Talk:Badlapur (film)

Article moves

• A move of Untitled Next (film) to Badlapur (film) was requested at WP:RMTR. Due to WP:Parallel histories a history merge is not possible. The former article is now at Talk:Badlapur (film)/Old article. Consider taking material from that version and using it to enhance Badlapur (film). EdJohnston (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
• I speedy-deleted Badlapur (film) (written by suckpuppet) and moved Talk:Badlapur (film)/Old article to Badlapur (film) as per speedy-delete request made at 11:02, 2 July 2014 by User:Chanderforyou. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Did Raghu technically raped Jhimli?

Jhimli is shown to be a sex worker and Raghu paid for the service. In the movie, Jhimli is not shown to stop Raghu (withdrawing consent). Hence, at max we can say that "Raghu had rough sex with Jhimli". ---Ritwik.m07 (talk) 06:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Using words like "Hit" to describe the gross.

IP editor at 122.169.44.195 has added content to the article, describing the film as a critical and commercial success, additionally using the word "Hit" to describe the box gross.[1][2] The user posted on my talk page, but I'm moving the discussion here, where it is appropriate. Their comment, and my reply:

I am rather surprised at the bias being shown here. Information from Koimoi is being deleted as 'opinion', Taran Adarsh has on the very first week declared the movie to be a Hit. That was also removed. WEhat in Wiki's opinion is the defintion of a commercial hit?? I believe Koimoi has given a very transparent scale by which all movies are being measured. On top my edits are being called 'promotional;;' which is just a subjective guess by you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.44.195 (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

@122.169.44.195: Hi there. Firstly, you don't have consensus to re-add the content. Two editors have objected to its inclusion. Per WP:BRD, your recourse is to open a discussion on the article's talk page to get a new consensus, which I have done for you. Secondly, I don't see what your confusion is. You have stated without adequate support that it was a critical success, yet it's easy to find neutral 3/5 stars, 2/4 star reviews. We are not critical response aggregators. We shouldn't be cherrypicking good reviews and calling it a critical success, especially when there were numerous negative comments about the film's misogynistic content. This unsubstantiated summary is in part what I when I describe your contribution as "promotional". I'm also not clear on why you are so interested in subjective summaries like "hit". Calling a film a hit because it doubles its investment is fine if Koimoi wants to do that on their website, but that doesn't mean that the word "hit" has any encyclopedic value. What would make more sense for an encyclopedia is to explain "it doubled its investment". We also don't use the absurd terminologies "Super-Hit", "Blockbuster status", etc. This has been discussed numerous times on various Bollywood film talk pages, as well as at the Indian cinema task force talk page. For perspective, when writing about Western films we don't say "This film is certified rotten" simply because that's the cutesy way that RottenTomatoes.com summarizes bad films. We typically avoid that language entirely, and just report the facts. "The film received largely negative reviews, with a score of 8% based on 160 reviews". If a reputable website started calling bad films "A piece of shit", would we say as a matter of fact, "The film was a piece of shit". No. Same here. We're here to present neutral coverage of the subject using neutral language. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Lets discuss the observations. The film has generated mixed reviews. No issues in that. There is no need top cherry-pick if all reviews are given a place not NOT some asre allowed and rest deleted. I am not sure why Yahoo movies again got deleted this morning. I believe there should be a standard against which the reviewers' can be aggegated. Ealier there was a bar chart sort of thing where all newspapers could be accommodated but this has been discontinued. So if NDTV (a national; channel) can be quoted I do not see why Yahoo (an international website) needs to be deleted unless someone is trying to present a subjective opinion here. Secondly..at the end the project needs to be summed up as szuccess or faliure in whichever way..artisatically or even commercially. Its an encyclopedia's responsibility to present that view to the future too. In case you are deleting such comments pls go and see Sriram's Agent Vinod page where in box-office section its maintained that its a Flop. Pray why that is there then?? If that viewpoint of box-office can find a place in wikipedia why not the views of the box-office of the same director's very next film?? And also do you have an industry gold-standard whose reference can be quoted?? I find it completely BIASED that while newspapers reviewers can be quoted on content trade-sources cannot be quoted on success or failure !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.56.27 (talk) 04:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, let's first deal with the most meaningless aspect of your argument: The fact that another article "Sriram's Agent Vinod page" contains inappropriate summaries doesn't mean that this article has to contain the same inappropriate summary for any number of reasons, one of which is that "other stuff exists" is not a valid argument. Sometimes older films can be described more appropriately as flops or hits, but they benefit from the filter of time, whereby historians have gone through all of the pertinent data and arrived at a generally agreed-upon conclusion. This is not the case with one source making a statement about a movie released a month ago. Now, moving along, though you've said "the film has generated mixed reviews. No issues in that", that's not consistent with what you have added to the article three times. "Mixed" is not "critical success" and it is deceptive to imply that. Your assertion "The film ... was declared a commercial Hit in the India Box office" is also deceptive, since only ONE source decided that. How do we know that all the reliable sources agree that "hit" equals a doubled investment? That's only Koimoi's metric. And as I tried to explain above, if a user can find one source calling the movie a piece of shit, are you okay with them adding that to the article as a fact? "Badlapur was declared a critical piece of shit in Indian reviews"? I don't know why this is so confusing to you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

