Talk:R.I.P.D.

Russian movie

Where is the source for that? except Peter lenkov, no one in this movie is Russian... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.65.67 (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Genre

There are no source for the genre. Per WP:OR and WP:RS, please do not add uncited material. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, removing a row of three genres in a row isn't me "not linking it", it's not good writing. Find me a professional writers or film journalists who would write like that. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

"Andrzejbanas, you need to take your head out of your...". I remind you of WP:CIVIL. Don't use the official site as a source for something as genre. That site is just trying to promote the film, and we need valid third party sources per WP:RS. I wouldn't use Rotten Tomatoes for anything outside reviews as we don't know how the information is gathered, nor who wrote it. My source has an author and is used by sources such as the New York Times so it's stronger. As mentioned in User:MisterShiney 's edit, don't use IMDb as a source per WP:RS/IMDB. Don't tell me either that it's obvious from a trailer what kind of movie it is. Trailers are made to just to attract a wide audience and we need high quality sources on Wikipedia, not opinion. I'd also be against using Box Office Mojo as it's a site that doesn't offer commentary on a film, it just offers box office numbers. I'd still honestly wait until a genre is set in stone before adding anything, but I'd stick with allmovie before the others. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

First off, you were the person who asked for a source. Who are we (and other so called "Independent" third party sources) to dictate what the owners of the film have so clearly laid out in their material? Promotional or not. It's their production and they have the final say on what genre it is. Besides, other sources are only going to quote them anyway and use them as a reference. Secondly, you are totally misinterpreting polices. The Third Party "policy" you cited is in fact an essay and as such contains "advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors". It's not Policy.

Your so called "reliable" source is to a source no one has every heard of and quite frankly the genre you provided is completely different to the one listed on the site and with so many conflicting sources saying different things, the official source reigns. And Original Research is basically for providing commentary/releasing research findings and not for providing basic overview facts that are certified by official sources.

As for the plot summary, it is not a copyvio. As per WP:C-P "It is acceptable to copy and paste text from public domain sources or those that are explicitly licensed under a compatible licensing scheme. (In case of the latter, attribution of the original author may be required.)" The summary is in the public domain, on an official website, that as you have said is being used for promotional purposes and therefore they are providing a licence for it to be used in the public domain, it has been properly referenced and it is standard practice on film articles. Although, to cover one's back, it should be rewritten. But the reasons you provide for removing it are null. If you are concerned, then rewrite it. I for one will be at some point in the future so that it doesnt sound like a promo/advert. But if you want to before hand go for it. Listing a group of genre's in a sentence is perfectly fine as long as they are in the right order so that it flows naturally and makes sense. As an English Teacher, I don't see a problem. -- MisterShiney ✉ 22:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

"their production and they have the final say on what genre it is.". I don't think that is apt as any person can state whether or not they belong to a genre. In the book Horror Films of the 1990s by John Kenneth Muir for example, several directors denied their films were horror films. The third-party policy is part of WP:RS, allow me to show you: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.". So it is policy. As for "to a source no one has every heard of", the sites in the Rovi Corporation are used all over Wikipedia including several Good Articles and Featured articles. For the "promotional purposes and therefore they are providing a licence for it to be used in the public domain", that's kind of interesting because just because it's used for promotional purposes doesn't make it free. For example, we use posters on wikipedia, but they are still copy written. Look at the poster uploaded to this article for example. It should be re-written as it currently sounds like an advertisement. Listing a group of genres is a mouthful, and when genres are disputed, it's generally better to have nothing when we can't come to a source. See films like Fight Club for example. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First of all, it should be stated that genre classification is arbitrary. There is no "right" answer. Andrzejbanas references Allmovie to call it a comedy film. MisterShiney references the official site, Rotten Tomatoes, and Box Office Mojo. Andrzejbanas, while the database genre is comedy, the synopsis says "fantasy crime film". Now, I am somewhat wary of using database's genre labels; they can either be too restrictive or overly encompassing. I do not think we want to be overly encompassing (as in having a string of genres in the lead section). What I would recommend looking at are reliable sources that talk about the film in prose. For example, this mentions the buddy cop film genre. How do similar such articles try to describe the film? Lastly, if all else fails, we can simplify have a lead sentence that defines the strange premise of the film upfront. We can use the rest of the paragraph to more fully characterize the nature of the film. Let's offer up some possible lead sentences that could be used and find a working compromise amidst the options. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd be cool with that Erik, but my only problem with terms like "buddy cop" is that they don't really tell anything about the genre of a film that a brief plot synopses doesn't do already. I'd rather people know if it's supposed to be a funny story (it's a comedy about two cops) or if it's some exciting film (some action or thriller film with cops) or a horrorfici film (horror and cops...well, probably some films like this!). Anything that tells more about what the film is about that prose can't. What are your opinions on applying genre before a film is released0? (As per my WP:FILM talk page request). I just don't like going with material that's based off assumptions or advertising. I'm sure it's more appropriate to have critical views rather than advertising blurbs in citations. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Andrzejbanas, your source also mentions fantasy and crime as a genre (both of which you omitted), but its author fails to recognize the sci-fi, supernatural and action elements that Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic (among others) do, which renders that Allmovie entry as a single source insufficient and misleading. Just because it has some author's name on it, it doesn't become the most correct of those listed.

