Jump to content

Talk:Transcendence (2014 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Heymen,when the scheiss running @ pro7sat1etc...)))xD31137call




Plot And Ending

[edit]

Towards the End of the Plot,it is written "Will and Evelyn's consciousnesses are still alive within the active nano-particles",however it has been mentioned,it is left for the viewers to speculate.I find it difficult to come to terms to,Because the only reason the nanobots survived in the garden because they were protected by the Faraday's Cage.It can be assumed that they reached the garden through the rain,which happened earlier in the film.At that instance,the only contains of the nanobots had to be the consciousness of Will himself.However As soon as Evelyn's consciousness was uploaded,the virus also spread,and destroyed all nanobots that were plugged In.Because the nanobots in the garden weren't exposed to the signals that contained the virus,they survived.However it also means that they never received Evelyn's consciousness.Since,all the nanobots and the system itself died,so the version of the AI that contains both Will's and Evelyn's consciousness died,for lack of a better word.However the nanobots in the garden are an earlier version of the system,containing Only Will's consciousness.So it would be safe to say that Will is alive,but Evelyn isn't.

Rewrite?

[edit]

Before I expanded this article, it mentioned Alex Paraskevas and Jordan Goldberg as screenwriters. I did not find evidence of this in my expansion and subsequently kept the writing credit to Jack Paglen. I wanted to see if these names were valid in any way, and I found that FirstShowing.net mentions them doing a rewrite. For the article, they source ComingSoon.net, which does not name Paraskevas or Goldberg. I do not know if FirstShowing.net added that information with what was reported by ComingSoon.net. It also looks like IMDb mentions these names as screenwriters performing a rewrite, but we cannot treat IMDb as a reliable source, especially for upcoming films. Let's keep an eye open for a reliable source that can explain their involvement. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:33, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Poster?

[edit]

Why no poster for this article? there are plenty of poster like images available. does it has to be official poster? and its yet to be released? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naveed e sahar (talk • contribs) 07:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Naveed e sahar: Yes, it has to be official. We do not permit fan-made posters to be used on Wikipedia. There is not an official poster yet -- well, that's not true, there seems to be a Chinese-language poster, but it highlights the Chinese language over the English language. I'm sure an official English-language one will be forthcoming soon! Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a poster up now, no need to fret. ShawntheGod (talk) 10:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References to use

[edit]

References to use. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

[edit]

It says in the Reception section that reviews have been "extremely negative", but the reviews cited are more mixed-negative. I think "extremely" is too harsh as well, I would use "very negative" instead.Serpinium (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "extremely negative" is inaccurate. Looking at Metacritic, the majority of reviews are mixed. Rotten Tomatoes does not do a "mixed" category, but it will skew toward the bottom since combined mixed and negative reviews generally mean the film is not worth seeing. I would suggest Googling transcendence "critics" or transcendence "reviews" to see how reliable sources are summarizing the reviews. See Walking with Dinosaurs (film)#Critical reception for an example of this. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:36, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We need to follow the guidelines at MOS:FILM#Critical response to report the consensus. Rotten Tomatoes shows 19% but their measurement is simplistic in only grouping reviews as positive or negative. Metacritic shows a score of 43 since it groups reviews as positive, mixed, or negative. We should be looking at other sources as well. For example, The Guardian says, "Critics say the film fails to balance its credentials as a thinkpiece with the need to appeal to mainstream audiences, and ends up failing on both fronts." That's more informative for the reader because it says the film is flawed and why it is flawed. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An aggregate review site like Metacritic currently has Transcendence at 44/100, which indicates "mixed or average reviews", so yeah "extremely negative" is inaccurate. ShawntheGod (talk) 08:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "Critical reception" section, MOS:FILM#Critical response clearly states upfront, "Detailed commentary from reliable sources of the critics' consensus (or lack thereof) for a film is encouraged." Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are secondary to this if the commentary exists. It is a poor presentation to throw numbers at the readers before telling them what critics collectively thought of the film. Rotten Tomatoes in particular should not be given so much weight because it does not bother to classify a review as anywhere between positive and negative. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"extremely negative" is an overstatement agreed but I think Serpinium's "mixed-negative" description is more accurate.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:19, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Reception Section Issues...

