly notable fact of the wide spread between the critics and the people who went to see this film.

Your example of Transformers is off-point and invalid. I'm not involved at all with that page, but what evidence do you have its user ratings are skewered? You seriously believe a film that made a billion dollars didn't get high ratings from most people who saw it? It's generally understood that blockbusters don't make well into nine figures without lots of repeat viewers. Jonathan Hemlock (talk) 05:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Removed the Rotten Tomatoes approval rating again; Fox was referring to a different statistic - pre-release interest, not user reviews; it is dishonest to imply otherwise. Removed an opinion column from someone who is not a film critic. The film has dropped about 70% weekend over weekend and indications are it will be swept off most screens this Friday when four new films open in the 2000-screen range. 98.212.202.46 (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

As anyone who bothers to read the above can see, I didn't say anything about Fox one way or the other, and it is dishonest of you to imply otherwise. And if you weren't directing that at me, you should pay more attention to how you word and place your comments. Jonathan Hemlock (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, it has been established that user ratings are not considered a good measure of overall audience response. A glance at any GA or FA film article will show this is never done. Why has it been decided that this article is to be the exception?

I would be skeptical if the Fox News article did indeed mention the user rating, but, as has been established, it does not.

Further, it's hard to say a consensus has been established to keep it with, as far as I can tell, only two editors, especially when one has been on Wikipedia for under a month --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

In fact, a cursory glance at a few upcoming releases on RT shows significant anticipation like the sort mentioned in the article is nothing special. I'm taking it down myself, as well as the places it was sneaked into Part I, and I would like a good reason for why there should be an exception before anyone reverts. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 02:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Nothing was sneaked into "Part I". It was first put there many months ago. Did you read this thread? There is an exception here because clear consensus is to include the clearly notable fact of the wide spread between the critics and the people who went to see these films, as multiple editors have put in various versions. Well more than two. Whether or not you think this is nothing special is irrelevant. It's notable. Perhaps you missed WP:IAR, which says:

This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

WP is ruled by consensus, and you are going against it. Jonathan Hemlock (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I've checked the history - it's two editors, and one trying to help you find an RS. I have no idea why you two editors feel this particular b-movie needs special treatment, but you hardly constitute a "clear consensus". --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 18:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You checked? A quick review of the history page shows at least four who contributed to this point, and I didn't even canvass them all. I just came here to help others who were having a legitimate point deleted from the article, and they didn't seem to know enough about WP policy to defend it. This falls under WP:IAR. Whether you or I think it's a B-movie is irrelevant. Jonathan Hemlock (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm seeing one IP siding with you, but that could be one of you for all I know.

Seriously, the user rating is not reliable. You've gotten two other big film editors explaining this to you. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 02:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

What two big film editors? You can't even count up who contributed what on a history page. So I'm not very impressed with what you think is reliable. The only thing the text says is what the rating on the given site is. Are you claiming it's not accurate for its own figures? And accusing people of also editing as an IP with no evidence is not going to get you very far. For the record it's not me. Jonathan Hemlock (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Erik and Bovineboy?

And MOS:FILM#Audience_response explains why the user rating is not reliable; you don't have to take it from me if you don't want to. But don't be surprised when people call foul on adding it to the article. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 21:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

They don't out vote the four or more I easily counted earlier, without even going over the whole history. I posted above how MOS:FILM#Audience response does not conflict with including this:

This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions. Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus.

It gives a link to WP:IAR, which says:

This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

How many times must I post this? Jonathan Hemlock (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

And don't think I didn't notice this, Rahmspeed. I see you trying to say that including an audience review is something special they did for ASII. Frankly between this, the misrepresentation of the Fox article, and a brand-new editor feeling the need to explicitly deny canvassing, I'm smelling a rat and I'm not afraid to say it. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 02:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

That was several versions ago, and he didn't put it in again. I don't agree with everything he's done, but he appears to be trying to keep the page up to date. He's done many edits since then, some of which I changed myself, particularly his habit of placing external links in the article body.

And what the hell are you talking about with canvassing? The only one I've seen WP:canvassing on this is you. Talk about smelling a rat - I wasn't going to say anything about this until you suddenly accused someone else of it, though I can't even tell who you're talking about. Jonathan Hemlock (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

What I'm talking about is it seems suspicious that a new account is so busy shilling for a film.

