Misplaced Pages

Talk:Birdman (film): Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:43, 16 November 2014 edit11 Arlington (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,775 editsm →Reception← Previous edit Revision as of 01:03, 17 November 2014 edit undoJDDJS (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers52,131 edits →ReceptionNext edit →
Line 7: Line 7:


Agree with Muscat inasmuch as there's no such thing as "universal acclaim" - I modified to "wide acclaim." Richard Brody of The New Yorker panned the film, for instance, as did Rex Reed and a handful of other reviewers, although they are clearly in the minority.] (]) 05:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC) Agree with Muscat inasmuch as there's no such thing as "universal acclaim" - I modified to "wide acclaim." Richard Brody of The New Yorker panned the film, for instance, as did Rex Reed and a handful of other reviewers, although they are clearly in the minority.] (]) 05:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

:I changed it back to "universal acclaim" because that is the standard statement on Misplaced Pages for a film that has received the same level of reception. Yes, of course it has received a couple of bad reviews. Every film in history has. But as you said yourself, those reviews are in the minority and the precedent in this case is to say "universal acclaim". I won't object to you changing it to "near universal acclaim", but personally I don't think that is necessary. However, if you want to take out "universal" all together, you would have to go to ] because you're talking about something that goes beyond just this article. ] (]) 01:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:03, 17 November 2014

WikiProject iconFilm: American Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Cinema Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Reception

We should probably hold off until release. 28 reviews out of what will probably be close to 200 isn't really representative, even if rotten tomatoes jumped the gun and wrote a consensus (which have changed in the past)Muscat Hoe (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Muscat inasmuch as there's no such thing as "universal acclaim" - I modified to "wide acclaim." Richard Brody of The New Yorker panned the film, for instance, as did Rex Reed and a handful of other reviewers, although they are clearly in the minority.11 Arlington (talk) 05:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I changed it back to "universal acclaim" because that is the standard statement on Misplaced Pages for a film that has received the same level of reception. Yes, of course it has received a couple of bad reviews. Every film in history has. But as you said yourself, those reviews are in the minority and the precedent in this case is to say "universal acclaim". I won't object to you changing it to "near universal acclaim", but personally I don't think that is necessary. However, if you want to take out "universal" all together, you would have to go to WP:FILM because you're talking about something that goes beyond just this article. JDDJS (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Categories: