Jump to content

Talk:Black Adam (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 109.76.132.217 (talk) at 17:06, 4 December 2022 (→‎Audience response again). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Filming

THR's reports on Kenzari stated the film starts filming in April. Rusted AutoParts 19:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editor

The only sources stating John Lee is the editor is from his own Twitter and LinkedIn accounts, but someone says they're not acceptable because he's not verified. Considering there's nothing to claim against him being editor, I think it's acceptable until a secondary source can be provided. Iamnoahflores (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's really not how WP:V works. Again, please read WP:ABOUTSELF, WP:TWITTER-EL, and WP:LINKEDIN. Twitter and LinkedIn can only be used as sources if the account is verified and it complies with everything listed on WP:ABOUTSELF (which it does not). InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It never says an unverified account can't be used, it just says verified accounts happen to be more trustworthy. Also, in what ways does it not meet the listed items? Iamnoahflores (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Iamnoahflores: Me not responding to your last message does not mean that the discussion is over and you can just restore your edit. As I stated above, Twitter and LinkedIn posts cannot be considered reliable sources unless they are verified accounts, perhaps WP:RSPTWITTER and WP:RSPLINKEDIN are more appropriate guidelines than the other links I listed. There is also no plausible way of authenticating that the accounts actually belong to the editor, and no reliable secondary sources have covered this. Best to wait per WP:NORUSH. Also, just a note that I have restored the WP:STATUSQUO ante of the article before this dispute arose, so please do not revert again before the discussion has concluded per WP:BRD. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't think the podcast episode that Iamnoahflores just added seems very reliable. @Facu-el Millo and other editors, what do y'all think? InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@InfiniteNexus, while it seems the podcast itself is at least a questionable source, perhaps it could still be used under WP:ABOUTSELF, having it both spoken directly by him and transcripted below. —El Millo (talk) 05:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still a little skeptical, but alrighty then. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Budget

The budget for this film is not reliably sourced. Box office mojo does not list a budget figure.[1] The numbers does not list a budget figure.[2]

Budget figures need to be properly referenced. The reference can sometimes be omitted from the Infobox if it is clearly verified in the article body, but it is far clearer to include the references in the Infobox too.

Digging into the article history, the budget range was added but attributed to Filmik.com[3] which is not a reliable source. The same editor that added it in the first place removed the reference soon after.[4] $185-200 million is a good educated guess, but it is not a reliably sourced in accordance with the standards of an encyclopedia.

This is why I have removed the budget figures from the Infobox for now. Please do not add them without a credible and reliable source (Variety, LA Times, NY Times). -- 109.76.194.74 (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That'll do.[5] -- 109.76.194.74 (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Despite {{Infobox film}} clearly saying that editors should not cherry pick budget figures, editors have again cherry picked budget figures and removed the $200 million budget figure stated by Deadline Hollywood. The documentation makes it clear that if reliable sources differ then both figures should be presented as a range. Editors should not assume they know better and exclude reliable sources such as Deadline Hollywood. Variety might be well be more accurate than Deadline but editors cannot know that for sure and should not pretend otherwise. Stop excluding figures without discussion or WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Please restore the Deadline reference and $200 million budget figure. -- 109.79.66.165 (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It baffles me why so many people continue to vandalize the budget range.[6] (Just one of many examples on this article alone.) and yet another example [7] -- 109.76.193.172 (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

Here, I removed originally-researched content about how critics received the film. MOS:FILM#Critical reception says, "The overall critical reception to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources that summarize reviews; do not synthesize individual reviews." For example, Rotten Tomatoes has as the critics' consensus, "Black Adam may end up pointing the way to an exciting future for DC films, but as a standalone experience, it's a wildly uneven letdown," and this can be paraphrased. Another example is Variety headlining that reviews have called the fine "repetitive" and "anti-entertaining", though, "Most others have been less receptive to the origin story, though many have highlighted Johnson’s performance as a key strength." I suggest Googling for "black adam" "critics"|"reviews" to find reliable sources using these terms in plural form to find possible summaries of how the film was received. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:56, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As for whether the film has mixed or negative reviews, "mixed to negative" is an originally-researched term. We can use WP:INTEXT to say that A, B, and C periodicals said the film got mixed reviews while X, Y, and Z periodicals said it got negative reviews. We shouldn't convert the RT score into prose, either. Metacritic is ideal, and personally I like detailing their breakdown (which is currently 17 mixed, 6 positive, and 6 mixed). Not sure if others will go for that. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 03:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Erik: A couple of refs, The Wrap comments that critics found the superhero film "underwhelming", "super messy" and "baffling". Deseret it describes Although there are slightly mixed reviews, it seems like The Rock isn’t enough to carry this movie. VickKiang (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I also take issue with WP:SYNTH and do want the summary in WP:FILMLEAD to be properly sourced, that text Erik deleted was previously attributed to an editorial from Rotten Tomatoes[8] but the reference seems to have gone missing by the time he saw it. (Past discussions have rejected using wordings such as mixed to negative, an encyclopedia should do better.) I wouldn't want to give WP:UNDUE weight to early review roundup articles that cherry pick a from a few select reviews, and I appreciate the current wording[9] that keeps the lead concise but explains more in the Critical response section. (If the final Rotten Tomatoes dropped considerably we would of course need to revise the summary later.) I watch with keen interest to see if audiences turn out and Dwayne Johnson remains largely critic proof. -- 109.79.75.147 (talk) 12:24, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know about the editorial being used there. Lame that someone deleted it -- for their own personal take? In any case, ideally such sources should be used in the article body and summarized further (or at least repeated) in the lead section. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier, I actually ended up going with your idea of "that A, B, and C periodicals said the film got mixed reviews while X, Y, and Z periodicals said it got negative reviews".[10] @TropicAces: felt the need to remove it, sating "Let sources speak for themselves"[11] but I restored it because I believe it's important to neutrally point out contradicting reports. Armegon (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no basis for "let sources speak for themselves" and is anathema to MOS:FILM#Critical reception, "Detailed commentary from reliable sources regarding the critics' consensus (or lack thereof) is encouraged." I find just reporting the numbers to be a copout. As an encyclopedia, we should do our best to describe in prose how a film was received. We have these details and only need to determine how to integrate them. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:38, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think sometimes the phrase "let the sources speak for themselves" is often mis-applied. Occasionally (quite often, actually) editors will overstate what the source actually says so it is reasonable to scale back prose under this rationale, but in this case it is being incorrectly used to remove sourced content. When Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are consistent with each other I generally find that compelling because as an editor (and also as a reader) I can understand the basis upon which they draw their conclusions. For modern mainstream Hollywood films the sample size is usually quite large too so there is less scope for an unrepresentative sample. Betty Logan (talk) 07:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, critical reception for Black Adam is 40% on Rotten Tomatoes, but over 5,000 verified ratings give a rating of 90%. Shouldn't the audience be considered as relevant just in case "critics" are being paid to review bomb movies? After all, the first "External Links" at the bottom of every movie on Wikipedia is a link to IMDB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:9DC0:B000:B462:94F2:7770:F45E (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:UGC.
See also Audience response section below where suggestions were made to try to make the same point about audience response being very positive without resorting to the use of user voted web polls. -- 109.79.171.34 (talk) 01:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Critical summary in the lead

Since this was touched on above, figured I'd address this here. I removed the lead summary that stated, "with praise for its visual effects, action sequences and Johnson's performance, but criticism for its screenplay and villain". Seems like fabricated OR. I don't see a source cited in the article in support. My guess is that it's been butchered over the past few weeks by drive-by edits. The RT editorial mentioned above is dated 10/18. It looked at early reviews, but quite a few more poured in on 10/21. Many of the top critics now (by at least a 3-to-1 ratio) criticized Johnson's performance. The editorial also fails to actually summarize and instead lists excerpts from various reviews – not exactly helpful in forming a summary. Others are welcome to bring sources to the table and discuss if they want to see some form of this restored, but I felt it had to go for now. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vague plans

Vague plans do not equal "in development". The "Future" section of the article is optimistic, but the lead section is downright unrealistic when it claims "A sequel is currently in development." That sentence should be removed entirely, it is not even close to the current reality, way way too early to make such claims in the lead section. -- 109.79.66.165 (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also the phrase "currently" is vague and unhelpfula and should generally be avoided in good writing, especially when writing for an encyclopedia. WP:RELTIME. -- 109.79.171.34 (talk) 01:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2022

Black Adam has since grossed $25 million worldwide, far more than your recorded $7.5 million. 2A02:C7E:42F9:CB00:55BC:723B:981E:395A (talk) 10:01, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Box office projections

None of the sources mention a $50-60 million range projection. Why are you User:TropicAces adding it?

The used sources Deadline [12] and Variety [13] only say the film's projection had fallen to $60 million. It doesn't mention any range anywhere and I've tried looking.