I'm filing a notice here. This is out of hand. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I noticed this on the dispute resolution board. An MoS, or any guideline for that matter, does not preclude any material if it is of a notable nature and can be backed by a reliable source. That there is such a spread between viewer response to the film and the response of professional film critics is notable, as already indicated in a reliable source. It's also worth noting that the MoS on film's advise against using RT is both new and has not gone without some protest. Cursory review of the MoS talk page shows that the consensus on that point is still unfolding. Even with the spirit of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists in mind the use of RT user scores in Film articles has substantial precedence. Googling "rotten tomatoes" site:en.wikipedia.org returns almost 19,000 hits. TomPointTwo (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

But the source does not mention the user rating. Further, the MoS is not against RT - it's against user surveys that have no oversight to prevent people from voting multiple times or otherwise skewing the results. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Seeing this at DRN ... RT is a "reliable source" - it deals primarily in summarising opinions, and as such it is reasonably used in a great many articles on Wikipedia. The user opinions thus summarised are indeed reasonably used if they add to the Wikipedia readers' understanding of a topic. Where the users diverge so greatly from the professional reviewers, the difference is prima facie notable. Is there any other reason not to use the disparate fiures? Collect (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

No, no, the RT-listed critics are considered a reliable source, but its userbase isn't. The same standard is applied to the IMDB - since there's no oversight on the user votes, the user rating is not considered reliable. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 00:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Nope - anything on RT is usable - the site itself is WP:RS. I would point out that mentioning the summary percentage is not the same as quoting an individual opinion from a user on RT - which means your IMDB analogy fails. It is the summary which is quite specifically "reliable" here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The wide spread between the critics and the people who went to see this film is clearly notable, and belongs in the article. Multiple editors have put in various versions trying to explain this. Why are you so determined to bury that fact? Jonathan Hemlock (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The reason I am unhappy with this whole thing is you're making a transparent effort to nullify every single review by posting something completely unreliable. It has been explained how the user rating is not reliable, and the editors who defend it can only do so by lying, as I noted when I filed. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 00:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

That's ridiculous - if you think paying customers' opinions nullify critics reviews that's your opinion. Readers will come to their own conclusion. Everything I put in is unbiased. And lying? You falsely claimed only two people added this point. It's time for you to drop this. Jonathan Hemlock (talk) 00:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The noticeboard awaits a statement from you. If there's some editors I'd missed when I posted, I'd say that's as good a place as any to list them. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 00:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't look like that will be necessary. My position has been backed up. Anyone looking at this Talk page can see where I'm coming from. Your statement and the editors who defend it can only do so by lying is offensive and unsupported by the facts. Let's see you point out where I've lied about anything. I am sick of your false charges, and with your drawing this out. Jonathan Hemlock (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

FWIW - seems the RT "professional film review" informations are reliable and notable; the RT "user" rating votes, otoh, are *not* reliable and notable - after all, one person (or one group-with-an-agenda?), theoretically, could be the sole source of *all* the "user" votes afaik - as a result, RT "user" votes seem to be useless (ie, not reliable or notable) information I would think - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Lenin and McCarthy and Drbogdan. The MOS says "Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew." This seems like fairly good advice to me, especially given that IMDB and RT user ratings often have thousands of votes before a movie even comes out. Even if this information were to be included, it should certainly not be under the "Critical reception" section". On a side note, why does the Critical reception section have 3 mixed-to-positive quotes and 2 negative quotes when the critical response was overwhelmingly negative? Jonathanfu (talk) 14:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

We should not use individual user ratings but that is not the issue here. The statistical value presented by RT (and noting that they have registration requirements making the bugbear of "anyone can manipulate the ratings" pretty much a non-issue). RT also separates "anticipation" from "ratings" making that a non-issue as well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Given that the MOS says that user ratings can be vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew means they are not talking about individual user ratings but rather an average. Individual user ratings would be useless anyway. RT's registration requirements are similar to those of IMDB's - you just need an email. It's incredibly easy to vote stack, and that's why the MOS specifically mentions RT and IMDB as sites not to use user ratings from. I'm not sure where RT lists "anticipation", I thought they only showed ratings. I know this article cites a Fox piece that says something about RT anticipation data, but I'm not quite sure where you'd find that. Jonathanfu (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

It's incredibly easy to vote stack? Do you know someone who registered with over 5000 different e-mail addresses? Where's the evidence that there was any vote skewering here? Isn't it far more likely that those who paid to see the film were probably predisposed to like what it had to say? Jonathan Hemlock (talk) 06:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I was asked to take it to the reliable source noticeboard. So I did. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 05:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I see you have no response to my calling you out on your false charges. Your previous statement and the editors who defend it can only do so by lying is offensive and unsupported by the facts. Let's see you point out where I've lied about anything.