[edit]

There are some issues with the reception section of the article. I've edited it a few times over the past two days. The wording has been too "flowery" in a few spots, and the agregate site scores like RT and Metacritic were needlessly buried in the article instead of being up front like they should be. (As this is an informative article, that sort of information should be up-front in the section, because it imparts the general knowledge, which is then elaborated on with examples. Burying that information in the middle of the article makes no sense.) Let's try to keep it proper and concisely formatted, guys. MaximumMadnessStixon (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I already commented about this above. MOS:FILM#Critical response states, "The overall critical response to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources... Detailed commentary from reliable sources of the critics' consensus (or lack thereof) for a film is encouraged." So it is incorrect that Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic should be upfront every time. We can see a massive disparity in Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic reporting here, especially since Rotten Tomatoes does not report anything in between positive reviews and negative reviews. We can easily say from the detailed commentary that the film was not well received upon release, which can encompass both negative and mixed/lukewarm reviews. When we say that, we then explain why that was the case. That is the meat of the critical reception, and the breakdown of RT and MC numbers are purely secondary. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@MaximumMadnessStixon: Do you not see an issue with using Rotten Tomatoes upfront especially when it is not in sync with Metacritic? The "flowery" wording is what reliable sources are saying that critics thought of the film. That's the most important part of such a section. We can paraphrase the quotes, but Wikipedia should be able to report upfront what critics collectively thought of the film, not just how many liked or disliked it. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is the revision that shows the detailed commentary upfront. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The point of beginning the critical reception section with sourced commentary is to avoid statements such as "Transcendence was not well received upon release." This isn't actually true is it, if we defer to the aggregators? While it is an accurate description of RT's findings it doesn't accurately relay MC's findings which states that critics found the film to be mediocre. What we need is a simple lead-in that is sourced and reflects the substance of the aggregators to a degree. I would go with something really simple like this: Critics found the film to be hampered by poor logic and storytelling. (WSJ, LATimes) The film review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes scored the film...etc. I don't think we need a load of quotes leading in to to the aggregator scores; we just need a simple sentence summarising the overall view of the film and it needs to be attributable. Betty Logan (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would be okay with that summary of the quotes. I was thinking that "not well received upon release" would cover both RT and MC because neither has positive reviews as the majority. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rotten Tomatoes is an aggregator of reviews and it holds only a 20% aggregate rating. However it is wrong to say "Transcendence was not well received upon release" since it gives a feeling like the film was not well received by any critic. Instead I think it should be written as "Transcendence was not well received by most critics upon release". KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw your suggested wording. I had written "received mostly negative and lukewarm reviews" but am open to yours as well. I also applied Betty's suggestion to summarize what critics thought of the film, followed by the RT and MC details. I was also bold in removing the individual-positive-reviews paragraph that followed. It seems like we should be quoting some individual negative and lukewarm reviews before we even do that. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt pinpointing and quoting some individual reviews for the film in that section is completely acceptable and should be done, but using an aggregate review site like Metacritic to show an overall critical consensus on the film is fine too. Metacritic basically takes all noteworthy reviews of the movie and conglomerates the individual scores into one overall score, so it's good to use Metacritic to see an overall consensus on the film by critics. Obviously the detailed individual critic commentary should be upfront and sites like Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes towards the end. ShawntheGod (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"negative and mixed" is terrible writing. mixed includes negative. don't equivocate, pick either mixed, negative, or positive and be done with it. "compromise" is failure. my opinion is that the reviews are best categorized overall as negative, calling 10% mixed, or 20% mixed, is disingenuous, but at least calling them "mixed" is not the same level of awful, indecisive, cognitive dissonance, as claiming they are both mixed and negative at the same time. make a decision -- 109.78.160.22 (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If you want to defend the film, the overview is not the place to do it. there are individual critics who have -- despite the flaws and the massive budget -- said nice things about the film. British critic Mark Kermode has been somewhat positive about the story, and believes it will gain a following, and his colleagues have also expressed positive sentiments about it too. all with serious caveats, and still pointing out various flaws, but still positive points have been made. don't muddle the overview, there are better ways to communicate that the film contains enjoyable elements. -- 109.78.160.22 (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is another example of the downside of locking articles. it should at least be set to flagged reviews. at least that way I could add a few critics that said nice things about aspects of the film even if overall the review was negative. frankly the negative reviews are usually more insightful and much more use when trying to decide if the film might be enjoyable, compared to the generic platitudes of many of the most mainstream reviewers. considering the amount of comments on this talk page it is an abject failure that the article still only includes metacritic and rotten tomatoes but no individual critics examining the film in detail, no commentary on the story, the actors performances, the direction, and but by far not least the cinematography, it's what he's known for. so much fail. fix it it or unlock the article already. -- 109.78.160.22 (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Re-write