I've removed the original research and added figures from Boxoffice Pro. If you've got a reliable and updated source actually saying $50-60 million then add it. But otherwise you are bound to be reverted as you aresdding unsourced material. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 14:22, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Teth Adam

I noticed that the end credits say Black Adam / Teth Adam, without the hyphen. If there are sources which support this, we should change this throughout the article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And now I've noticed that the soundtrack says "Teth-Adam" for one of the track titles, which complicates things. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Audience response

It seems like it might be a good idea to mention audience response. Audiences have responded more favorably than film critics. Reliable sources such as Variety[14] note this without resorting to user voted web polls (such as IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes scores). In particular, their analysis attributes it to the star power of Dwayne Johnson. (Many other publications point out that there is a gap between the Rotten Tomatoes Audience score and the critics score,[15][16][17] but that is merely one particular manifestation of the audience response, convenient sure but less noteworthy for an encyclopedia article.) Perhaps a line could be added to the Critical response section, something like: "Variety noted that audiences responded more positively than critics, which they attributed to the star power of Dwayne Johnson".[18] I know the phrasing sourcing of audience response can be tricky so I wanted to gain consensus for this before adding anything. -- 109.76.192.47 (talk) 20:05, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't include audience responses because that qualifies as user-generated content. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Blaze Wolf. Online user ratings are essentially garbage as a metric. We have the CinemaScore grade, the PostTrak score, the opening-weekend box office gross, and we can see if the second-weekend drop is small or large, which helps indicate continued commercial success or lack thereof. Also, this notes that the CinemaScore grade of B+ is "middling", presumably meaning the most-liked superhero films are A or A- (for opening-weekend audiences anyway). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:32, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too, my comment already linked to the guideline WP:UGC. Maybe I didn't phrase it in the clearest way but I'm already saying we shouldn't include the RT Audience score (even though lots of WP:SECONDARY sources have actually reported on it) but that instead (and in anticipation of fans trying to add those scores) we should include more good sources of audience response such as the Variety article I linked. -- 109.76.192.47 (talk) 20:46, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I am missing something, but Variety here does not seem to have commentary about that. It only mentions for Ticket to Paradise "the combined wattage of Roberts and Clooney is charming audiences at the international box office". I guess it seems like something like that is a journalistic take on the film's box office performance, so if there's something like the aforementioned quote about Johnson, that could be considered as long as it's unconnected to online user ratings. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I copied entirely the wrong Variety link earlier, it was a different article discussing both Black Adam and Ticket to Paradise. (The first time I wrote this my computer crashed and I had to write it again.) The link I had meant to post was an article about star power which says things like "neither film enjoyed particularly dazzling reviews [...] box office analysts believe that what those films lack in critical praise, they make up for in the unadulterated charm of their leading men and women."
I might also draw your attention to the Deadline article which notes that "Audiences have given the movie a 90% on Rotten Tomatoes, which is the best for a DC movie in a decade." [19][20]
So while I don't want to go including the Rotten Tomatoes score I would like to see the article to do more to reflect the reliable sources that are saying audience response was significantly more positive than critic response. -- 109.76.193.172 (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Audience response again

Audience scores from Rotten Tomatoes are not usually included in Wikipedia film articles, because WP:USERGENERATED such as web polls are not reliable, but sometimes exceptions can be made if secondary sources report on it. In this case Johnson has highlighted the audience score[21] and reliable sources have reported on the discrepancy too.[22][23][24] An exception may be justifiable in this case.