You did not answer why Yahoo reviews are getting removed. And why one must accept NDTV has a better review position than Yahoo. There is no reason to selectively purge reviews unless you are deliberately trying to push a stand esp like cannot be praised because of misogyny etc..incidentally I sourced Rummana's review simply because to show even these views are mixed and a grater universe neds to reflect here. Secondly as I have said is there a trade standard by which hit and flop can be judged. I will be happy to be cited one such source. However if istant reviews (which are basically opinions) can be mentioned on content why not trade-analysts viewpoint on the commercial aspect of a project? Also did not understand how the agent vinod comment is filtered by time etc etc etc highsounding words you have used. The link mentioned there was pretty contemporary. I believe for whatever reason you are coloured about this movie and trying your best to defend the position by deleting information available. Sorry if I am mistaken but thats the view one would get if one follows all your activities on this subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.56.27 (talk) 05:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not in a position to answer your questions about Yahoo because I didn't remove any Yahoo reviews, so I don't know what you're talking about. Ask the person who removed them. And though you were kind to offer the possibility that you could be mistaken about me being "coloured about this movie", I'm simply not. I'm a wikignome with almost 38,000 edits under my belt and the range of articles I edit is vast. I haven't seen this Bollywood movie, I haven't seen Drishyam, I haven't seen Anegan, I haven't seen PK, I haven't seen any of these, and I don't have any conflicts of interest. Bollywood articles are severely susceptible to puffery and biased statements in favor or against, either from teams who want to promote one project, or bash the other. I treat all articles the same and demand they adhere to the same existing standards of neutrality and in this case, that means removing subjective metrics like "Hit". Since you seemed to be confused by my last reply, the crux is this: If the film is considered a "hit" by scholars ten years from now, then maybe the word is worth including then. But one month out of the gate with one source making the call? I don't think that's appropriate. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Fantastic. The movie has run it's course and the box-office figures are for all to see. Will waiit for more acceptable industry judgement. Meanwhile the Yahoo review put the movie at 4.5 which is getting removed too. The fault can be mine as possibly both sections might have been put together in the same edit. Will resubmit that part separately. About Hit or Flop will wait for more trade sources to emerge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.56.27 (talk) 05:50, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind that we're not here to present all of the favorable reviews. The 4.5 might have represented an oversaturation of positive reviews, which tends to drown out the criticism and neutral reviews. Though the Western film Citizen Kane frequently makes the "Best films of all time" list of various reliable sources, and even though the general attitude toward the film is that it is "great", the article still presents a neutral perspective in its Conteporary responses section, citing some notable negative reviews that pissed on the film. What we should not be doing here, is finding all the great reviews for Badlapur and hiding the neutral and negative ones. That's not neutral point of view. We should be providing a representative sample of the range of opinions and either letting review aggregators or historians make the call about how the film was received. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Fact is 'puffery' as you call it is present in almost all movie articles and not contained in Bollywood alone. The best way ahead is to allow as many recognized secondary sources as possible and not put a curb to it. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.163.27.14 (talk) 07:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I reject your assertion that puffery is present in all movie articles, since it's something you would have a difficult time quantifying. The WikiProject Film community is fairly consistent about how it presents critical response, particularly for newer releases. I'm quite certain you haven't read the many conversations I have about how critical response summaries should be presented. If a film has consistent aggregation scores, the community prefers language like, "the film received generally positive reviews", not "the film was declared a Super-Blockbuster verdict!! Woo hoo!" And even if the puffery were in "almost all" movie articles, that doesn't make it preferable. As to your suggestion that "the best way ahead is to allow as many recognized secondary sources as possible" seems to be based on a limited understanding of how Wikipedia works. Yes, we can expand the article, but we are not here to present every opinion, only a representative overview of the opinions, proportional to the other content in the article, with gushing positive reviews balanced with negative and neutral reviews. Poke through a few Featured articles when you get a chance. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with everything that Cyphoidbomb has stated.