[edit]

This plot summary is so full of typo's and errors that it's hard to read. Someone with time and who's seen the movie should re-write. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.68.16.14 (talk) 14:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and edited the summary, but I haven't seen the movie, so it would be great if someone who has seen it could go through and check that I didn't accidentally make factual errors. Natsirtguy (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I have not seen it yet, but I appreciate the edits. :) Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, I haven't seen the movie yet either, so I can't really write anything about the plot. I will try and rectify grammatical errors though. ShawntheGod (talk) 12:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is at 1,697 words too, and needs to be shortened to somewhere between 400 and 700 words per WP:FILMPLOT. Wikipedia isn't supposed to replicate the viewing experience, after all! Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it says "unless the plot is too complicated to summarize in this range" which I highly doubt it is, so it does need to be cut down probably. As aforesaid, I have not seen the movie yet, so I can't really write about the plot. ShawntheGod (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed vs. negative

[edit]

Why are you pussyfooting over the fact that this film received negative reviews? RT doesn't just collect positive and negative reviews like someone said. There's Fresh reviews and Rotten but a mixed rotten review is not counted the same as a negative Rotten review. A 19% approval rating on RT based on over 100 critics is not "average". That's when a film receives a score of 40 - 50 maybe. This film received negative reviews and it's not too harsh to state that in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.244.129 (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An IP had altered the wording. I haveve restored the original wording although you can do this yourself. Betty Logan (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rotten Tomatoes does not do mixed reviews at all. As they say here, they don't do it for the mere reason of simplicity. This from RT also says, "A good review is denoted by a FRESH red tomato. A bad review is denoted by a ROTTEN green tomato." There's nothing in between. Metacritic, on the other hand, does mixed reviews and shows that the majority of them for this film being mixed. So we cannot depend wholly on Rotten Tomatoes. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the initial concern was with the wording "average reviews". I agree with that being an issue and favor the current phrasing. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has negative reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, but Metacritic currently has it as "mixed or average" for the reviews overall on this film. ShawntheGod (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RT counted over 130 critics. Metacritic barely any. And to the idiot who says "Rotten Tomatoes is an aggregator of reviews and it holds only a 20% aggregate rating. However it is wrong to say "Transcendence was not well received upon release" since it gives a feeling like the film was not well received by any critic. Instead I think it should be written as "Transcendence was not well received by most critics upon release" -- how dumb is that? The film was not well received. There Will Be Blood probably received a negative review, but that film WAS well received critically. Is Wally Pfister just here to make the article look better? Jeez. I mean, The Beach has the same RT score and its page rightfully says it was panned. This film was panned. Is that too negative? Not if its correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.188.87 (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:CIVIL. It is important to participate in a respectful and considerate way. Part of this is to assume good faith. The Rotten Tomatoes information has always been included. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 01:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It currently says "negative and lukewarm reviews" and I changed it to "negative and mixed" which seems more appropriate. ShawntheGod (talk) 00:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find "lukewarm" and "mixed" interchangeable. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 01:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It has received mostly negative reviews, even review summaries (from news outlets) say so.Jennifer Oliveros (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which summaries say so? This was the detailed commentary that was being quoted in full earlier. There's nothing resembling the "mostly negative" claim. The film clearly has not received positive reviews, that much is certain. That's part of why I favor quoting the detailed commentary upfront, so we do not feel compelled to extract disputable wording from the quotes. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"it has received mostly negative reviews"

