Talk:Rocky

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article Rocky was one of the Media and drama good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
October 5, 2006 Good article nominee Listed
October 15, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
November 12, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
March 5, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Rocky:
  • Give the whole article a copyedit
  • Work on finding references for the Production section other than the video commentary
  • "A" class
  • In the future FAC

Fight Scenes!!![edit]

I just wanted to know if the stories I have been hearing are true. I have been told that apart from the points of the fights that were crucial to the storyline the rest of the fights were real and when it looked like they were being hit they actually were! I know that there were a few broken ribs etc but the fights were brutal, can they really have been real??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.162.231 (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Frank Rich quote[edit]

Why is there a 'sic' in the Frank Rich quote? There's nothing wrong with the spelling. grammar, punctuation, etc, which is why you'd normally use this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.164.239 (talk) 11:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Because when you are discussing a percentage it should be "100 percent". "100 per cent" relates to the monetary unit. Betty Logan (talk) 11:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

"The film received quite a share of negative reviews, as well"[edit]

...No it didn't. That's an unbalanced report backed up by the only two negative reviews whoever wrote that could find. Since at least one person seems bent on keeping it that way, how about the rest of us agree it needs to be changed and do so?130.49.146.53 (talk) 02:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem wasn't so much the changes you made to the negative review sections as the POV langauge you introduced to the positive review section. There is no basis for saying the film received "overwhelmingly positive" or even many positive reviews, since the reviews selected for the section aren't necessarily representative of the spread of the critical spectrum for the film. To quantify the film's critical reception you need a source that gives an overview of how the film was received. Betty Logan (talk) 03:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
First of all, to say it received "quite a share of negative reviews" seems a lot more like POV language, since the total number of negative reviews one could find after scouring the internet could probably be counted on one hand. In fact, Vincent Canby garnered some infamy for his negative review of the film. And there are sources readily available displaying the films reception. Rotten tomatoes, which takes all certified reviews available, has located 39 positive reviews against 3 negative ones, including a glowing four star review from Roger Ebert, the most respected critic of all. That on top of the many awards that it won leaves me at a loss for how "overwhelmingly positive" could be unwarranted.130.49.145.137 (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Totting up the number of reviews you can find on the net is original research. If you want to quantify the critical reception of the time then you need a source that discusses how the film was received. Most of the Rotten Tomatoes reviews are retrospective so they don't give an accurate overview of the reviews at the time. Betty Logan (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
"Totting up"? All the negative reviews ever written that Rotten Tomatoes could find are outnumbered by the positive reviews three to thirty nine, Roger Ebert's review was glowing, and the film was a big award winner. What about that is "totted up"?
And why do you need an estimation of how a film was recieved when you can examine the reception itself? (And where's the "source that discusses how the film was recieved" on the page as it is? All I see cited now are individual reviews.) Rotten tomatose takes all the reviews available, whenever they were written. It's a represention of the overall present day opinion of the film, which, yes, could have improved over time, but the critics' opinions are what they are. Going over reception no longer applicable is of limited importance in the first place, and so far, considering that all the negative reviews from any point in time that Rotten Tomatoes could find totals three, I see no proof that it was any different than it is now. I'm sorry if I phrase this in a way that "tots it up" but between the awards, especially the academy award for best picture, the highly positive reviews of critics such as Ebert, which were written when the film came out, and the distinct lack of negative reviews from any time period, it seems the reception for Rocky has always been as positive as it is now.130.49.131.209 (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
You can only examine some of the reception and there is no way of knowing if it is representative of the overall reception. If you disagree with my interpretation of the guidelines then it's best to ask for a third opinion at WT:FILM. Betty Logan (talk) 05:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
If that were true, wouldn't it mean that it's impossible to know what the reception of a film is? Wouldn't that make that "source discussing how the film was recieved" you wanted just a look at an insignificant portion of the reception as well? How is this true for Rotten Tomatoes, which collects every professional review available? And why, then, if you can never know the overall reception from examining it, was two negative reviews enough to say that "the film recieved quite a share of negative reviews as well"? This is a question of whether calling the film's reception especially positive is fair and so far, you've provided absolutely no evidence that the amount of negative reception was anything close to noteworthy. What does your interpretation of the guidelines have to do with that?130.49.192.155 (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
When Rotten Tomatoes does it, it's called a "reliable source", when Wikipedia editors do it's called "Original research", and the burden of proof is on editors who wish to add content. Betty Logan (talk) 11:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
We cannot use Rotten Tomatoes as an accurate gauge of critical reception when the film precedes the website's launch. (It is acceptable as a gauge when it can collect reviews as they are published, like with a film released today.) The essay WP:RTMC says, "Sources besides Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic should be sought out for films released before the 2000s; reports of critical consensus will likely exist in print sources. E.g., Alien, released in 1979, has a score of 97% on Rotten Tomatoes, but the critical reception at the time of release was mixed." I would recommend looking for publications about this film or possibly coverage about the sequel, which will usually talk about the preceding film. That way, we can cite proper sources to explain the film's reception at the time. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
This is a perfect source to use. Can we reference it to cover the reception? I reviewed the "Reviews" section more closely, and I think it should be rewritten. There is a negative slant (with extensive quoting of Rich's and Sarris's reviews) that needs to be corrected, based on the reception the source reports. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
That's probably as good a source as we will find. I notice the source itself sums up the critical reception as a "generally favorable critical response" so we could just fly with that. I have no problem with the reception section being re-written, one critic inparticular is given too much word space. We could do far worse than just modelling our section after the paragraph in the book. Betty Logan (talk) 13:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Rocky - Rocco[edit]