Now would be the time to object if you disagree with making an exception and including the audience scores.[25] It seems like there are enough reliable sources commenting on the discrepancy between critics and audiences for this film. I would still have concerns about phrasing, and would want to try and on the disconnect between audiences nad critics, rather than one score from one website, but I do think that an acceptable version is probably possible in this case. -- 109.79.74.129 (talk) 12:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentioned it at the end of first para with sources. And yes enough reliable sources have covered it to justfiy including it. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 12:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the references have been changed and the audience score "updated". Some editors will insist on applying (over applying) WP:FORBESCON and try to remove that reference. Choosing other references like Variety.com and Deadline might avoid those problems.
The use of WP:SECONDARY sources to highlight the gap between critics and audiences means that we should be using the 90% figure that those reliable sources reported, and we should not be updating to the current figure (or we could focus instead on the noteworthy part, that being the gap, not the specific figures). -- 109.79.74.129 (talk) 14:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Independent is a long established mainstream newspaper. Deadline Hollywood is a trade journal and a very reliable source (the named reference "opening"). It seems strange to remove these references.[26] Adding a less reliable source such as Comicbook.com instead does not make sense to me either. (I've no problem with Senior Contributor Paul Tassi at Forbes and I consider it a good reliable source but some editors insist on interpreting the outdated WP:FORBESCON guideline to exclude him.) I do not want to see the references whittled away then text removed because it no longer seems to be properly sourced.
I think it would be better to keep the figure stable at 90% that Dwayne Johson tweeted about and many of the secondary sources reported, but the 89% figure is fine too if editors will leave it alone and do not try to update it later. -- 109.79.74.129 (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before some editors will insist on taking a more strict approach and even delete the scores entirely[27] which is why the references need to be as solid as possible.[28] -- 109.76.139.61 (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never say never. It seems like every Wikipedia rule has an exception and in the case of audiences scores the exception is when reliable WP:SECONDARY sources talk about the audience scores, such as in cases of a significant disparity. In this case Dwayne the Rock Johnson commented on the 90% audience score, and several reliable mainstream sources including Variety.com reported on it.[29] (Exceptions to include audience scores are rare, but have have been made before: Captain Marvel (film), The Last Jedi (Talk), more recently The Rings of Power, are just a few examples.) Deadline Hollywood reported "Audiences have given the movie a 90% on Rotten Tomatoes, which is the best for a DC movie in a decade."[30] I'm not claiming the scores themselves are inherently noteworthy by themselves but when the likes of Variety.com or Deadline.com report on it, that WP:SECONDARY reporting is noteworthy. This is the same reasoning that was used any other time an exception was made to include the audience scores. -- 109.76.139.61 (talk) 02:58, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SECONDARY does not give an exception to other policies nor is an allowance to disobey them. While I can agree with keeping the score, please don't cite policies that don't directly contradict MOS:FILMAUDIENCE. And don't prefer to use the score you like. It has stayed 89% most of the time, and it should stay here too. Outdated scores should not be used. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is strange because User:Roman Reigns Fanboy added the audience scores on 9 November 2022‎, with the edit summary ‎Critical response: The RT audience score has been noted by reliable sources. (RRF restored the scores again later on November 22 after the above comment.)
I did not add the scores myself, but once they were in the article, I was willing to work to keep them, based on past precedence from all the other times I have seen exceptions made and audience scores included and excluded. The discrepancy between audiences and critics is interesting, the score itself is incidental. I was willing to leave it as it was, but after an editor tried to delete it, improving the references seemed necessary and appropriate. WP:SECONDARY has been used before, or as RFF said "score has been noted by reliable sources", which is all I was saying when I point to WP:SECONDARY. (The film project guidelines are not absolute, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can do things differently.)
RRF again repeated his argument that reports of audience score was "more common" at 89%[31]. He has not yet proven that claim, but even if I accept that argument -- that we should give more weight to that score over the higher score of 90% Dwyane Johnson himself tweeted and that Variety reported -- that still does not mean there was any good reason to delete references to Variety and The Independent that was there to help support the notability of including the scores at all. Please at least restore the Variety reference. -- 109.77.200.34 (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My point is you should cite the correct policy for exception. And no I'm not going to restore any reference. This isn't a website where your demands get fulfilled. You're the only one creating dispute over that 90% thing, no one else cares.
The current sources are reliable enough. Paul Tassi is a bonafide entertainment journalist and ComicBook.com is a bonafide website that's cited by other media outlets sometimes. Also WP:PRIMARY allows use of prinary sources without adding your own interpretation (which was avoided).
The score became 90% from October 23 [32] and went back permanently to 89% on November 5 [33]. I'm not about to change it for a score that lasted 12 or 13 days out of a month of release. You're claming I presented no evidence when RT has always been publicly accessible for you to check. The reason to delete references was given already - outdated score that wasn't even there for most period. If you don't like it then you should leave Wikipedia. You don't own the article. And we aren't catering to every demand of yours. Everytime something is done to satsify you, you keep on making new demands. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No good reason has been given for deleting the reference to the very reliable to industry trade journal Variety.com. It is among the most reliable sources for film articles. This is an encyclopedia where editors are supposed to use reliable sources. Editors should not delete reliable sources without a good reason. Reliable sources are not a "demand", they are a fundamental principle of Wikipedia.
The current sources are reliable enough That is debatable. While I think Forbes is reliable enough other edits will inevitably disagree because of WP:FORBESCON, I have seen too many times already to not include another reliable reference. some editors will try and remove that reference. It is not that Comicbook.com is unreliable exactly but it is on the same tier as Screenrant, it is not a good reason to delete a better source. When better sources like Variety and Deadline Hollywood are readily available why not include them.
RRF said the score of 89% was "more common" and now also argues the figure of 90% is "outdated". I think those arguments are flawed, the claim that is was more common is dubious and the figure may change again. More weight should be given to the score when it was at higher and more noteworthy, i.e. it was tweeted by Johnson and reported by Variety, and I think that would make for a better encyclopedia article, but 89% or 90% the discrepancy between audience and critics is what matters. So if RFF demands to keep it at 89% so be it, but do not delete reliable sources without a good reason. -- 109.77.200.34 (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More noteworthy isn't a reason here. It was always noteworthy and that is enough for Wikipedia. This is not an article run by your preferences. And the reason was already given - the scores are outdated and the sources are not needed. The sources have been deleted. If you add them back again, you will be reverted. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More noteworthy isn't a reason here RRF does not seem to understand WP:DUE WP:WEIGHT more noteworthy is exactly the reason why the higher score would be better. RRF does not seem to see that I am trying to follow the rules and guidelines of this encyclopedia but he keeps making personal accusations "not an article run by your preferences". RRF does not recognize that "the scores are outdated" is his own personal preference, to include the most up to date version of the numbers rather than the highpoint that Dwayne Johson and Variety reported. There is no good reason to use 89% of 90% and no good reason to use any later version of this score either. There is simply no need for this encyclopedia to continue to update audience scores as they change. It is only the contrast between audiences and critics that is noteworthy, not the specific score. Irrespective of the exact score, deleting the Variety reference was not constructive, there is no good faith justification for removing it and that was just bad faith. -- 109.76.132.217 (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Figures