The consensus at this article is to include the clearly notable fact of the wide spread between the critics and the people who went to see this film, as multiple editors have put in various versions noting this. You keep referring to MOS:FILM#Audience response, ignoring the fact that it makes provision for exceptions like this:

This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions. Please ensure that any edits to this page reflect consensus.

It gives a link to WP:IAR, which says:

This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Changes made to it should reflect consensus. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

How many times must I post this? Jonathan Hemlock (talk) 07:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, all changes are based on consensus, nobody is disagreeing with you on that point, and we are not ignoring WP:IAR. Instead, we are trying to build a consensus on whether or not the inclusion of this material is an improvement to Wikipedia. I and several other editors, say that the MOS:FILM#Audience response argues against the inclusion being an improvement. I also do not see an argument for how this particular film merits an exception from the MOS, when films like Underworld: Evolution and Silent Hill: Revelation 3D have similar low critic ratings and high user ratings from RT, do not. Merely pointing to IAR is not an argument that the inclusion would be an improvement.

Also, if we are going to include RT user ratings, why not include IMDB user ratings? Jonathanfu (talk) 12:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure -- 62% of the IMDB users rated it at 8 or higher on a scale of 1 to 10. 70% at 7 or higher (figuring 7 is "pretty favourable"). The median score is 9 out of 10. So use it. What we can't use is individual comments from those reviews/ratings. Collect (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, IMDB seems to rate the "Atlas Shrugged: Part II" film as follows => Ratings: 5.4/10 from 977 users Metascore (criticreviews): 26/100 - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The "rating" is "weighted" according to an undisclosed formula - the median rating is 9. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of including the Rotten Tomatoes ratings on Wikipedia, but it's near-universal to do so. It should be left in. JJL (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

For the critic rating, yes. That has never been questioned. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 18:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

There are a few points that I think need to be clarified:

1. The fact that the film was "kept from mainstream critics" is not unusual, especially considering how badly the first film was received. Studios do this all the time. The fact that the filmmakers claim they did not screen the film for critics for political reasons can be notable. If we include that information, we should include it, within that context.

2. The Rotten Tomatoes "user ratings" are not particularly reliable, and they are not encyclopedic because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of statistics. Everyone knows this. However, the disparity between the critical reception and the audience reception can be notable, but this is only the case if a reliable source reports on this information. If there is a reliable source who has reported on the fact that the "audience" seems to like the film more than "critics", then that information could be added, within that context.