Am I the first to suggest Rocky's name is derived from the Visconti film "Rocco e i suoi fratelli"? It's just a suggestion, but if you agree on this, it might be mentioned in the wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.124.214.42 (talk) 00:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that says that, then it can be mentioned in this article. DonQuixote (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Rocky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Genre[edit]

An editor has started inserting "romance" as a genre. WP:FILMLEAD clearly advises that "At minimum, the opening sentence should identify the title of the film, the year of its public release, and the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified." Romance is clearly not the primary genre under which the film is classified. Here are a few examples:

The most prestigious of those sources (the AFI) does not mention "Romance" at all. All four sources mention some variation of "Sports drama" (with the AFI opting for "boxing". Many films have love interests and romantic subplots, but that does not make them "romance" films. FILMLEAD is quite clear that only the primary genre should be included. Also, WP:WEIGHT compels us to not give minority viewpoints undue weight, which adding "romance" as a genre undeniably does do when the majority of sources do not classify it as such. Betty Logan (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Please note that IMDb and AllMovie are not ubiquitously considered reliable sources (please see WP:CITEIMDB and Talk:AllMovie). Also note the phrase "the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified". If we are to consider the romantic genre as not being a primary genre, then clearly it would still be a sub-genre, and could therefore remain if that were the case. Also take notice that the esteemed Turner Classic Movies organisation (though not as prestigious as AFI) considers it to be a primarily romantic film. Furthermore, acclaimed film critic Roger Ebert lists "romance" as one of the film's genres in this review.
The film's plot heavily concerns the relationship between Rocky and Adrian, with both characters undergoing arcs because of it. Adrian warms up to Rocky over the course of the film, and the two share scenes of kissing, ice skating, and personal dialogue. The film even concludes with a triumphant embrace between the characters. Even if romance, by the end of this discussion, is determined to not be the film's primary genre, then its impact of romance on the story, along with sources that list it as a genre, would easily place it in the realm of a sub-genre. –Matthew - (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Your own analysis of the plot is irrelevant because it constitutes WP:Original research, and most sources—reliable or not—do not predominantly regard it as a "romance" film. All sources brought up here regard the genre as "Drama" and the sub-genre as "Sport" or "Boxing", ergo that is the primary genre. There is no dissent among sources over what the primary genre aand sub-genre is. TCM also lists "action" alongside "romance" but these are secondary genres as far as the weight of the sources go. Also, as an aside, at that discussion about Allmovie that is just a couple of editors sounding off about it; as someone points out it is considered reliable at WP:FILM. Betty Logan (talk) 19:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Please again consider that there are no rules against including a sub-genre in the lead. You have stated that "FILMLEAD is quite clear that only the primary genre should be included", yet this is completely false upon reviewing WP:FILMLEAD. Furthermore, while my plot analysis may be original research, each of those scenes are undoubtedly in the film, which one would likely recognise after having watched said film. –Matthew - (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Betty Logan ... would say that a genre of "drama" with a sub-genre of "sports" (or maybe "boxing") should more than adequately sum up the movie, including the Rocky-Adrian relationship. - Xenxax (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Matthewhoobin, since a big part of the film deals with romance. It should be kept as a subgenre in the heading. Should action be included too, since several sources point to action as a subgenre? --ColouredFrames (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with considering the film to be of the action genre, but still contend the sub-genre of romance. –Matthew - (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Sports drama is a good summation for the lead. Many dramas, comedies and musicals have romantic relationships as a key part of the story, but we don't usually call them romances unless that is the driving force, e.g. a romantic comedy. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Since the addition of a sub-genre hasn't proved too popular, I propose a compromise. I think that, if we cannot agree on referring to Rocky as a "romantic sports drama", then perhaps we could label it like the article for the 1976 film Taxi Driver. The lead sentence for Taxi Driver calls it a "vigilante film with neo-noir and psychological thriller elements". In that vein, we could call Rocky a "sports drama film with romantic elements". It's not my ideal description but I'd much prefer it to not mentioning romance at all. –Matthew - (talk) 11:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
There in't much support for your stance because you are wrong, and therefore a compromise is not required. Taxi Driver is labelled in such a way because there is dissent over its genre among sources. There is no such dissent here: there are no sources that do not describe it as a "Sports drama" or something along those lines. As Gothicfilm points out (and I point out above) many films have romantic sub-plots but that doesn't make them "romance" films. The Empire Strikes Back features a prominent love story; On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Casino Royale both feature James Bond falling in love; Indiana Jones gets married in the last film. That doesn't make them "romance" films. Rocky is a Sports drama: the film is primarily about Rocky's title challenge. The sources are unanimous in highlighling these two genres, so the sources have made the decision for us. All of them include "Drama" and "Sport/Boxing" but those that mention "romance" and "action" are in the minority. Betty Logan (talk) 17:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you insisting that "romance" is not frequently considered even a sub-genre for the film?