At the time of writing box office gross is listed as $252.2 million. Neither of the two sources provided as references in the Infobox actually list this figure. Box office mojo lists $250,210,807 (rounds to $250.1 million) and The Numbers lists $252,088,394 (rounds to $252.1 million). [P.S. For anyone reading this later the gross will have changed. Less than a day later the figures have already changed. That's kind of the problem, but you will need to read carefully and keep that in mind to make sense of this discussion in retrospect.] WP:V Verifiability is a core principle of Wikipedia, not an optional extra. Using figures not attributable to either of the two references actually provided is a failure of this principle. This should not be happening, see WP:BURDEN The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material

After what happened last week, I can probably guess what is happening here, but readers should absolutely not need to guess why the figures do not match what the sources actually say. (At the very least there should have been an {{Explanatory footnote}} warning why the figures do not directly match the sources, if as I suspect editors have again gone and done their own calculations to combine the two difference sources to create a marginally higher figure. I think using figures that do not directly match the references makes things more difficult to WP:VERIFY and is not good practice for an encyclopedia.)

Please pick one of the reliable sources and use the figures that they report consistently.

@Erik Pinging Erik, because (1) the article is locked preventing me from fixing the figures to actually match one of the references, and (2) maybe he'll have a different opinion on this.
MOS:FILMBOXOFFICE does warn against doing your own research but it does expressly warn against doing your own calculations. -- 109.79.165.88 (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made the change. Pinging Roman Reigns Fanboy who made that change here. Did you mean to write $252.2M when neither source says that at this time? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I get it now. Roman Reigns Fanboy, I assume you are taking the highest domestic number from either website and the highest international number from either website and adding them together. I agree with the IP editor that we should not do our own calculations across different sources. We should either use The Numbers by itself or Box Office Mojo by itself or provide a range that cites both. I don't care which, but definitely don't cross-calculate. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Erik. The international gross for movies on The Numbers and Box Office Mojo is often different. But the domestic gross is always the same. That's why you don't see the same worldwide gross. However common practice is always to add the higher worldwide gross.
Box Office Mojo always takes more time to update the domestic box office to the same domestic box office (it should update within a few minutes). That's the reason why the gross is still $250.2 million on BOM, but it'll eventually update to be the same domestic gross as Numbers (ie $112.9 million). The international gross is $139.3 million, so it'll update to $252.2 million worldwide too.
However we've also done this before where we update the gross on Wikipedia to match what we know BOM will obviously update to. This isn't our own calculations. It's WP:COMMONSENSE because changing the gross multiple times when you know what BOM's gross later would be and which gross will be higher, is redundant.
The reason I didn't talk about it immediately is because I've explained this to people before about this film and on other films, and I'm tired of it. I hoped it would seem obvious by now. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More simply put we're making the change which we know is obvious in advance. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Erik: The gross on Box Office Mojo has updated to $252.2 million. Like I told you, the domestic gross on BOM and The Numbers is the same. The international gross is however sometimes different. It was always going to be $252.2 million (because the domestic gross is $112.9 million and BOM's international gross is $139.3 million). I'm just making the obvious edit in advance so I don't have to change the gross multiple time. And it's not just me who does it. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 22:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just making the obvious edit in advance In the context of an encyclopedia it does not seem obvious to include information that does not match what is in the references. I have serious concerns about trying to do things in advance instead of waiting until things are more settled. If there is a local consensus to do this anyway there should be an {{Explanatory footnote}} to clearly explain to readers that the highest figures have been selected from both sources and added together. This is still WP:CALC, and opinions on that vary, depending on editors opinion of what constitutes a commmon sense or routine calculation (and the calc guidelines also suggest a footnote). I have concerns about editors attempting to correct the reliable sources, it gets worryingly close to original research. And it's not just me who does it. That's what I was afraid of, but it would go some way to explain why I have seen quite so many cases where editors didn't seem to understand how normal rounding-off of numbers works. (If this was only a one-off, I would take my own advice and wait until the facts -- the box office gross -- reached its conclusion, and then after that if there was still conflicting information and the marginal differences actually seemed important explain clearly as prose in the Box office section.) In the past I have seen editors argue for calculations in film articles, but I have seen also long discussions that wanted to deliberately make less precise and simpler, such as by rounding off the figures. Extra calculations are better avoided anyway, since the small differences are not significant in the larger context (these encyclopedia articles use the box office gross figures as an indicator success against the reported break-even profitably point, all of which depends various estimates and unreliable Hollywood math).