Well Metacritic has it as mixed overall and RT as negative overall, so mixed and negative seem fine. ShawntheGod (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a disparity between the Metacritic and Rotten Tomato aggregators, and I want to consider the different aspects of these. At the moment, RT judges about 80% of the reviews to be "negative" while MC judges only 20% to be negative. An IP above argues that RT is more "valid" since it surveys many more reviews. I have come to the conclusion that the disparity is not down to the number of reviews but how the aggregators grade them:

  • RT split reviews into two categories: positive & negative
  • MC split reviews into three categories: positive, negative & mixed.

The aggregators have 38 reviews in common and this is how they judge them:

  • RT: positive – 6, negative – 32 (84% negative)
  • MC: positive – 8, negative – 8, mixed – 22 (21% negative)

The consideration of the same reviews leads to two very different scores. While there are strong parallels between the positives (there are five reviews in common), the disparity is mostly due to the fact that MC have a "mixed" rating and RT does not. For example, of the 22 reviews that MC marks as "mixed", RT grades 21 as "negative" and only 1 as "positive" so the difference arises from the methodology: RT is basically saying that if a review is not positive, then it is negative. You can dispute the opposing merits of both systems, but the bottom line is that RT is simply a harsher "marker" and it is simply not the place of Wikipedia to determine which methodology is more valid. There are two different methodologies and they should be given equal consideration in the article. Betty Logan (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the director? You're mainly judging my Metacritic and RT and being blind to the fact that the film was slaughtered by critics. No article on Wikipedia about a film with that low scores with critics is pussyfooting with a cop out word like "mixed". Also, your statistic idea is retarded considering, again, ROTTEN TOMATOES COUNTED WAY MORE REVIEWS. mOrOn. Are you Wally Pfister? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.187.79 (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IP pls, per WP:NPA. Betty Logan makes a valid point. There are two different versions here, Metacritic says mixed and RT says negative, as Betty just aforesaid, both should be given equal consideration in the article as they currently are with "negative and mixed" reviews being mentioned in the article. ShawntheGod (talk) 23:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Betty, that's a great breakdown. It especially helps to see how both websites treat the same set of reviews. Also worth noting that statistically speaking, a sample size of at least 32 is sufficient for gauging the average, which is why the calculated aggregate score for RT is similar to its main aggregate score. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So I think we've came to a consensus that both mixed and negative should be included in the article as both RT and Metacritic should be given equal consideration? Fine with me, mixed and negative remains, if Metacritic aggregate scores change overall for the film then I'll be sure to update the article. ShawntheGod (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the consensus on "mixed and negative". But the article said "negative and mixed" and started off with the RT numbers which didn't have a "mixed" category. But note that the selected text summary from RT is clearly "mixed": "In his directorial debut, ace cinematographer Wally Pfister remains a distinctive visual stylist, but Transcendence's thought-provoking themes exceed the movie's narrative grasp.". So it makes sense to lead with the "mixed" assessment from Metacritic, which has a "mixed" category. So I've shifted the words around that way. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, the reviews seem to be finalized now and it seems overall this film has received negative and mixed reviews mostly. I had higher expectations for the film tbh. ShawntheGod (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mixed, negative, positive. Pick one. If you're going to equivocate at least pick "mixed" and don't fudge it even further. Awful, awful writing. -- 109.78.160.22 (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree and it's a bit of a pet peeve. "Mixed to negative" is sort of to essentially meaningless, I always say. Mixed encompasses situations where the reviews are, erm, mixed, but trend towards the positive or negative. Describing that trend is rather the whole point of the reception section (i.e. taking several specific reviews to distill down the overall themes discussed by critics). It's not just bad writing but lazy writing to go with this mixed + range junk. This is not a grade school book report. Millahnna (talk) 01:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there! :) I guess the problem is that Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic report different outcomes, but RT is more commonly cited in news reports despite its simplistic (no middle ground) approach to assessing reviews. Not to mention an obsession with having to making a choice between positive, negative, mixed. I originally wrote "Transcendence was not well received upon release" and focused on some commentary as seen here. While Betty distilled that to what you see in the second sentence, I prefer the fuller commentary because it is more contextual than RT and MC's by-the-numbers approaches. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the opening of reception reads "Transcendence received mostly mixed and negative reviews". "Mostly mixed and negative" is sort of to essentially meaningless. Ordinarily I would just fix the grammar on that but I know the editors on this page have reached a consensus to go with both mixed and negative, which is something I trend away from because I feel that mixed is sufficient when you have the prose to explain a trend towards one end or the other. But because I know it was contentious in this case I wanted to see if anyone minded I went with the more common "Transcendence received mixed to negative", which--while a bit irksome to my idea of concise writing--at least has some basis in sentence structure. Millahnna (talk) 00:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the problem is that "mixed" has two connotations on Metacritic: it can indicate a mixture of reviews i.e. positive and negative, or it can indicate a lot of "average" reviews, since both would arrive at roughly the same score. In this particular case, there isn't really a mixture of reviews on Metacritic (a roughly equal distribution of postive/average/negative reviews), they are predominantly average with a smattering of positive and negative, while on RT they are predominantly negative. I would perhaps change that first sentence to "Transcendence received mostly average and negative reviews" or "Transcendence received a mixture of average and negative reviews", which to me would better reflect the distribution of reviews. Betty Logan (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would be lovely (I'm partial to the second one, it's more clear what mixture means). And you hit upon a thought I was having in these discussions regarding my concept of what mixed means when we use in that opening sentence it vs. what others seem to be getting out of it. I just hadn't been able to articulate it, so thanks for that. Millahnna (talk) 01:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opening sentence