3. Everybody would do well to remember that we are merely volunteers editing an article about a bad movie.  Chickenmonkey  20:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The first one would need independent notability because that just sounds like an excuse for not letting epople see it because it was bad. The second, users often like things critics do not, this does not make an exception, certainly not based on RT user ratings. We don't judge cult classic films based on their RT User to RT Critic ratings. The whole process here comes across as an attempt to mask the fact the film got bad reviews, which is a frequent method of fans of a particular film to change the perception of the facts.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the fact that the filmmakers claim they chose to not screen the film for critics due to political reasons can be worthy of inclusion, but we would have to be sure to present it as clearly being their claim; perhaps by frankly quoting them. As for the user ratings, I agree that they are not independently notable. We do not simply go to Rotten Tomatoes, grab user ratings, and throw them into articles. The only way this film's Rotten Tomatoes user ratings would be eligible for inclusion would be if a reliable source reported on the disparity between audience response and critical response. I have not noticed any reliable source having done this, however, so I would not think we have a reason to include the information, at this time.  Chickenmonkey  21:21, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Against inclusion Obviously Rotten Tomatoes is a reliable source for its own user ratings, but the real issue is one of relevance. It is WP:WEIGHT that determines inclusion, and for that criteria to be met there should be a significant amount of coverage of the claim/fact in secondary reliable sources. While this may be true of the critic ratings, user ratings for films are very rarely touched upon at all. When reliable sources cover audience reception it is usually through Cinema Score polls, which is less subsceptible to manipulation such as vote stacking, and since they poll people as they come out perhaps more representative of the audience rather than an internet savvy portion of it. A lot has been made of WP:IAR and exceptions to MOS:FILM#Audience response (which states user ratings on IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes should not be included) but the grounds for those have to be legitimate: for instance, there is reasonable secondary coverage of The Shawshank Redemption topping the IMDB poll, so there is an argument for including that information on the Shawshank article even though we generally don't acknowledge user polls, by virtue of the extent of its secondary coverage. I don't believe such a case exists for Atlas, and it is pretty clear from this discussion there isn't a consensus for making such an exception. Betty Logan (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
• Against inclusion Per Betty Logan and the comments myself, Lenin and McCarthy, Erik, Darkwarriorblake, and Chickenmonkey have added. Haven't seen an argument for inclusion besides saying that several editors "had a consensus" on its conclusion despite several other editors removing the material. Note that those opposed are not against all user ratings, only those that are considered unreliable. RT and IMDB are among the unreliable, Cinema Score is a reliable alternative. If you manage to find that data, by all means, include and cite it. Jonathanfu (talk) 08:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Include properly phrased. The individual opinions are not usable, but where only 20 official critics opine, that sample is on the small side, and is even more vulnerable to predetermined opinions than the composite user average is. I would suggest something on the order of:
  • • The film was not presented to critics before release, and only one of twenty critics listed by RottenTomatoes viewed it favourably. The site's users have given the filnm a 79% favourable rating as of (date)

Which avoids any undue weight at all, and makes crystal clear the nature of the figures. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Against inclusion There is a standard and pre-established policy on this sort of user poll, and there is clearly no consensus to arbitrarily override that policy. Find an independent RS that points out the difference between the general critics' response and that of its intended audience, and it can be included without difficulty. However, given the way the film quickly plummeted to the bottom of the box office lists, I wouldn't expect much additional press coverage at this point. Especially since it would be "Sequel of Box Office Failure Fails at Box Office." Something may pop up in the press when it goes to home video next year. 98.212.202.46 (talk) 13:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
• Against inclusion - It has long been known that user reviews from the likes of RT and IMDB are subject to ballot stuffing. The small sample of critical reviews or lack thereof does not justify ignoring that basic principle. DrNegative (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

A breather

The opinions of the invested editors is established and further intercourse seems to run the risk of devolving into nonconstructive commentary. I'd suggest that the interested editors wait a day or two for other, established, editors to weigh in from the Noticeboards. All links to the noticeboards are already included here. Please keep it mild in tone and factual in content. TomPointTwo (talk) 07:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

What is in Reception right now is not overly polemic, if it is a fair cross-section of opinion. The plot is in need of light copy-editing as I did for Part I; I'd also add some explanation for readers who start here rather than at Part I. Will be back in a week when the restrictions on editing are removed. Spike-from-NH (talk) 21:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The last review quoted (from IBD) needs to have this reference added: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-viewpoint/103112-631591-producers-wont-let-government-destroy-their-businesses.htm A pity that the article is locked from editing, or I would do so... SoTotallyAwesome (talk) 03:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

All the reviews I see quoted already have references added. The one you listed seems to be less of a film review and more of a "hey, this movie shows what more of Obama might do to America". Jonathanfu (talk) 08:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Original work

"s with Part I, Rand’s detractors will hate the movie as much as they do her, but her fans will be satisfied, both of them for the same reasons."

Statement is pure original work and has no basis in fact, or research or source. It also lacks neutrality, trying to demonize anyone who dares criticize Rand with one completely weighted and dishonest statement. I know for a fact there are those critical of Rand that actually enjoyed the first film. They didn't rate it as great or amazing, but enjoyed it for what it was.

Is this what fans or critics of Rand are left to? Dishonest wiki posting in some misguided attempt to prop up their side? Sad.