Furthermore, Box Office Mojo doesn't "just offer box office numbers" for each film, but other info too, including genres (you evidently haven't taken a look).

I only used the official site for genre reference, not for ostensible details like anticipation, critical reception and prospective success. You're declaration that official sites and trailers are always and solely used for promotional purposes (= to woo and mislead audiences?) and therefore they contain no reliable information, and the implication that the more and broader genres a publisher lists the more viewers the film would attract, is absurd.

In the end, you should actually watch the trailer (not just blindly follow one entry on one site) and ask yourself: does only comedy look right? Or supernatural action-comedy makes more sense? Or buddy cop action-comedy, or someting else. After all, sources too have to be based on common sense, and have to be assessed, not just followed uncritically. Allmovie is not infallible either.

BTW, the official site, Rotten Tomatoes, and Box Office Mojo were originally cited by me; otherwise i agree with Erik.

The sources offer a multitude of genres to describe each film; we could list all of them in a string to stay true to all reliable third-party sites and in effect make the lead sections bloated, or select the most descriptive genres, based on common sense and actual knowledge of the subject matter (as i was trying to do), you can't just pick one source as the ultimate. Genre can be applied before release, as there are already plenty of good sources available, so nobody's making assumptions out of thin air, and it's unlikely a movie would turn out to be a completely different genre when released. it's better to have a genre than none, especially before release.

— DanteLectro 02:06, May 10, 2013 (UTC)

I'll be honest Dante, I didn't read the allmovie cite, I just leapt to the sidebar. I don't think we should judge by a trailer as several trailers often have scenes which are not included in a film. There are several trailers which give people the wrong interpretation of what a film is about, (some examples), ([http://www.themoviegourmet.com/?page_id=4867 more here), here's more). Two big ones would be Sweeney Todd which many trailers failed to mention was a musical(!) (I remember people leaving the theater as soon as the singing started ;)) and Pan's Labyrinth in which the trailer shows it's as a family-oriented affair (again, not at all!). The thing is, I think if we are going to use a source we can't just pick and choose. Rotten Tomatoes lists many genres, so why are we picking a couple, and on what basis? One site says action and adventure but has no section for supernatural. In fact, they say action/adventure, are they interchangable? Not really. I'll happily remove my allmovie one that contradicts itself currently but I'd like for more information about the film to come available and more reliable sources to be shown before we place genres on films. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree or agree with you completely. I searched Youtube for "Sweeney Todd trailer" and the very first hit (with more than 4 million views, by far the most viewed among the results) had singing in it. I also searched for a Pan's Labyrinth trailer, the very first again (with more than 3 million views, by far the most viewed among the results), was rated R, and the film is rated R too, and it can be safely established that it's fantasy. Of course, i could look further on more sites, like those mentioned and official sites, but in my experience official trailers are often available on Youtube, so i'd have similar results.

I really liked the articles about the potentionally misleading trailers you gave links to, but i haven't fully read and watched them yet.

When picking genres, i'd scour the reliable sites, watch the trailer(s), and pick the genres that appear most often and make the most sense. RottenTomatoes lists "Action & Adventure, Comedy" for this film, that's 3, not too many. When you see "action/adventure" or "action & adventure" or other genres grouped like that on such sites, those are database tags, so it's not both. "Adventure" doesn't appear on Metacritic or the official site, and it only appears grouped with action, on Box Office Mojo (much like on RottenTomatoes), so i think it's safe to rule out adventure. You can always refine the genre later when more sources become available, but something like "supernatural action-comedy" can't be far from the truth. BTW, i too had the gut reaction that this is so Man In Black (similarly to that expressed in the Criticism section).

In a number of other movie articles on Wikipedia (for released movies), i didn't find reference for the genre at all.