[edit]

MOS:FILM#Lead section states, "If the film's nationality is singularly defined by reliable sources (e.g., being called an American film), it should be identified in the opening sentence. If the nationality is not singular, cover the different national interests later in the lead section." If the nationality is not straightforward, then we need to put the countries' roles in the proper context in the lead section, such as stating how DMG Entertainment was involved. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do we know why we have United Kingdom as the country? It looks like Syncopy is the only "British" company (according to IMDb), but it says its involvement is uncredited and possibly not verifiable. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:27, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A similar issue occurred over at The Lego Movie where people were adding it was American-Australian, on the grounds it was filmed in Australia. It's my understanding that the film is considered the nationality that funded the project. That's why we'd call Doctor Who a British television series instead of American, as its predominantly funded by British dollars. Rusted AutoParts 13:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not think that DMG Entertainment had a role at all? This says DMG "will finance, produce, and distribute" the film with Alcon. An example like Doctor Who is much more clear-cut since media production has traditionally been more national. These days, we have "multinational" films where a more direct label is harder to use. That's why we have these lead-section guidelines that say to just explain the countries' involvement. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So much for Pedia

[edit]

Why do some WP editors try to frantically defend this pure illogicality of a film? Are you all fierce JD fans you cannot admit that critics laughed at this "film"? Wikipedia has become utterly pathetic. 20% positive rating has suddenly become mixed. LMAO Artem-S-Tashkinov (talk) 04:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the discussions above. Rotten Tomatoes grossly oversimplifies its methodology by putting reviews into positive and negative buckets. Metacritic has a third bucket, which is mixed. Betty Logan showed above that the set of reviews that Metacritic considered mixed were considered negative by Rotten Tomatoes. So you cannot latch onto Rotten Tomatoes as if its simplistic score was the defining one for the film. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with him on what we say about the reception I'm sorry Erik. It really looks laughable claiming that it had a mixed reception. I've seen it, it's a terrible movie, and I was almost scared off watching it in the first place because it got terrible reviews. I've just been reading the reviews by most of the notable critics and in no way is that what we could really call a mixed reception.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that in your opinion it is "a terrible movie" is not relevant. Many critics had both good and bad things to say about it, and Metacritic reflects that in a way that Rotten Tomatoes does not.Rick Norwood (talk) 11:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus that this is a bad film is supported by our best sources. I am not aware of anything "good" one could say about this film that is worth anything. For an example of why his film failed and why a film like Her succeeded, read the literature. The driving force of great films is the notion that the "personal is political" -- that you can express the overarching theme through the personal struggle of a single character. Transcendence reversed this formula, and in the process, alienated its audience. In other words, the reviews show that the film was driven by the story (technology run amok) rather than the characters. This might work when you are dealing on a very small scale, where the plot is on par with the scope of the lives of the people in the film, but when the fate of the world is at hand, it always fails to deliver because it is the audience interest in individual people that allows them to invest their emotional interest and engage. As the reviews show, this never happened. I guess cinematographers should not be directing. Viriditas (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say my own opinion was relevant was I can definitely see why most of the top critics panned it. The general critical outlook on the film is really poor. At best the film got a "negative to mixed reception". The Metacritic as Betty linked states 8 negative and 8 mixed. That would surely indicate 12/16 negative. Obviously others here have noticed the same thing that it looked very odd us claiming it had a mixed reception. There's no coincidence in that. "Largely a negative reception" would be accurate.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look again at Betty's numbers. It's 8 positive, 8 negative, and 22 mixed. That's the breakdown of reviews that also appear in Rotten Tomatoes. Metacritic shows 45 critics total, and there are 27 mixed, 10 negative, and 8 positive. The majority of the critics gave the film something in between positive and negative -- lukewarm, underwhelming, whatever that middle area should be called. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the impression I got from reading many of the reviews Erik. At best "mixed to negative reception". Mixed reviews would imply that there were as many positive comments as negative comments and that really isn't true.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now find me as many credible publications like The Guardian and Forbes which state the film received a mixed reception.... It is true that some major critics were positive towards it like the LA Times and Chicago Sun-Times, but overall that doesn't give it a truly mixed reception. It's widely reported to be a critical failure overall. I rest my case... "Largely panned by critics" would really be a more accurate description, or at the very least "mixed-negative reviews". Given the truckloads of negative reviews about it, why does the article also evade mentioning any of them? Where are all of the reviews and quotes you see in other articles?