I am currently scanning official material from the Rocky VHS release to further my argument. –Matthew - (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is an image I scanned of the official Rocky VHS tape, released in a box set by MGM in 1995. Note its statement that the "love [which] blossoms" between Rocky and Adrian gives "Rocky even more strength and purpose to 'go the distance' against his brutal adversary". That notion seems to fulfill the "driving force" quota devised by Gothicfilm. Linked here is an image I scanned of a companion booklet from the box set, entited 20 Years with Rocky - The Real Story of An American Hero. It refers to the film's romantic elements as equal to that of its drama and boxing. "Romance" is clearly a sub-genre, which is perfectly acceptable under WP:FILMLEAD, whether you decide to misquote the guideline or not. –Matthew - (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Genre is how something is categorized, not how something is described. On her Majesty's Seceret Service can be described as a love story too but that does not necessarily mean that its primary genre is romance. If you look at any catalog or database (IMDB/American Film Institute/TCM/Allmovie/Rotten Tomatoes/Box Office Mojo) they all categorize it as Drama & Sports/Boxing, and only TCM include the romance genre. The overwhelming majority of sources do not consider it a "romance" film whereas there is unanimous consensus that it is a drama, with many of them placing it in the "sports drama" sub-genre. We've had a discussion now and three of the five editors who have commented here oppose the addition of "romance" as a genre, so as it stands there is WP:NOCONSENSUS to add it. Betty Logan (talk) 00:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Alas, another grounded yet futile Wikipedia argument. But consensus is consensus. Though, you should at least try to read the manual of style guidelines for film-related articles next round. –Matthew - (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I am very familiar with the guidelines thankyou very much, and have even contributed to writing some of them. I've seen you around on several of the pages I edit, Matthew, and you are a very good editor on the whole but obviously we have very different interpretations of the guidelines in this instance. Betty Logan (talk) 02:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I apologise; that was a pretty snide comment for me to make. You did write that "FILMLEAD is quite clear that only the primary genre should be included", and that irked me because that certainly isn't the case. I think that my behaviour has been a bit rude here and there, and I'm sorry. I'm very passionate about films and editing articles about them, and I sincerely believe that Rocky is in the romance genre. Nonetheless, I see now that you're a senior editor, and consensus is still consensus, so I forfeit. –Matthew - (talk) 02:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Just a comment, but it's about verifying rather than believing. So if you can verify that it's in the romance genre, then you'll convince more people that it is. DonQuixote (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I sure tried, what with TCM and Roger Ebert and all that. I mean, I physically stuck an old VHS tape in a printer's scanner just to try to win an Internet squabble. But I suppose I understand what you mean. –Matthew - (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rocky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:31, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rocky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:00, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rocky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Cast[edit]

