Talk:The Twilight Saga: New Moon

Reviews: "Mostly Negative" or "Mixed"?

There has been a lot of back and forth lately on wether we ought to summarize the reviews as "Mostly Negative" or "Mixed." FWIW metacritic explicitly calls the reviews "Mixed or average reviews"[1] and Rotten Tomatoes top critics give it an average rating of 5.2 out of 10 [2] so that looks like "mixed" is a better description than "mostly negative" to me. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes but RT has 72% of reviewers giving it a negative review. That is explained in no other way than "mostly negative". It is not a sentence explaining the ratings given by reviewers, it is simply a general summary. You can announce the technicalities all you like, but the fact is most reviewers were negative, sure there was positive reviews but they're not even prevalent enough to be represented on an even scale - "mixed".

Perhaps it would be more wise to find sources stating the critical reaction, rather than aggregators summarising scores, ratings and positive/negative reactions? Panned, panned, has not wowed critics, has not won over critics, that's after a Google News search - not one mention of mixed. The negative reaction even lead the director to refuse to pay attention to critics, instead listening to fans. kiac. (talk-contrib) 15:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think of it this way: Either mixed or mostly negative will suffice for this article. I personally think it is mixed because there are many negative reviews with positive statement about the movie, and there are some positive reviews. Mostly negative would be okay also because 28% do like it which means there are 72% that don't. I think the only justifiable way to solve this is come to a concensus.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 15:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

How about "generally negative". Will that suite both sides? :) —Mike Allen 16:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

38% of the "Top Critics" gave it a positive review according to RT, even if all the reviews can be averaged to a 5.2. "Mixed" with no qualifier is definitely misrepresentative. At best, maybe something like "Reviews were mixed but tended towards the negative, with 28% of critics and 38% of "Top Critics" giving the film favorable reviews, according to Rotten Tomatoes." Whatever wording is used, at least one of those specific numbers (28% or 38%) should be provided as supporting information. Propaniac (talk) 17:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think "mixed" sounds better because you read the reviews carefully, the negative ones talk about some positive things in the movie and at the same time, a lot of positive reviews talk about the negative aspects of the movie. "Negative" sounds too biased and judgmental. "Mixed" sounds best since the reception *has* indeed been "mixed".Blytonite (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: Well, New Moon has been voted as the favorite movie of 2009 by the general public if you see this article: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/2009/12/29/2009-12-29_the_public_has_spoken_new_moon_top_movie_of_09_and_megan_fox_is_hot_but_cant_act.html. So, critical reception *has* been mixed and not "mostly negative".Blytonite (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Since when is the general public "critical"? —Mike Allen 20:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Fan reception is not critical reception. Its mentioned, by all means but its not a critical view that this topic is about. Overall reception might be mixed, but the wording over mixed and negative is for what critics thought and mixed is not correct for describing them. Stabby Joe (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I am well aware of that. I'm just proving the fact that critical reception of the movie AS A WHOLE is mixed and certainly not "generally negative".Blytonite (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If you are aware of that then why have you said that you've proved CRITICAL reception has been mixed with your link on FAN reception? Critical reception means what film critics thought of the movie, not fans/general public. What some editors are discussing is that this article says that critics were mixed but argue that it was negative. No one is arguing what fans thought. Stabby Joe (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think how we have it is fine.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 02:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

"The Twilight Saga: New Moon director Chris Weitz['s] take on author Stephenie Meyer's fantasy franchise was still met with mixed reviews."[3] Starblueheather (talk) 07:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I rather look at RT than some news article. HOWEVER some other wiki articles have NOT stated the film being positive, mixed or negative. They just simply state "on Rotten Tomatoes, % of critics gave the film a positive review etc..." Stabby Joe (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Stabby Joe. The "mixed reviews" quip at the very beginning should probably be deleted in favor of just having the aggregated RT score as the lead-in. It would work much better, in my opinion, as it gets to the down and dirty facts, nothing more or less. --ToyoWolf (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've got to come back to this one, I just can't think of why 28% is a mixed number. Traditionally 40s to 60s would be mixed. The only reason such a LOW number can be mixed is hardcore fans of this movie trying to advertise it as something better (we already know fan reception was better). Stabby Joe (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The source used for the statement "critical reception was mixed" is http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/newmoon which says "Mixed or average reviews." Starblueheather (talk) 06:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The thing about it is, is we can't just go by what MC and RT says. We have to take all the reviews listed into consideration. What does the NY Times, LA Times, USA Today, etc say? Do most "praise it" or "dislike it", etc? —Mike Allen 06:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No, the thing about it is, we ought to go with what the source (Metacritic) says based on their research rather than do our own original research. If you're personally curious as to how Metacritc came to the conclusion that reviews were "mixed or average", USA Today gave it 2½ out of 4 stars, Washington Post gave it 2½ stars, Chicago Tribune gave it 3 stars, Rolling Stone gave it 2 stars, etc. Thanks. Starblueheather (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

What about other reviews? Metacritic only post 35, tops. What about Rotten Tomatoes (not what the site says, but the reviews). That's not original research, that's giving due weight on all reviews, not just a few. This is the same reason why we don't post that Metacritic claims it was "universal acclaim" or RT claims it was "Rotten" or "Fresh". —Mike Allen 22:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Metacritic has only a quarter at most of the reviews that RT has, an RT is less favorable than MC. To give all weight to a source that is significantly weaker isn't proper conduct. Stabby Joe (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not at all clear on what "properly conducted" distinction you think you are making between Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic and which one you think is "significantly weaker" or "less favorable." The two sources say virtually the same thing, with Metacritic assigning a 44 out of 100, and Rotten Tomatoes assigning a slightly higher 4.6 out of 10. Those are mixed or average reviews. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Its very simple what I'm saying, Metacritic was significantly less reviews than Rotten Tomatoes, making the latter the more noble source to use. Now I'm not saying what is mixed in terms of "average scores" and I should quickly point out that 40s mixed score is what Metacritic thinks (40 being worse for music and games on the same site), not RT or any other reviewer. If very few critics, as opposed to half and half disliked the film, mixed is not the right term. But since some can't handle the film being branned as such, I'm proposing there be nothing of the sort because of this issue IE reception would just state the RT average with the focus on critic remarks and the opening line to just read less favourable, which could mean mixed or negative, depends hat the reader thinks of it, we're not supposed to be biased. Stabby Joe (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Bold?

The bolding for the Novel and Screenplay for the infobox is not incorrect. WP:BOLD does not state anything against it. If it did, 98% of the articles would be incorrect; the bolding should be implied into that section only. Does anyone else have comments about this?ChaosMaster16 (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

No, WP:MOSBOLD does. Also, just because other stuff exist is no valid reason to include something. —Mike Allen 09:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOSBOD does not say anything about bolding in infoboxes. It does not say its good, but it does not say its bad either.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16

So bolding will improve the article? —Mike Allen 21:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

How will it not improve the article? Its for consistancy with the other articles on Wikipedia AND the other Twilight articles. In that specific area, I would say boldng is more apropriate than making the text smaller and in parenthsis. I mean, its understandable for the release dates, as bolding the countires would be unimportant, but the Novel and Screenplay should be bold as its more important for the reader to see who wrote what.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)ChoasMaster16

razzie

can you put the razzie nominations...