We are an encyclopedia, NOT a celebrity gossip mag.

We present things in a neutral manner, showing the range of responses from the reliable sources, presented in the proportion that they are held.

We do not use meaningless arbitrary jargon such as "Superduper Hit!!" or "MegaColossal Double Flop". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Guys, peace. I only liked the film and the producer's not paying me. And I am content to wait and let history pass the judgement it. Yes..I also do like the director and I have checked the Flop verdict on Agent Vinod was from boxoffice india magazine. I only asked for a reference or standard source that can be quoted. Cause obviously summaryh judgement on the project viability is an important matter. I am ok to wait till that 'standard' passes its verdict when I will update the same in Box-Office sectgion. Till then I am not touching this article...hope on this note we can close this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.179.163.167 (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I am back again. It seems the film that I like is facing some stringent and 'devious' editing standards for no reason from Redpenofdoom and you. Here is a line from a contemporary page of a bollywood movie NH10 "The film and Anushka's performance has garnered critical acclaim and commercially, the film was a sleeper hit.[8][9][10]" .. and it has not been removed by the editors ofdd that article as not of being encyclopedic value etc etc ho hum. While again a very decent line from another use JaihoHeisenberg saying Badlapur is a commercial success has been removed by the editing team. I do not know how wikipedia editing works but THERE HAS TO BE A STANDARD at least across contemporary edits. So either you twop guys fix and apply this standard across all contemporary movies or let this page off your vague 'standard'. I am going to wait for your response and yopur actions on this but will not let two contemporary films of the same type be subject to random subjective editing whims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.170.74.75 (talk) 07:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Boy, if I could only count the times I've heard the "a problem exists over there, so you should let my problem exist here" argument. Do you realize how many film articles there are at Wikipedia? Can you imagine the number of people who don't know or care anything about Wikipedia MOS:FILM standards or quality, that are editing these articles? If you can imagine this, then you can surely imagine that it's difficult for a small group of regular community-minded editors to cover all of the films in the world. Anyhow, your argument is a "false dichotomy" logical fallacy. There is no either-or here. If there is a problem in that article, it will be fixed in time, this article has been fixed now. If you don't agree with either of our positions, maybe a good approach is to go to WT:FILM, where there are many smart people who care about the encyclopedic quality of articles, and ask about the appropriate way to present the content you are interested in presenting. "Such-and-such film was commercially successful^[1]" is not the same thing as "Such-and-such film was a Super-Hit^[2]" or "Super-Blockbuster". The latter is problematic, and is the reason why we're having this discussion. Also, the Indian Cinema task force seems a little lukewarm about Koimoi as a source. So there's that to consider too. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Second highest grossing

I'm not sure I see eye-to-eye with hardworking editor Krimuk90 on the inclusion of the content in this edit, specifically the "As of March 2015, Badlapur is the second highest-grossing Hindi film of the year". Though it may be accurate, it's the kind of thing that is of fleeting importance and utility and comes off as promotional. We're only 25% through 2015. It seems that this kind of content might best be delivered after all the yearly data is tabulated. It may be 2nd highest now, but could be eclipsed by other movies over the next 9 months and become 5th highest, 8th highest, 4th lowest. So what's the value? Rather, it feels like the statement tries to inflate the importance of the subject in the present by making it more attractive. Them's my thoughts. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I see a point there. I agree, it makes more sense to include that at the end of the year. I'll tweak it. I appreciate you leaving a kind talk page message before reverting me. Cheers! :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Krimuk90: You work hard and there are few allies in Bollywood cinema. I'm not even really familiar with the medium, I'm mostly here in a wikignome capacity. It makes more sense for me to try to make friends with people who are clearly on the side of good. Thanks for being open minded! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! I highly appreciate your willingness to politely discuss issues, something that very few people in this encyclopedia do. We Indians love our movies and stars, and that's why you see so many people obsessing over these film articles. Your work in reducing fancruft from them is exemplary, and I especially admire you for not being a blind-revert machine. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 03:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Well... I do a fair bit of blind reverting... :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Badlapur (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150314182347/http://boxofficeindia.com/Details/art_detail/topworldwidegrossers2015 to http://boxofficeindia.com/Details/art_detail/topworldwidegrossers2015

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)