Talk:Kaabil

Simultaneously released movies

When two movies are released simultaneously I request I my fellow editors that we should put balanced views about them. In present case, it's only appropriate that MOVIE REVIEWS for both Raees and Kaabil are cited from similar sources.JPMEENA (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jpmeena: It's unclear to me what you are proposing, specifically. Can you explain, please? It sounds like you're saying that since Raees and Kaabil were released at the same time, the information we get for the critical response section should use the same sources for Kaabil as for Raees. If that's what you are saying, I don't understand the logic behind that, and that sounds like it has the potential to artificially skew the overall picture of how one or both of the films were received by critics. Presenting a balanced view has little to do with a 1:1 balance of sources between articles. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'm saying that atleast sources should be same. I don't undrstand why it would skew the overall critical reception , I think this would instead give true picture of critical reception. When same person speaks about two movies there is no reason to give his one view more preference than the other. JPMEENA

@Jpmeena: Your proposal has no established precedent as far as I know, I personally think it's a weird proposition, and this probably isn't even the best forum for this discussion since you're attempting to gain consensus for how two articles are treated, yet the discussion is only happening in one of these forums. Reliable sources are reliable sources and we're not required to robotically conform articles to one another. And my concerns about artificial skewing are that if we were to arbitrarily pick the sources to use in both articles, and let's say one sourced disliked Kaabil but praised Raees, depending on how those sources were arbitrarily chosen, we might be unwittingly making one competitor look weaker or stronger than the other competitor. That's not how we should structure critical response sections. We're not here to operate as an extension of the film's marketing department, which is how this proposition feels to me. (Although I know that's not your aim.) And anyway, as I've noted in the discussion below this one, the smarter way to present to critical response section other than just picking a bunch of links and reporting ratings, is to focus the content on specific areas and present a balanced picture of the response to those areas.

The film's cinematography received attention from critics, several of whom praised the wide sweeping shots used throughout the dance sequences. "Brilliant," said John Doe of ABC Times, who gave the film 3 stars out of 5. "I felt as though I was flying." Rory Sen of DEF Bugle wrote, "I was transported to the crisp verdant hills of Switzerland. The techniques used by Salman Croix were astounding." These sentiments were not felt by Roy Smythe of DEF Times who described the photography as "dizzying ... I thought I was going to throw up. However, the acting was spot on and I found Mamta Bloggs to be believable and adorable." Bloggs' portrayal of the street urchin was described as "hilarious and lovable. I wanted to adopt her. Bloggs had amazing chemistry with Hrithik Jones, who did an excellent job of eliciting tears as the kind-hearted businessman."

The above example focuses on cinematography and acting, with balanced opinions from likers and haters. Scores and quotes may supplement the content, but it shouldn't be the entirety of the content. The above is much harder to write, and thus, nobody ever does it that way, especially when the film is newly released and the promo farms are doing whatever they can to drive people into theatres. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Your ideas have merit and I am sure that you don't have any vested interest as I also don't have any. But think practically. Lots of people search on Google and other similar platforms and wikipedia article pops up at top. So wikipedia is certainly input for decision to go for movies. Now, few days after release matter a lot for any movie and therefore if there is any competition among movies(as it happens on simultaneous releases) then certainly we Wikipedians should not be accomplice in biased marketing. But we are certainly part of marketing. So my opinion that we should cite similar sources arises from this concern. So in short run( just few days/weeks after release) it may not be possible to get the kind of structure of critical reception section as you have suggested(among other factors marketing strategy of producers is major culprit). Therefore in this time period we should keep it as balanced as it can be. What could be thus best way to do it? I think same sources(obviously well established and not arbitrarily chosen) should be cited for simultaneous releases in this scenario. I understand that souces have their own likes and dislikes or biased nature but on the othet hand if we choose different sources than this bias is only going to increase and not decrease. Since diverse kinds of editors are going to have diverse opinions about movies and their own likes and dislikes or bias. So why to trust larger chunk of biased individuals (editors) than a limited chunk of biased individuals(critics). After all critics have their reputation at stake and are more competent at this job, so their views should be given preferences. Even if I support your idea and in fact I find that to be prevalent pratice for other movies but we should avoid being marketing tool in inital phase by remaining neutral. And I think best way to remain neutral is to have comparable sources. As far as appropriateness of forum is concerned I will raise it at other forums as time permits me. If you liked the idea you it's good, if not, than don't worry I liked yours!JPMEENA (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jpmeena: We have a general (though incomplete) list of sources that are typically considered appropriate for consideration. Reviews are typically based on some of these sources. Similarly in western film articles you're going to see reviews from a variety of typical sources like New York Times, Washington Post, etc. But to try to enforce a 1:1 mandate that if X, Y and Z sources appear in one article they must also appear at the other article is just not likely to get any support. It's unenforceable and it ties editors' hands. The concept of neutrality typically affects one article at a time. That is, we want our article on the Moon landing to be independently neutral, and we want our article on Moon landing conspiracy theories to be neutral, but we don't apply neutrality across both of those articles by insisting that the same sources or same subjects be covered in both. Obviously in the conspiracy theory article you're going to find more crackpot concepts and references than in the Moon landing article, and ultimately they're two different ideas even though they are related. You might consider going to WikiProject Film and posting a query there to see what people think about your proposal or how it relates to neutrality. There are some really nice people over there who could provide you with their opinions if you were to ask. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