If there really is consensus to do these kinds of calculations, then an {{Explanatory footnote}} and maybe also template {{Sum}} might be the least worst way to do it, as it would show your work. -- 109.79.165.88 (talk) 03:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both times you've created these arguments, the BOM gross updates to the same one I added. You just ensure everyone's time is wasted in useless disputes like this. You also rudely mocked me for math fail.
At Bullet Train (film) the same thing happened where the gross was updated to what would have been for BOM [34] before it actually got updated. The Numbers has always had the same donestic gross but it's international gross was far behind and it still is [35]. People also do this on other films too.
The only calculation is knowing what BOM's domestic gross in advance and thus adding that up with its international numbers. If you want to change the gross in multiple sections multiple times a day, please don't expect others to do it. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 05:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor @Erik:has advised you against doing this again, is that not enough to end this?
I didn't mock you personally for failing to understand basic rounding, I mocked the failure of the figures in the Infobox to match either of the references provided, which seemed to be due to a failure to grasp basic mathematics. (Some editors truncating the box office gross figures down to the nearest million simliarly seems to be a failure to understand how basic rounding works.) I could not have guessed that editors were deliberately including information that did not match the references. After it has belatedly been explained that people did this on purpose it is entirely fair to criticize editors for failing to follow the core principle of WP:VERIFIABILITY and then WP:BURDEN is firmly on editors to provide reliable sources that directly supports the contribution. At the bare minimum this should have been properly explained in a hidden comment or footnote so that other editors could check your work, or not waste time to fix apparently incorrect information. Even if you disagree and I hope you can at least see the necessity to clearly explain what you did.
No matter how good your intentions may be this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not news. Please stop trying to do things "in advance". Please include the information that the reliable sources directly support. -- 109.79.75.242 (talk) 13:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are misleading, Erik's advice was before he knew what happened and after he came to knew the problem he didn't oppose me. You don't run this wiki and are no one to tell anyone otherwise. WP:COMMONSENSE allows editors to make common sense edits. It is only prohibited if it's unverifiable info or presumptions. And this isn't such a situation. The verifiability was already there as you've seen BOM always update to the same domestic gross. Because you don't like it, doesn't mean others have to do what you want. You are displaying ownership behaviour. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again WP:FUTURE. Please be careful not to add speculative figures[36] which the Sunday AM article from Deadline was reporting. a running total by Sunday of $135M on the high end. If the higher end of the projection holds This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, don't include estimates, wait for the facts. -- 109.76.135.144 (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deadline had already updated to an actual gross when I had added it, it wasn't a prediction. See the Sunday AM update: fantastic hold of -33% for a third weekend of $18.5M. Total running domestic cume stands at $137.4M. You are confusing it with the older section of Friday Afternoon which said Dwayne Johnson’s New Line DC movie Black Adam is looking to bring in a third Friday of $3.7M-$4.3M for what looks to be a $14M-$16M third weekend at 3,985 theaters, -45% for a running total by Sunday of $135M on the high end.
The fact that I only added it once it included the actual gross is visible from the fact that when I added the source the title explicitly said "Sunday AM Update" at the end [37]. Please don't falsely accuse people. You can get blocked for that. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor threw out the reference entirely and replaced it with a duplicate reference, and to me that mistake suggested that maybe there was a bigger mistake so I reverted until I could check further. There is no need to take it personally, I'm trying to improve the article too, we just have different ways of doing it. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, I don't understand the hurry to update figures. I'm asking us all to follow the same rules. That might be irritating to you but I don't think it is unfair. Sometimes I get slapped by the annoying rules too. I think it is reasonable to expect an encyclopedia editor to wait and not do things in advance. Every rule in Wikipedia has exceptions but I think there should be discussion and consensus established before making exceptions (like including user scores for example). Sometimes bold changes are needed too to start those discussions. I thank RRF for his edits and hope we can both continue to push this article forward even if we might disagree and take some time work out the details. -- 109.79.74.129 (talk) 15:03, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have been displaying incredibly rude behaviour here and I'm only going by it. You say another editor threw out the reference but you cite an edit by me which never used any estimates. The line you cited a running total by Sunday of $135M on the high end. If the higher end of the projection holds was also from the same Deadline article which had already updated to an exact gross when I used it. It's clear no editor threw out any reference, you simply confused the statements. When you make a mistake, you should simply admit it. Making wrong accusations, assuming bad faith and then misleading people again about what happened is something that will you get blocked. Please don't do this again. I will not be warning you endlessly. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have to go back to square one because I've lost track of this. In haste quoted the wrong numbers. Keeping track of figures and checking that the sources match what people are adding can be confusing, which is why I might be a little paranoid about including early estimates or doing anything in advance that makes double-checking any more difficult than it already is. Getting facts and figures right and being able to check them should be the easy part.