— DanteLectro 03:58, May 10, 2013 (UTC)

A personal interpretation of a trailer is not a justification for genre. Trailers are designed to market a film and can and often are not truly representative of the film, making things look heavy action when they are not. The Ender's Game trailer makes it look like an action film but Ender's game is not an action story. Wikipedia is not a news site and there is no rush to do anything except do it right. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 07:10, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

An interpretation no, absolutely not. That is OR. But the official website isn't allowed? How on EARTH! Does that work? -- MisterShiney ✉ 14:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Darkwarriorblake, critics' reviews are exactly personal interpretations too, regardless of who wrote them and where they're published, they shouldn't be allowed here either, no? And with exactly what method do Wikipedia editors cherry-pick quotes from some reviews?

"Trailers are designed to market a film and can and often are not truly representative of the film, making things look heavy action when they are not." — please quote me some academic books that say that, otherwise that's just your own original research and biased personal view. On that basis maybe we should disregard official release dates too, and everything official. Where do you think all the reliable third-party sources get a large part of their info? Official sources. Or would it be better if they relied on unofficial rumors, or just made stuff up? So you're going to be the one(s) who decide(s) what goes and what doesn't from official sources? How does that work?

And you might have read the Ender's Game novel, but as the film (and its adaptation) hasn't been released yet, you don't get to pass judgement on what kind of story that is, you're just speculating, and Wikipedia isn't a tabloid site either.

The genre was quoted from the official site, supported by third-party sources, and not based on the trailer.

DanteLectro (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The critics views are independent third-party sources, not people trying to market a film. I can find several sources showing studios showcasing a trailer or advertising on how they market a film. This book notes that the film Forbidden Planet d emphasized the science fiction nature of the film (source). This book on page 164 notes how audiences complain that a trailer shows "audience complain often lie by giving an overdramtized, over spectacularized, oversexed version that doesn't seem reflective of the movie". I also provided several links above with recent articles on several misleading movie trailers. The supported sources you mention are just copy+paste promo material from the website and not an actual "third person opinion", but rather repeated advertising in a new context. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to add this information as well. Roger Ebert made a good attack on trailers in this article he wrote: "Trailers. Have nothing to do with [their film]. Gene Siskel hated them so much he would stand outside a theater until they were over. If he was already seated in the middle of a crowded theater, he would shout "fire!" plug his ears and stare at the floor. Trailers love to spoil all the best gags in a comedy, hint at plot twists in a thriller, and make every film, however dire, look upbeat"

A trailer is not a movie...You must actually wait to see the film itself. [Footnote: This rule also applies to television, where as a movie critic you must never show a film's entire trailer for free. As Shakespeare writes in the saddest line in all of his plays: Never! Never! Never! Never! Never! At least that's an easy line to memorize." Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Ebert: "Trailers love to spoil all the best gags in a comedy, hint at plot twists in a thriller, and make every film, however dire, look upbeat" — You still don't understand my point. We're not talking about if the movie's going to be fun, or upbeat, or exciting, or worth going to see, or any good at all. This argument is not about promotion or attracting or dissuading. Never was. It's about genre, and if genre can be determined prior to a movie's release based on available prerelease information. I think it very well can be. And I hardly think in the final released film they'd throw away all the supernatural, sci-fi, action and comedy elements (and whatnot), and in the end the film would be a black-and-white Cantonese melodrama about farmers portrayed by unknown amateur actors. Do released movies fail to meet our expectations for fun and excitement that were based on prerelease info? Yes, they do sometimes. Do released movies make capricious and extreme genre changes compared to what's in trailers? Hardly. What would be the point of promising a sci-fi movie with laser guns and delivering a medieval knight movie with none of the aforementioned elements? That'd be business suicide.

Andrzejbanas: "This book notes that the film Forbidden Planet d emphasized the science fiction nature of the film (source)." [sic] — And what is Forbidden Planet? Isn't it science-fiction? Yes, it is science-fiction. ! Thank you for your support.

From that other book (from which we only get to see borderline insufficient snippets), i could gather that trailers promote the film's genre rather than falsify it; one example from page 109: "The party shot also echoes Gone With The Wind iconography, and the narration states the trailer's genre rhetoric clearly: this film is a Western, yet not just a Western, but an epic spectacle and a love story (an adventurous one) [...]".

Also you're mistakenly and misleadingly refer to all my mentioned sources as "repeated advertising" — Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and Box Office Mojo are hardly that.