POV flag

In this edit I flagged the Critical response section for POV concerns. Recent edits to the article like this one from Vickymehta03 have reorganized the section to deliver the positive reviews at the top and the negative reviews at the bottom. This doesn't seem the smartest way to present the section, as we shouldn't be burying criticism or giving undue weight to positive reviews by stuffing them at the top. A more equal distribution of positive and negative reviews would be better than what's there, and even better than that, focusing on certain aspects like cinematography, writing, direction, acting, and presenting a balanced perspective about how various reviewers felt about each thing would be the smart way to go. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

I was not aware of the guidelines that I cannot reorganize the reviews. I apologize for it. Can the critical responses be reorganized according to Wikipedia guidelines? If I need to do it then it would be helpful if you can guide me how to go ahead with it. I understand the policies of Wikipedia and I assure that it won't happen again. Vickymehta03 (talk) 12:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Vickymehta03: You can reorganize the reviews, but the problem is when you reorganize them in such a way that creates a imbalance in what should be a neturally worded article. If you look at the section above, there is a block of green text that represents a better (but often underused) format for presenting the content. It's difficult to write that way, so there's no pressure on you to do so, but at the very least mixing up the reviews so there's a better distribution of positive, negative and middle-of-the-road entries would be appreciated. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I have tried reorganizing some of the reviews. Vickymehta03 (talk) 06:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2017

Kaabil's budget is not 60 Crore rupees but rather 50 Crore rupees. Verified from url link: http://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/bollywood/kaabil-raees-hrithik-roshan-shah-rukh-khan-4458986/ and another url http://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/kaabil-box-office-collection-day-8-hrithik-roshan-4502773/

Another edit is regarding box office collection which is 150 Crores till Friday 3rd Feb 2017. Verified from url : http://www.firstpost.com/entertainment/bollywood/raees-vs-kaabil-box-office-collection-srk-film-at-245-cr-worldwide-hrithiks-at-150-cr-3264404.html Wikiwriter1985 (talk) 03:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Partly done: The budget appears to be 35 crore per the first source you provided. The second source seems to be lumping these two values together, the 35 crore production cost + 15 crore in marketing. We don't add print and advertising fees to budget anywhere in film articles. Budget is strictly the cost of the film to make.

As for the second part of your request, I've updated the article with the current Bollywood Hungama value, which appears to be 155-something. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

i want to say one thing. kaabil has grossed over 205+ crore at the box office. but why wiki is not changing it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aminizum (talk • contribs) 08:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2017

117.199.183.197 (talk) 10:23, 18 March 2017 (UTC)LET ME EDIT

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you. — IVORK _Discuss 12:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Box-office

The box-office collection of kaabil mentioned in the page is lower than the actual figure.I want to fix this. Acash9934 (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

@Acash9934: You can provide a reliable source for the actual figure and I can update it. Thanks. Vivek Ray (talk) 11:04, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2019

One of the critics reviews, Saibal Chaterjee, called the movie Kaabil a paisa vasool, which I read in the reviews section. It said it needed clarification as to what it meant. I am fluent in Hindi and paisa vasool translates to 'waste of money,' which I think is the clarification needed. Thank you for reading this and I'm sorry if I did not understand what clarification was needed. Person2638 (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd be glad to change what you think should be changed if you could type up some replacing text, as it's said in the template. Until then I can't really do anything. --AyyImHere (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done I've made the change. Thanks for the clarification, Person2638. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2019 (UTC)