Talk:Old Dogs (film)

Quality of article

Did the person who wrote this article have no more than a Grade 6 education? I do not mean that with disrespect; I am genuinely curious. The article is very poorly constructed, especially the actual recap of the movie story line. Please have someone rewrite it with proper sentence construction and logical flow of information. Jeepers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.89.185.171 (talk) 05:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The Plot section was written by Special:Contributions/99.147.204.236. Cirt (talk) 05:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

And then a modified version by Special:Contributions/68.94.27.14. Cirt (talk) 05:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Too many reviews and they're biased

I agree that there are too many reviews. The movie received largely negative reviews; however, a few examples would suffice rather than a gigantic section dedicated to making fun of the movie more than providing real context regarding its critical reception. talk 10:58, 08 March 2010 (UTC)

I just to recommend that I think they are too many reviews. Can we try to trim them down to at least 10?. One thing I want to add is that the whole reception section of the page is completely negative reception towards the film making the whole section "BIAS". But's there one exception I read which was Carrie Rickey for The Philadelphia Inquirer who gave the film a mixed response. So can we try to find some positive reviews or something? Well, I would love to hear from you! (talk 04:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see Old Dogs at Rotten Tomatoes. With a rating of 7%, that is pretty much negative. Cirt (talk) 06:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I added back Pete Hammond, but Rickey was already included. Cirt (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note that Rotten Tomatoes is not a good source. Please check the rating from the community, it is 73%. Rotten Tomatoes is EXTREMELY biased it would seem. Also, this article is not a neutral point of view, it feels more like a review. Shicoco (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes is accepted on film articles to show aggregated critics' reviews. "Community" votes are not an WP:RS source. In this instance, Rotten Tomatoes is most certainly not "biased". Cirt (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing bias in the reception section. If the reviews are negative, they are negative. Neutrality does not mean we ignore the negative reception and somehow pretend it is less so. Rotten Tomatoes aggregate numbers for the critics numbers. Nor are they biased. Sorry if you liked the film, but it seems pretty clear that critics do not. If you have some positive reliable critical reviews to demonstrate some liked it, feel free to list, but otherwise your tagging is inappropriate/ The article is not biased, it is neutral, and there are not "too many reviews". Film articles are not limited to X reviews, but try to cover as many RS critical reviews as feasible. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that this film was panned by critics, I find it awkard that comments from critics are found in the intro section of the article. Also, too many reviews for this unnotable film when compared to others. There are so many films that have no reception section that are much more notable than this film.

Going back to the biased thing, I partly agree with shicoco. I know this topic has already been discussed before, but professional critics don't reflect the reception by average movie goers. Maybe the "reception" section should be changed to "reception by professionals" or something similar. Just my opinion though. Ricardoread (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the lede of the article should function as a summary of the entire article itself. And Wikipedia articles use independent reliable secondary sources, and not "average movie goers", as sources. Cirt (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I can see no good reason to tag this article as not neutral. I'm sorry the film stinks. I'm sorry because it's Bernie Mac's last film. I'm sorry because Travolta should have had a hit due to him. And it's regrettable that Travolta already has the worst picture of all time on his resume, and now may have the second worst. But it is not biased or non-neutral to report what critics have said about it. And it isn't professional to report what the average movie goer might think. The box office reflects that, and the box office ain't that great [1]. Even 40% of the Box Office Mojo members rate it at an F. Sometimes writing about a film that is considered bad may look negative, but it isn't the editors biasing it. That honor belongs to the film. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It is possible that over at Rotten Tomatoes there is some socking/spamming going on to drive up ratings at "RT Community". Cirt (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Which just goes to show why the community reviews are not used :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. :P Cirt (talk) 01:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Like mentioned above, we do need to ensure that articles include reliable, cited information, even if there is negative reactions to the subject. Striking a neutral balance can be difficult, but it appears that this article has provided an accurate representation from multiple critical ratings. Although I consider the article to be neutral, if others want to drive the focus away from the negative reviews, then I'd suggest looking to expand the article. Adding sections such as production, soundtrack, marketing, etc. can be helpful in both balancing out the article (readers get a better view of the film's various elements besides just its reaction) while also improving it at the same time. Of course, we can't sugar coat the article, some film plots are beyond saving. However, we can provide a better resource for readers who have watched the film, want to learn about it, or are considering watching it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Good points. :) Cirt (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to get too much into discussion with this film, but how many films starts with too many comments in the intro. I agree this film was a critical failure, but the article shoud start with "this film was critically panned" or something like that. I mean how many films start with critics comments in the lead section? Ricardoread (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It is fine to quote a few choice comments, in summarizing reception. Cirt (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree there are far too many reviews quoted in the critical reception section, and I think it should be trimmed. Hammering away at the fact the film stinks seems like overkill to me, especially when you start quoting critics who aren't usually cited in Wikipedia film articles. And would someone please trim the synopsis, too? LargoLarry (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Agree with above comment re amount of reviews, as stated by AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

You're entitled to disagree, and so am I. I count 21 reviews quoted here, including some from sources like The Arizona Republic, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, The Salt Lake Tribune, and MSN Movies. (Where's the Podunk Press, Jonesville Journal, and Dogpatch Daily?) Between the quotes in the lead and the bloated critical reception section, this article isn't much more than a compilation of reviews. LargoLarry (talk) 18:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel that way. Perhaps you would like to do some research and expand other sections of the article, per above recommendation by Nehrams2020. Cirt (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't see this film, let alone waste my time researching and writing about it! :) LargoLarry (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah okay. Cirt (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Bernie Mac's character gay?

I doubt the assertion that Jimmy Lunchbox is gay in the article. I saw the film myself, and I heard nor discerned any homosexual behaviors from Mac's performance. Yes, his clothing and profession are eccentric, but labeling a person's sexuality based on his appearance is narrow-minded and unconsiderate. 173.26.19.206 (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed. Cirt (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Cameo

Residente, vocalist of Calle 13, has a very small cameo in the tattoo parlor scene. But it's so small, I don't even think they recognized him in the credits. Anyway, should it be put in the cast, or anywhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xwexarexbulletsx (talk • contribs) 04:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Terminology

At the camp, the kids say "He's my dad, and that's his partner. It's like we have two dads." In the plot section, it says the counsellor thinks "Dan and Charlie are homosexual partners". Though true, this sort of clinical description is outdated, and bordering on offensive. For purposes of the plot description, I don't believe it's important to include the precise play on words to explain the confusion, so "a couple" or "together" would be more appropriate. But if it is determined to be important to know that the word "partner" caused the confusion, then the appropriate term is "life partners". 24.57.239.43 (talk) 07:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Three years of valued protection???

Why on earth is a crap film like this required to be indefinitely protected? You hoping it will be selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant"? Too many knee jerk admins on here IMO!!86.161.148.90 (talk) 11:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2020

181.230.209.229 (talk) 00:13, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• Robin Williams as Daniel "Dan" Rayburn
• John Travolta as Charlie Reed

I don't see a reason to switch the order. – Thjarkur (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)