Jump to content

Talk:Rocky: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 105: Line 105:
::I agree with Betty Logan ... would say that a genre of "drama" with a sub-genre of "sports" (or maybe "boxing") should more than adequately sum up the movie, including the Rocky-Adrian relationship. - [[User:Xenxax|Xenxax]] ([[User talk:Xenxax|talk]]) 19:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
::I agree with Betty Logan ... would say that a genre of "drama" with a sub-genre of "sports" (or maybe "boxing") should more than adequately sum up the movie, including the Rocky-Adrian relationship. - [[User:Xenxax|Xenxax]] ([[User talk:Xenxax|talk]]) 19:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


I agree with Matthewhoobin, since a big part of the film deals with romance. It should be kept as a subgenre in the heading. Should action be included too, since several sources point to action as a subgenre?
:I agree with Matthewhoobin, since a big part of the film deals with romance. It should be kept as a subgenre in the heading. Should action be included too, since several sources point to action as a subgenre? --[[User:ColouredFrames|ColouredFrames]] ([[User talk:ColouredFrames|talk]]) 20:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:00, 4 July 2016

Former good articleRocky was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 5, 2006Good article nomineeListed
October 15, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
November 12, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 5, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Fight Scenes!!!

I just wanted to know if the stories I have been hearing are true. I have been told that apart from the points of the fights that were crucial to the storyline the rest of the fights were real and when it looked like they were being hit they actually were! I know that there were a few broken ribs etc but the fights were brutal, can they really have been real??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.162.231 (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Rich quote

Why is there a 'sic' in the Frank Rich quote? There's nothing wrong with the spelling. grammar, punctuation, etc, which is why you'd normally use this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.164.239 (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because when you are discussing a percentage it should be "100 percent". "100 per cent" relates to the monetary unit. Betty Logan (talk) 11:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The film received quite a share of negative reviews, as well"

...No it didn't. That's an unbalanced report backed up by the only two negative reviews whoever wrote that could find. Since at least one person seems bent on keeping it that way, how about the rest of us agree it needs to be changed and do so?130.49.146.53 (talk) 02:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem wasn't so much the changes you made to the negative review sections as the POV langauge you introduced to the positive review section. There is no basis for saying the film received "overwhelmingly positive" or even many positive reviews, since the reviews selected for the section aren't necessarily representative of the spread of the critical spectrum for the film. To quantify the film's critical reception you need a source that gives an overview of how the film was received. Betty Logan (talk) 03:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, to say it received "quite a share of negative reviews" seems a lot more like POV language, since the total number of negative reviews one could find after scouring the internet could probably be counted on one hand. In fact, Vincent Canby garnered some infamy for his negative review of the film. And there are sources readily available displaying the films reception. Rotten tomatoes, which takes all certified reviews available, has located 39 positive reviews against 3 negative ones, including a glowing four star review from Roger Ebert, the most respected critic of all. That on top of the many awards that it won leaves me at a loss for how "overwhelmingly positive" could be unwarranted.130.49.145.137 (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Totting up the number of reviews you can find on the net is original research. If you want to quantify the critical reception of the time then you need a source that discusses how the film was received. Most of the Rotten Tomatoes reviews are retrospective so they don't give an accurate overview of the reviews at the time. Betty Logan (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Totting up"? All the negative reviews ever written that Rotten Tomatoes could find are outnumbered by the positive reviews three to thirty nine, Roger Ebert's review was glowing, and the film was a big award winner. What about that is "totted up"?
And why do you need an estimation of how a film was recieved when you can examine the reception itself? (And where's the "source that discusses how the film was recieved" on the page as it is? All I see cited now are individual reviews.) Rotten tomatose takes all the reviews available, whenever they were written. It's a represention of the overall present day opinion of the film, which, yes, could have improved over time, but the critics' opinions are what they are. Going over reception no longer applicable is of limited importance in the first place, and so far, considering that all the negative reviews from any point in time that Rotten Tomatoes could find totals three, I see no proof that it was any different than it is now. I'm sorry if I phrase this in a way that "tots it up" but between the awards, especially the academy award for best picture, the highly positive reviews of critics such as Ebert, which were written when the film came out, and the distinct lack of negative reviews from any time period, it seems the reception for Rocky has always been as positive as it is now.130.49.131.209 (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can only examine some of the reception and there is no way of knowing if it is representative of the overall reception. If you disagree with my interpretation of the guidelines then it's best to ask for a third opinion at WT:FILM. Betty Logan (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that were true, wouldn't it mean that it's impossible to know what the reception of a film is? Wouldn't that make that "source discussing how the film was recieved" you wanted just a look at an insignificant portion of the reception as well? How is this true for Rotten Tomatoes, which collects every professional review available? And why, then, if you can never know the overall reception from examining it, was two negative reviews enough to say that "the film recieved quite a share of negative reviews as well"? This is a question of whether calling the film's reception especially positive is fair and so far, you've provided absolutely no evidence that the amount of negative reception was anything close to noteworthy. What does your interpretation of the guidelines have to do with that?130.49.192.155 (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When Rotten Tomatoes does it, it's called a "reliable source", when Wikipedia editors do it's called "Original research", and the burden of proof is on editors who wish to add content. Betty Logan (talk) 11:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot use Rotten Tomatoes as an accurate gauge of critical reception when the film precedes the website's launch. (It is acceptable as a gauge when it can collect reviews as they are published, like with a film released today.) The essay WP:RTMC says, "Sources besides Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic should be sought out for films released before the 2000s; reports of critical consensus will likely exist in print sources. E.g., Alien, released in 1979, has a score of 97% on Rotten Tomatoes, but the critical reception at the time of release was mixed." I would recommend looking for publications about this film or possibly coverage about the sequel, which will usually talk about the preceding film. That way, we can cite proper sources to explain the film's reception at the time. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a perfect source to use. Can we reference it to cover the reception? I reviewed the "Reviews" section more closely, and I think it should be rewritten. There is a negative slant (with extensive quoting of Rich's and Sarris's reviews) that needs to be corrected, based on the reception the source reports. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably as good a source as we will find. I notice the source itself sums up the critical reception as a "generally favorable critical response" so we could just fly with that. I have no problem with the reception section being re-written, one critic inparticular is given too much word space. We could do far worse than just modelling our section after the paragraph in the book. Betty Logan (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky - Rocco