Step by step: RFF added the third weekend gross(diff as of 20:58, Sunday 6 November 2022) with a gross of $18.5 million. This was clearly a good faith edit but the Deadline reference was titled was "Sunday AM Update" which seemed to suggest it from Sunday morning, and was not the final figures for the whole of the 3rd weekend.
A different editor User:Speakfor threw out the reference entirely,diff of the delete and changed the gross from $18.5 million to $18.2 million without any explanation. Then shortly after User:Speakfor added a duplicate reference to The-Numbers.com.[38] Maybe User:Speakfor was not familiar with how to do WP:NAMEDREFS or maybe there were bigger problems but this edit was flawed so I reverted back to the version RFF had added. This may have been overzealous on my part. Later (when I wasn't using a slow awkward tablet) I took another look at it and checked the third week figure reported by The-Numbers (Box office tab) "Weekend Box Office Performance" which was $18,271,625 (drop -33%). At that point, it sure seemed like the 3rd weekend gross of $18.5 million reported by Deadline was an early estimate. The figure from The-Numbers.com of $18,271,625 rounds to $18.3 million (not $13.2 million). I repeated most of the changes the changes, removing Deadline, adding a reference to The Numbers.com (but not a duplicate reference).
I should have taken my own advice and waited until the figures were clear and settled. Instead of reverting I should have left the dubious edits alone and taken my time to look into it properly and fix it all in one edit. I overcomplicated matters. I was overzealous. I was pedantic. I was not the only one making mistakes. We're all just trying to improve the article. -- 109.79.74.129 (talk) 20:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I'm entirely convinced your being dishonest. You're clearly aware that grosses update and can decrease from earlier estimations [39].
The statement you cited to accuse me wasn't even in the "Sunday AM" section but was only for Friday afternoon. Also the line you confused it with was Dwayne Johnson’s New Line DC movie Black Adam is looking to bring in a third Friday of $3.7M-$4.3M for what looks to be a $14M-$16M third weekend at 3,985 theaters, -45% for a running total by Sunday of $135M on the high end. which did not cited any $18.5 million or even a Friday gross at all. There's no possible way for the kind of misreading you're claiming here.
You're simply being deceptive and don't want to accept what you actually did. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 23:03, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
grosses update and can decrease from earlier estimations you misunderstand my point, it is precisely because the grosses change that we should not knowingly include estimates in an encyclopedia in the first place. If they are not the final figures it is misleading to include them and change them later, this is an encyclopedia not news. Mistakes happen but if you already know they are estimates, then please stop adding them. -- 109.79.78.48 (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This edit summary of yours clearly shows you were confused about the text of Friday afternoon with it, I'm not misunderstanding anything but going by your statements. Also there was no "high estimate". Box Office Mojo and The Numbers were also reporting the same gross as Deadline on Sunday. See this for example: [40].
Box Office Mojo and The Numbers also currently have different worldwide grosses. There is no accurate gross, it's all an estimate. Revisions don't just happen on Mondays. Next time please don't falsely accuse othera and don't try to take ownership of this article. This will be your only warning.
And WP:CRYSTAL clearly states that Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view.
Your assertion that I should not include Deadline has no locus standi per the policies. Please stop making up your own rules. Because no editor is here to edit per your wants. You are clearly not interested in cooperation but only in demands. Estimates will be included if even BOM and The Numbers show them as the weekend gross. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 11:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to make it personal, my want is to make a better encyclopedia. I do not agree that knowingly including estimates[41] makes for a better encyclopedia. Waiting a little longer until actual figures are reported seems to me like the better way to make an encyclopedia. That the figures vary is all the more reason to wait, and not rush to update them frequently or in advance. Anyway the bigger question the figures answer is if a film is a financial success or not, and even a difference of millions wont change the fact that this film is far from breaking even. -- 109.79.75.129 (talk) 01:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