There seems to be an editor who feels the need to make the cast section different in this article from literally thousands of other film articles on Wikipedia that have a cast section with a bullet list of the cast. Any help to resolve this edit war would be greatly appreciated. Jdavi333 (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Which articles do you think it should look like? What is wrong with the layout at the featured article Fight Club or the featured article Jaws (film) which have both undergone an extensive peer review and been judged to be among the highest quality articles on Wikipedia? There is no policy or guideline stating that film articles must all have exactly the same structure. WP:FILMCAST makes this clear:

The structure of the article may also influence form. A basic cast list in a "Cast" section is appropriate for the majority of Stub-class articles. When the article is in an advanced stage of development, information about the cast can be presented in other ways. A "Cast" section may be maintained but with more detailed bulleted entries, ensuring that these lists adhere to accessibility standards; or a table or infobox grouping actors and their roles may be placed in the plot summary or in the "Casting" subsection of a "Production" section. Use tables with care due to their complexity; they are most appropriate for developed, stable articles.

The "casting" of the film is an integral part of the production phase so structurally it fits better in the production section. As for where the "cast" list should go there are several options available, and integrating it into the "casting" section is a perfectly acceptable option. It seems to me your reason for restructuring this article is motivated by what you have seen at other articles rather than what best suits the style of this article. Some articles do have separate cast sections but this is usually necessitated by a huge cast list or a lot of of cast information, and it is perfectly acceptable in those cases. That isn't the case with this article though which has a small cast list and can easily easily be integrated into the existing "casting" section. IMO the integrated cast box looks aesthetically superior to what is essentially a "bare" list just dumped into the article. Betty Logan (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
How about every other movie in the Rocky franchise? Just to list a few from hundreds. Almost every single film article in Wikipedia (except for the few you have mentioned). While it may be true that the MOS has alternate methods of listing the cast, I cannot imagine I am alone in thinking that the method used by a VAST majority (well over 90%) of articles should be the one to stick with. Jdavi333 (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
The other Rocky articles are not as developed as this article (making a bare cast list more permissable) although I would argue that Rocky Balboa (film) would be enhanced by the approach taken at this article. But again, your argument is motivated by what is done at other articles not by what is in the interests of this one. I believe that this layout is superior: the cast list is more cleanly integrated into the article (the bare list has a load of whitespace at the side which looks ugly) and the placement of the casting section in the production section is more intutive. Taken on its own terms (i.e. not by what is done at some other articles) why do you think the bare list version is better? Betty Logan (talk) 00:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
The "bare list" format lets you put notes about the characters and such, but if you're not going to do that, maybe it would be more economical to embed it in the casting section. I mean, either way seems fine to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that's basically the approach taken at Alien_(film)#Cast which I consider a really good layout, although I wouldn't call that a "bare list" approach. It actually takes a "full list" approach with sourced real-world information. There is hardly any excess whitespace at all; the key difference is that it looks structured and integrated. Betty Logan (talk) 02:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
But isn't it a little foolish to have different formats throughout Wikipedia? Regardless of what it says in the MOS, I think it prudent to at least put it up for a discussion if it is worth while to adopt a universal format accrue the entire Wikipedia community. Jdavi333 (talk) 03:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, if you wanted to do that, you could suggest it at WP:VPPRO, but I can tell you now that it won't go over well. I think a bit of consistency is a good thing, but we shouldn't be forced to do things one way just because many other articles do it that way. If someone worked to expand the cast list with more sourced information, like Alien, maybe that'd be an acceptable compromise. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)