Am I the first to suggest Rocky's name is derived from the Visconti film "Rocco e i suoi fratelli"? It's just a suggestion, but if you agree on this, it might be mentioned in the wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.124.214.42 (talk) 00:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a reliable source that says that, then it can be mentioned in this article. DonQuixote (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Rocky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

An editor has started inserting "romance" as a genre. WP:FILMLEAD clearly advises that "At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified." Romance is clearly not the primary genre under which the film is classified. Here are a few examples:

The most prestigious of those sources (the AFI) does not mention "Romance" at all. All four sources mention some variation of "Sports drama" (with the AFI opting for "boxing". Many films have love interests and romantic subplots, but that does not make them "romance" films. FILMLEAD is quite clear that only the primary genre should be included. Also, WP:WEIGHT compels us to not give minority viewpoints undue weight, which adding "romance" as a genre undeniably does do when the majority of sources do not classify it as such. Betty Logan (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that IMDb and AllMovie are not ubiquitously considered reliable sources (please see WP:CITEIMDB and Talk:AllMovie). Also note the phrase "the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified". If we are to consider the romantic genre as not being a primary genre, then clearly it would still be a sub-genre, and could therefore remain if that were the case. Also take notice that the esteemed Turner Classic Movies organisation (though not as prestigious as AFI) considers it to be a primarily romantic film. Furthermore, acclaimed film critic Roger Ebert lists "romance" as one of the film's genres in this review.
The film's plot heavily concerns the relationship between Rocky and Adrian, with both characters undergoing arcs because of it. Adrian warms up to Rocky over the course of the film, and the two share scenes of kissing, ice skating, and personal dialogue. The film even concludes with a triumphant embrace between the characters. Even if romance, by the end of this discussion, is determined to not be the film's primary genre, then its impact of romance on the story, along with sources that list it as a genre, would easily place it in the realm of a sub-genre. -- Matthew - (talk · userpage · contributions) 19:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your own analysis of the plot is irrelevant because it constitutes WP:Original research, and most sources—reliable or not—do not predominantly regard it as a "romance" film. All sources brought up here regard the genre as "Drama" and the sub-genre as "Sport" or "Boxing", ergo that is the primary genre. There is no dissent among sources over what the primary genre aand sub-genre is. TCM also lists "action" alongside "romance" but these are secondary genres as far as the weight of the sources go. Also, as an aside, at that discussion about Allmovie that is just a couple of editors sounding off about it; as someone points out it is considered reliable at WP:FILM. Betty Logan (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please again consider that there are no rules against including a sub-genre in the lead. You have stated that "FILMLEAD is quite clear that only the primary genre should be included", yet this is completely false upon reviewing WP:FILMLEAD. Furthermore, while my plot analysis may be original research, each of those scenes are undoubtedly in the film, which one would likely recognise after having watched said film. -- Matthew - (talk · userpage · contributions) 19:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Betty Logan ... would say that a genre of "drama" with a sub-genre of "sports" (or maybe "boxing") should more than adequately sum up the movie, including the Rocky-Adrian relationship. - Xenxax (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Matthewhoobin, since a big part of the film deals with romance. It should be kept as a subgenre in the heading. Should action be included too, since several sources point to action as a subgenre? --ColouredFrames (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rocky&oldid=728347092"