Jump to content

Talk:Bad Boys: Ride or Die

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TropicAces (talk | contribs) at 13:35, 19 June 2024 (→‎Reception summary: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Filming after the SAG-AFTRA strike

We now know that the 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike ended on November 9, 2023. However, there are no sources stating that filming resumed. Is there WP:NORUSH to state when filming would resume? The Media Expert (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cast

We are missing reliable sources confirming most of the cast members for this film. I think there is WP:NORUSH to do this. The Media Expert (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reception summary

TropicAces, regarding your edit here, there are a few issues. First, Rotten Tomatoes considers a 63% to be "fresh", which is defined as "positive". Metacritic clearly lists the consensus as "mixed or average". So it would appear that the two aggregators disagree, despite your edit summary saying otherwise. Also, this Collider source, published more recently than the Gold Derby source, has come to a different conclusion and calls the reviews on RT "positive".

I'm not familiar with Gold Derby as a source for film reception, and I couldn't find any past discussions at WP:RSN. Gold Derby is mentioned here, but it does not even have a standalone Wikipedia article. Do you know if this site has been discussed previously? I'd question whether it is reputable enough to support this type of claim on its own. Because the aggregators disagree, it may be best to avoid a summary statement altogether. Until this is settled, I've left the Gold Derby source in for now and moved the full citation down to the body (diff). --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TropicAces, pinging you again in case you missed the first ping. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello.
To avoid this kind of confusion, Rotten Tomatoes itself has a page explaining how to assess their score. They explain “The Tomatometer score represents the percentage of professional critic reviews that are positive for a given film or television show.” And “When at least 60% of reviews for a movie or TV show are positive, a red tomato is displayed to indicate its Fresh status.”
This means rotten tomatoes itself considers that accumulating at least 60% of positive reviews is enough to demonstrate that a movie have a fresh status among critics.
Bad Boys 4 has currently 65% of positive reviews on rotten tomatoes, meaning it has a fresh status among the critics.
see here the link: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/about#:~:text=When%20at%20least%2060%25%20of%20users%20give%20a%20movie%20or,to%20indicate%20its%20Fresh%20status.&text=When%20less%20than%2060%25%20of%20users%20give%20a%20movie%20or,to%20indicate%20its%20Rotten%20status.
Of course, RT is not the only aggregator for critics reviews, but it’s important to note that it’s the biggest one. The second most important is Metacritic. Metacritic critics are also Rotten Tomatoes critics. The difference is that Rotten Tomatoes has hundreds more critics. Metacritic has less than 100 critics (for movies) while Rotten Tomatoes has more than 500 critics. So we’re not talking about two different groups of critics. Rotten Tomatoes simply has a bigger sample of reviews, a sample that encompasses those reviews that are on Metacritic plus many other ones. PepGuardi (talk) 05:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you PepGuardi. TropicAces is a veteran editor in the realm of film articles and knows this well, and quite frankly, the Gold Derby source is the first time I've ever seen this particular publication being cited for this kind of claim. I doubt it would override the Collider source I posted above, and regardless, we shouldn't be cherrypicking sources, neither Collider over Gold Derby, nor RT over MC. Instead, we should probably be avoiding the summary statement altogether (and the confusion it can cause) and not have one, especially in the lead section.
There is a level of caution given in MOS:FILMCRITICS about relying too heavily on film aggregators, and there is no policy or guideline that says one is more reliable than the other. When they disagree, we shouldn't be picking a winner. My 2¢ -- GoneIn60 (talk) 05:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TropicAces, PepGuardi – Pinging you both to let you know that the summary statements (along with the weak Gold Derby source) have been removed in this edit per the above discussion. Tropic, that's three pings now. Plenty of opportunity to join the discussion if there's anything you want to weigh in with, but I'm not seeing any justification at this point to let it stay in the article without consensus through discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hello.
To be honest, it’s the first time I saw a movie with more than 60% on rotten tomatoes and 7 on IMDb, 8 by IGN, 3.3 on Letterbox being described as having a mixed reception. Then I thought it was some mistake and corrected it to positive reviews. Then an editor who is not logged in reverted it. I corrected it once again explaining that it’s not subjective RT itself explains what is a positive score. The the same person who is not logged in reverted again it. Then I came to the talk page to discuss the I found out the three of us agree that it’s a positive reception. However, what could we do with the guy who’s not logged in and keeps reverting it without given a single reason to it? I mean he doesn’t seem someone acting in good faith tbh… see here *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2603:800C:1E03:5A00:4569:B090:7DC9:13C4 and here *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2603:800C:1E03:5A00:84F4:5BB8:F815:4148
it seems to be the same person. --PepGuardi (talk) 06:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, TropicAces doesn't agree. In the very first post above, I link to their edit where they originally added "mixed reviews" to the article citing that Gold Derby source. Now it's been removed, since clearly there's no consensus in the sources or here on the talk page. But yes, for a moment, there was also a disruptive IP editor changing it back to "mixed". Removing it altogether seems to have stopped the disruption for now, which is probably the best move until some other form of agreement is reached through discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t really have a dog in the fight here. Gold Derby is an established and oft-cited site in the film community for awards season, which is why I used it originally, but the consensus for the critical reception of the fourth Bad Boys film isn’t one worth me finding additional sources to support one claim or another is all haha TropicAces (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]