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you noticed that many of the negative comments you cite above are not negative comments about the film, but comments about the reviews. You say "largely panned", implying that it was not also largely praised and most largely rated at as "mixed". That's what the numbers from metacritic report. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's ridiculous. The film was largely panned, and for good reason. Read and understand he io9 review, as it covers the main bones of contention. This is a classic example of a film that should not have been made. Viriditas (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have noticed, and that was largely the point I was trying to make. They talk about its negative press (even if they liked the film) as they're aware it had a grilling from most critics which even Mark Kermode refers to as a "critical kicking" and some of them disagreed with it like The Independent which I've quoted. The Guardian states "Early reviews are in, and they are almost universally damning . "" Forbes state " widely-panned movie ". These are some of the most reputable sources you'll ever find, and they do not state "mixed" reception. You can't ignore what they claim. I have taken into account the metacritic balance in the rewrite indicating more mixed than primarily negative and have also provided a counter argument for mixed and indeed positive feedback. I think it reads much more accurately and well-balanced now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We need to differentiate from critical reviews and industry fluff promoting itself. The film was panned as one of the worst and the article needs to be clear about this. It appears that it is only Wikipedians that are giving it a "mixed" reception. Now, that's not to say that things won't change. History is replete with panned films moving on to cult and then classic status. However, this is not going to happen here IMO. I feel very sorry for anyone who had to pay to see this film and actually sat through it. How this made it to final cut and release is a complete surprise. Viriditas (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While not immediately relevant to the question of how many reviewers praised, how many panned, and how many had mixed feelings, it does seem that this article should say something about the view of most critics who panned the film that the theme of the film was "technology run amok", while most critics who praised the film find that the theme of the film was: anti-technology run amok. It seems like at least one half of the critics or the other weren't paying attention. I'm old enough to have read the reviews of 2001--A Space Odyssey when it first came out, and the most vocal critics of that film did not have a clue as to what was going on. Rick Norwood (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And don't forget how the critics went to town on Blade Runner. However, this is not the case here. The reason 2001 and Blade Runner were able to cut through the critical morass and become cult films is very simple and easy to understand: both films were original and ahead of their time; as such, they could only be appreciated after the fact, years later, when their significance had sunk in after multiple viewings. This is not the case with Transcendence, a film whose cliche themes have been done to death, and whose one-dimensional character development had the audience rooting for their demise, not their survival. Either the director was being intentionally campy (highly unlikely) or this is one of the worst science fiction films ever made. I cannot think of a single scene, piece of dialogue, or CGI that was original or intriguing in some way. We have seen this dozens of times before, and many times better. This film should never have been released. Viriditas (talk) 08:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Viriditas: we get the fact that you hated the film, but that is not relevant to this discussion. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant, in the sense that the film failed, and more to the point, we must ask, why did the film fail? The article should discuss the reasons. We know, for example, in the case of Blade Runner, that studio meddling disrupted the director's vision, and it wasn't until later, with the director's cut, that we got to see what was intended. Is that what happened here? There are many questions that need to be answered, so the critical dislike is relevant to understanding the topic. Viriditas (talk) 00:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The mixed critical reception is relevant. Your personal intense dislike of the film is not.Rick Norwood (talk) 00:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid we disagree. What you call my "personal intense dislike" is representative of the best sources on this subject, which I feel I have accurately reflected in my comments. For example, Michael Atkinson describes the "vast plot holes and superhuman leaps of logic" along with "Pfister’s unschooled approach to dramaturgy" full of "bogus dialogue.[1] I think it is safe to say that this "intense dislike" is found in most reliable sources about the film. In fact, the vast majority of the best film critics panned this monstrosity.[2] Please don't try to polish this turd and tell me it's gold. Critical reception was not mixed. The film was widely panned, and it is considered one of the worst films in its class for the year in which it was released. Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inspiration