Lastly, here are some prerelease movies that have genres sans reference on Wikipedia:

Ender's_Game_(film), The_World's_End, Star Trek Into Darkness, The_English_Teacher_(film), The_East_(film), The_Internship, Now_You_See_Me_(film), This_Is_the_End, The_Bling_Ring, Man_of_Steel_(film), The_Way,_Way_Back, Only_God_Forgives, RED_2, RoboCop_(2014_film), Kick-Ass_2_(film), Sin_City:_A_Dame_to_Kill_For, Carrie_(2013_film), Thor:_The_Dark_World, The_Counselor, Area_51_(film), The_Hunger_Games:_Catching_Fire, Transcendence_(film), Jurassic_Park_4, Mad_Max:_Fury_Road.

There's an alarming pattern here, and it seems to be the habit of Wikipedia editors. Some of these articles don't have any kind of reference in their lead sections, and yet there's no banner warning of not meeting the guidelines. And don't tell me there is supposedly a reference for genre buried somewhere in the last third of the article. Relevant citations are to be appended to the appropriate sentences.

After_Earth has a blog(!) as reference. The_Kings_of_Summer's article is about to be deleted. World_War_Z_(film)'s reference talks about the book's genre. The_Lone_Ranger_(2013_film)'s sources refer to the trailer for genre, the rest of the genre (action) is just made up by Wikipedia editors. Pacific_Rim_(film)'s article cites the director (first-party! only tries to promote! biased!), him saying the film will be "a beautiful poem to giant monsters". Elysium_(film)'s reference doesn't mention half of the genre (drama). The_Hobbit_(film_series)'s first sentence talks about the genre of all three films (of course, without reference), even though only one film has been released. 47_Ronin_(2013_film)'s reference supports only a third(!) of the genre, the rest is again made up.

Machete_Kills has properly referenced genre. That's 1 out of 34.

These are literally all the upcoming films with a release date i have on my radar. So how were all those genres determined? And what have you guys been doing about them all this time?

DanteLectro (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we need to be clear about some policies and guidelines as they apply here. First of all, per WP:SECONDARY, Wikipedia articles should be based on secondary sources that are reliable. Secondly, per WP:BURDEN, we need to use inline citations for content that is likely to be challenged. In addition, WP:CITELEAD says that inline citations are not necessary every time, just when WP:BURDEN applies. (To cite an example, intelligent design's lead section is thoroughly cited.) While genre classification is subjective, most films are fairly easily classified. One example you highlight, Transcendence (film), is an article I expanded recently, and I described it as a "science fiction thriller film" because I saw that pop up frequently in my research. I did not see it described in other ways, except maybe as just "science fiction film". Anyway, in this case, since WP:BURDEN applies, we should also apply WP:SECONDARY to describe the film best we can, using inline citations. There is probably not going to be one right answer—there may be several right answers—so we should determine through local consensus what descriptions make the most sense per WP:ASTONISH. It does not all have to be packed in the lead sentence either. We can use the first lead paragraph to characterize the film fully. EDIT: Lastly, let's keep our responses to each other a reasonable length. It is hard to have dialogue when comments are too long. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Dante, just because other articles don't have citations, doesn't make it okay. These are also released films that can easily be backed up. Those other citations you mention I don't consider strong for my reasons stated above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about the Forbidden Planet thing, I should've said it DE-emphasized that it was science fiction in the trailer. I was typing at work, my bad! Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

In response to Andrzejbanas 01:22: You misunderstood, again. None of those 34 films are released. I deliberately looked for prereleases only, and I was highlighting them because even though they don't strictly adhere to the guidelines - and those that have citations are inadequate as well (except 2) - 32 out of 34 got and still has a genre without anyone objecting. How and why did that happen? I haven't said they're okay, i'm saying they're not OK. And that's why it's perplexing it happened, seeing how there is such an intense intrest in this film's genre. It's prerelease just like the others. How come some of you are nitpicking here but not correct the other 32? I can't imagine you haven't seen those articles before, considering how soon you jumped on this one.

In response to Erik at 20:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC): I've already made my suggestions for genre, so has MisterShiney. I'd like to invite you to make yours.