Removed the statement, if someone can rewrite it that keeps it's neutrality and does not go to original research or personal opinion, then add it back, but it doesn't belong there as it is. 96.31.177.52 (talk) 01:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't know if it necessarily has to be there, but if it is, it should not be altered. It's the quoted opinion of a film critic, which is all they do and what Wikipedia uses them for. I believe the quote was added to provide more than one mixed or positive critical review. Jonathanfu (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

budget

I looked around a little and found a source that says "allowing Atlas Productions to spend $10 million on production and $10 million more on marketing." from the Wall Street Journal. Does this figure mean that the movie's budget was 20 million? Or is the marketing figure considered separate? Jonathanfu (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

A film's cost breaks down into three components: the production budget, the marketing cost and the cost of the prints and shipping. When people comment on how much a film cost they invariably mean the production budget, since this is the money spent on actually making the film itself. It is the production budget that goes into the infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 04:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks, will update and source the budget in the infobox as 10million then. Jonathanfu (talk) 14:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The ending; the DVD

Anon today removes the paragraph, "As the screen fades, a quote from the Atlas Shrugged novel is displayed." I remember there was some such thing after the plane crash and the extended hand of John Galt, but I don't remember what. Spike-from-NH (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

PS--No, I never remembered because I had left the cinema before the credits finished rolling. Now watching the DVD, it is there after the credits, and I restored a comparable final paragraph to Plot. The actual quote is didactic, along the lines of the thesis of the movies, and the exact text ought not be in the article. Someone ought to mention the availability of the DVD, in whatever way this is usually done. Spike-from-NH (talk)

Sequel or second part of a two-part movie?

I think that this wasn't a sequel, rather the second part of a two-part movie. For example, the page for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 never uses the word sequel, rather calls it the second of two cinematic parts. 70.116.69.206 (talk) 21:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It was definitely the second part of a three-part work that was begun intending there to be three movies. The dictionary at hand defines "sequel" first of all as "Anything that follows; a continuation" but also as "A literary work complete in itself but continuing an earlier work," which this movie was not. All in all, I think the word "sequel" is proper. Spike-from-NH (talk)

"positive audience interest"

Chickenmonkey, Rotten Tomatoes "audience interest" statistic is not considered valid according to the Film MOS. So their statistic as an indication of how interested audiences are cannot be used in articles. Now the fact that Fox News reads the RT statistic and decides that they want to report it does not change the fact that according to Wikipedia's policy it is not a reliable figure. The fact that Fox News reported the number when they wrote, "Part II has managed to pique the interest of the general public, with a 72 percent audience interest rating on Rotten Tomatoes" is a reliable source for the fact that RT really did report such a number, but the RT report of audience interest is still not a reliable indicator for the article.

I am going to make a post about this question over at WT:FILM to see if other editors with experience on film articles can offer input on the question. 99.192.73.242 (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you're confusing primary and secondary sources and how they function. The RT source is a primary source with no editorial oversight or expert interpretation demonstrating the existence of something (an aggregate score of interest). The FNC is a secondary source with editorial oversight establishing an interpretation of the primary source and concluding it is of interest or note. FNC is a reliable source and has commented on the subject making it perfectly acceptable to include. I'm pretty sure this conversation has already been had. TomPointTwo (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Along with what TomPointTwo says above, I will add that, if the information in the article was "audience interest was high" and Rotten Tomatoes was used as a source of that information, I would agree that it should be removed. However, since the statement in the article is "Despite not being screened to critics in advance, the film was noted for positive audience interest" and Fox News (a source considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards) is used as the source of that information, I disagree that it should be removed. The statement is clearly identified as being in reference to the fact that the interest was noted; not that the interest itself existed. I would support adding something along the lines of "According to Fox News", to further clarify what it is we are referencing, but removal of the statement would not seem necessary or correct to me.  Chickenmonkey  00:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

This still makes no sense to me. There is no question here about Fox News being a reliable source. It is. But the information they are reporting in this case is that RT says that the film had positive audience interest. About that, they are right. RT did say that. But that fact is not considered reliable by the Film MOS. The fact that Fox News reported that RT said something does not change that fact's reliability for Wikipedia purposes. So noting that Fox reported what RT said would have to be WP:UNDUE at the very least, if not a complete violation of the MOS. 99.192.73.242 (talk) 00:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)