[edit]

I can see very strong connection to book called Peace on Earth (novel) written by Stanisław Lem. I'm not sure if author used this novel as inspiration or it's just coincidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.15.194.61 (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The inspiration for Jack Paglen' scenario is the French novel C.A.S.P.E.R., first published in May 2011 and written by French scifi author Dominique Raymond Poirier. Anyone is fluent enough in French to read this novel will recognize the whole plot of Transcendence, and subplots and details as well, including the name Casper for the artificial intelligence Paglen slightly changed for Caster. The ending is the same as the last scene in the novel C.A.S.P.E.R. is the shutdown of Internet, telephone network and electricity in New York City as taken as example (an unnamed large city in Transcendence). As in in C.A.S.P.E.R. a young man attempts to kill the scientist who created the supercomputer, but he fails to do so ultimately - but, again, Mr Jack Paglen introduced this part of the plot at the beginning of it while it is at the end in the novel. As in C.A.S.P.E.R. the F.B.I. is investigating all along on the problem of an artificial intelligence that is pervading the world network and is taking control of it progressively. As in C.A.S.P.E.R. the F.B.I. is working actively with computer scientists in the aims of shutting it down. As in in C.A.S.P.E.R. the conspiring artificial intelligence settles in a little and forgotten town in which it brings good and prosperity (Southbridge MA, in the novel). As in in C.A.S.P.E.R., the artificial intelligence in Transcendence is aiming at doing good for the humanity and is sincerely convinced it is spirited by a divine mission while; in effect, it doesn't turn out as initially intended. As in C.A.S.P.E.R. there are computers activists who play an important role in the plot of Transcendence. That's not all, so far, and, as a matter of fact, the author of C.A.S.P.E.R., Dominique Raymond Poirier is claiming the authorship of the idea of the scenario of Transcendence. See it on Amazon.com where this book is available. LouisFarget (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the legal claim (a plagiarism lawsuit, as I understand it) be mentioned in the article? Kumagoro-42 15:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
If a lawsuit or something like that was filed, and this has been verifiably reported, yes. Daniel Case (talk) 05:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Poirier has made this claim himself both in the comments on the film at Amazon and IMdB. Interesting if true, but neither of those is a reliable source. Daniel Case (talk) 05:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transcendence_(2014_film)&oldid=1210751487"