The lead section violated WP:LEAD and WP:PROMO by neglecting mention of Johnson playing Black Adam until 45 words later, instead putting the companies upfront and making the encyclopedic article sound like a corporate press release. The first sentences need to have the most noteworthy context as established by reliable sources, and the due weight is in favor of that context being Johnson playing Black Adam, followed by the film's connection to Shazam! and the rest of the DCEU. The other elements are far less important. We need to avoid naming companies (or no-name directors) upfront unless the reliable sources clearly headline these elements (e.g., a film being directed by Nolan or Spielberg, or a film from A24 or Blumhouse). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the emphasis in the lead to put Johnson first and foremost.[42] Your turn. -- 109.76.195.65 (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good with this too, with both links still being in the first sentence. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Emphasizing the biggest most relevant thing about this film does seems like the better way to write an encyclopedia article, but I can totally imagine someone coming along next week and insisting on rewriting it in the most rigid structured way possible that is more consistent with similar DC films articles. We will see how it goes. -- 109.76.128.10 (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and it happens with Marvel film articles too. See Black Panther (film) for example -- the actor portraying the titular character isn't named until after press-release corporate recognition. Also not sure if Coogler should be ahead of Boseman in this context. I've tried to flesh out my argument against this kind of thing with a write-up here, citing relevant policies and guidelines: User:Erik/Best practices#First sentences about films. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure not your essay is going to be able to capture the importance of RELEVANCE and WP:DUE. Relevance relevance relevance. Editors want a pattern they can follow, you're going to have to argue over and over that relevance supersedes the simpler "cookie cutter" pattern (like this guy). I see guidelines like WP:FILMPLOT saying not to include mid-credits scenes, but in many articles including this one editors do not want to follow the guideline and ignore it (they don't even bother to argue against it and establish local consensus). Relevance is an uphill battle. I think editors are going frequently ignore your recommendation, even if it does make for a better article. You've done nearly too good a job establishing the minimum that editors are reluctant to apply a better written maximum relevance version. Optimistically it only takes a few editors, like the ones who bring articles to {{Good article}} for your recommendations to impact where it matters most. -- 109.76.135.144 (talk) 12:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I created the essay to link to a more fleshed-out argument wherever I see the need for improvement (like if I read a film article for myself and find the first sentences underwhelming). Are you referring to WP:RELEVANCE when you mention RELEVANCE? Also, technically, WP:FILMLEAD does say, "See WP:LEADSENTENCE for other applicable elements, such as reputable directors, starring actors, and source material," and that could be revised to be more direct. Think that is a discussion worth having? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A guideline is not a policy and it can be ignored if there is consensus IP. Also you are showing ownership behaviour regarding the article. And please tone down your comments. Be civil or I'll have to complain you. Not everything you want is going to happen. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also the guideline of MOS:FILMPLOT you cite explicitly allows exceptions: "Mid- and post-credit scenes should generally not be included in the plot summary. Exceptions are made for these scenes if they provide key relevant details for the film itself (the identity of the villain in Young Sherlock Holmes), are part of sourced discussion in the rest of the article (the reuse of the post-credit scene of Ferris Bueller's Day Off) or if the film is part of a franchise and the scene helps establish details for a known future film in production (such as many Marvel Cinematic Universe films)." Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

China release

I saw an anonymous ipv6 delete a reference[43] which prompted me to check some facts.

I thought Black Adam had secured a China release date but apparently not. As of Nov 8, 2022 and according to Business Insider that was rumor and never actually confirmed by any reliable sources.[44] (WP:BI and WP:RSPS YMMV.) Rumors about the China release being cancelled then are even less reliable. We will have to wait until more reliable sources become available. -- 109.79.74.129 (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Box office disappointement

Editors are using no or only a single source to say this film is a disappointment. Please use more than that. One source isn't enough. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_Adam_(film)&oldid=1125556787"