DanteLectro (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Those other articles shouldn't be like that either. I just happened to come across this one and this is the only place where people have been so against removing material like this. As the argument boils down, I have found articles stating that trailers are unreliable, shown you scholarly studies that state that audiences find them unreliable and shown a very strong example (Forbidden Planet) where the trailer downplayed the science fiction plot of the film. I've also explained why those other sites I don't think we should consider strongly as genre studies. I don't even necesiarily disagree with you on your genre choices, I just want them to be properly sourced and make sense. If the film isn't even out yet, this information changes as we get closer to release date. There is barely information in this article currently (not even an original plot summary) so I do not think we should apply genres based on something like advertising. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to first get that reference right with an actual quote, without bending it: "the big budget grandeur of the Forbidden Planet trailer masks a concurrent decline in the science fiction genre's fortunes, with other sales messages moving away from its generic [...]". (page 105)

But that book also says on the same page: "The Forbidden Planet trailer is best understood as a conflict between nascent science fiction trailer conventions, the display of technological spectacle, and the creation of a breader sales message.".

BTW, have you actually seen the trailer? Right from the start, the music, language used, and visuals scream nothing but sci-fi. The romance subplot is only vaguely hinted at, for 17 seconds of the 223 second long trailer. Near the end of the trailer the film is described as adventure.

The Forbidden Planet argument is equivocal, and therefore simply doens't work in this context, let's just leave it.

I've found these sources that talk about the genre, these sites host top critic reviews featured on Rotten Tomatoes (except the last two):

"also a buddy cop movie" — Rob Lowman - Denver Post

"action-fantasy-comedy" — Jason Anderson - Toronto Star

"fantasy-comedy" — Clark Collis - Entertainment Weekly

"supernatural", "supernatural thriller" — Justin Kroll - Variety, 2

"supernatural action comedy " — Borys Kit - The Hollywood Reporter, 2

"supernatural comedy" — Emanuel Levy - Cinema 24/7

"action comedy" — Jeffrey M. Anderson - Common Sense Media he has also written for the San Francisco Examiner.

"fantasy crime" — Jeremy Wheeler - Allmovie by Rovi first referenced by Andrzejbanas.

So can we arrive at a consensus now? (I still vote for supernatural action-comedy)

DanteLectro (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a great list! I would say we should use "supernatural" and choose it over "fantasy" per WP:ASTONISH. I think "fantasy" is easily mixed up with genuine fantasy films. As for the second part, I'm wondering if "buddy cop" is a possibility. To me, it evokes a combination of action and comedy and also indicates the pairing of opposites. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh BTW, they also talk about the plot too.

DanteLectro (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I am up for Supernatural as that is a more accurate description and in line with what the official website says. -- MisterShiney ✉ 22:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

You have to remember that there are several trailers for films and the Forbidden Planet trailer you are referring to may not be the one they are talking about. Also, I don't have to watch any trailer (I generally avoid them) to let me decide what a film is about until I see it. I also don't let some marketing executives wording suggest any critical thinking towards genre. Honestly, with the genre descriptions from people who haven't seen a film I don't think any of them are any good. In fact, no one seems to agree. is it action? or just a fantasy comedy? or is it supernatural? or is it a crime film? or just an action comedy? Who'dve thunk it that several people who haven't seen a film can't agree on a genre. I would only base a genre opinion if it seems to match a plot element of the story. Which from what I've read only really showcases the supernatural. How much humor is there in the film? is the supernatural element humorous? is the action for laughs or is tough and serious? How much action in the film is there? Who could say? That's right: no one. Because the film isnt' out yet.Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems like we can all at least agree on "supernatural". Should we just stick to that for now? I'm not quite sure if the film coming out will suddenly make the genre classifications clear. We'll certainly have more sources to get a better sense of what most of them gravitate toward. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:42, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done Glad that is over with. -- MisterShiney ✉ 20:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Andrzejbanas, I have the feeling that even post-release, no amount and quality of sources would satisfy your obtuse, bureaucratic and opinionated thinking.

I agree with Erik, again: genre is always -before and after release- somewhat subjective and equivocal, among critics and audiences alike, but there is and will be an opinion that journalists and critics tend to -and can only- gravitate toward; they'll never all sit down and agree 100%. Whether or not they've seen the movie as of now, they didn't say; but have you heard of the things called screening and press embargo? Reliable third-party sources have been presented, the requirements have been fulfilled.

DanteLectro (talk) 21:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Dante, I mainly argued this as before we have a very sweeping genre call which felt very peacock-y to me. And yes, genre will always be mean something else to various critics, that's why I feel we should keep it minimal and not extravagant. Personally, supernatural is still a bit pointless because the next sentence's plot summary already suggests it's a supernatural film. But I don't think it's a real huge deal at the moment and I'm content with our compromise. We can sort it out as more news for the film develops. Thanks for taking this to the talk page instead of mass edit wars! Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a note as this film has come and gone, it seems that no one has tried to applying "action" to the lead as a genre. Please consider this when applying objective things to genre, even if you've seen a trailer. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)