Talk:Glass (2019 film) - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Locke Cole (talk | contribs) at 04:05, 15 February 2019 (→Reception: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 04:05, 15 February 2019 by Locke Cole (talk | contribs) (→Reception: r)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Film: American C‑class

	Film portal This 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
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Horror C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Release date & page link

Hello, my edit to redirect this article to the page Glass (2019 film) has been reversed. This was done on the basis that this film has no release date. The film however does have a release date of January 18, 2019. This release date has been confirmed by the director himself. Various sources:

The only reliable secondary source there is The Guardian, which makes no mention of any release date. In any event, the correct procedure would have been to move the existing article to Glass (2019 film), not start another article! Edwardx (talk) 09:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I understand those may not be considered the best sources, but Universal Pictures's official website lists the film's release date for 2019. https://www.universalpictures.com/movies#future-releases. I believe that should be considered reliable enough to justify including the release date in the title.

Additionally, I did move the existing article to Glass (2019 film), not start another article. The article already existed, as a redirect page. AgeofUltron 03:41, 26 September 2017 (PT)

Release date is given by an article in Forbes as November 2017, and they say it till be the final in the Eastrail 177 Trilogy. https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2017/05/04/how-m-night-shyamalans-glass-takes-the-right-lessons-from-the-avengers/#395f4ef43d90 .

Music

What's the source for James Newton Howard and/or West Dylan Thordson doing the music for the film? They're both mentioned in the infobox, but there's nothing in the article itself about it, so I'm suspicious of it being speculation. -- I need a name (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

3 Reviews

With regard to the "Critical response" section, can someone clarify on how reviewers at Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes have seen the film before its release planned on 18-Jan-2019?

"On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 36% based on 36 reviews, with an average rating of 5.2/10. The website's critical consensus reads, "Glass displays a few glimmers of M. Night Shyamalan at his twisty world-building best, but ultimately disappoints as the conclusion to the writer-director's long-gestating trilogy." On Metacritic, which uses a weighted average, the film has a score of 45 out of 100, based on 18 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews"." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aravindan Shanmugasundaram (talk • contribs) 12:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Critics get to see films at things called advance screenings. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Age of SLJ's Mother

Have just noticed that the actress playing Samuel L Jackson's mother in the film is 65, whereas he is 70. Cary Grant in "North By Northwest" is another famous example of this biological phenomenon, and he wasn't even a superhero.

Might be worth a mention if it gets mentioned on some film review site ...Paulturtle (talk) 02:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

It's trivial, not worth mentioning. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

It becomes worth mentioning if film critics mention it, like they do about Cary Grant being older than the actress who plays his mother in "North By NorthWest". The reason I found out is because I looked up the actress who played his mother, idly assuming her to much older than she actually is (and Samuel L Jackson is actually a bit older than I thought he was).Paulturtle (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC) Actually, and in the interests of keeping my comments accurate, I've just looked up the actress who played Cary Grant's mother, and her (in)famous claim to be a year or two younger than him is actually false - she is now known to have shaved 8 years off her age, as women sometimes used to do, and was actually slightly older than him, albeit still not old enough to be his mother. But still notable.Paulturtle (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Reception

As usual, a number of editors really want to synthesize the reviews into one statement. So, varying from one moment to the next, we find that this one film has "received mixed reviews", "received mixed to negative reviews", "received generally negative reviews" and been "panned" or "generally panned".

Which one is right? None of them are. They are all synthesis. Find a reliable source (not an aggregator's algorithm), quote it, cite it and be done with it. Or, just keep on changing the wording every few hours until the excitement wears off in a couple of weeks and I'll come back and remove it. - SummerPhD 16:30, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

The sources listed clearly say this movie was "generally panned by critics." Or "slammed" or "panned." This is a no-brainer actually. I noticed someone idiotically using Metacritic as their source for "mixed" when the precedent for competent articles on wikipedia is that it is NEVER used. We should directly quote the sources, or at least closely paraphrase. The consensus on this movie is quite clear, critics were lock in step they this movie disappointed them. However, audiences and fans liked it and this movie has superfine who like to come to this page and vandalize it because of anti-intellectual reasoning and critic-playa-hating. Again, in the best case scenario this is just another case on wikipedia of fans of a movie who are passive-aggressively protesting the critics. Worse case scenario, studio hacks and corporate trolls working for the film company who made "Glass" are coming here, worried this is bad press, and trying to salvage it. Go ahead, I'd fix it and restore it to what the sources already listed are saying. Or I will just do in a day or two. Thanks for addressing this.Luciusfoxx (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

TL;dr: I don't care what the article says as long as there's a source to support it. I reverted (twice) the addition of phrasing that made claims about the movie, and included a reference to the New York Times, but that reference did not make anything close to the statement made in the article. I have zero problem with this movie being labeled "the best movie ever" or "the worst movie of all time", so long as there's a reliable source to back that statement up. There have also been a number of anons/new accounts attempting to change the wording, hence why I requested page protection to try and curb the back and forth this article has been going through. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

TD;DC The sources don’t support your contention that this was “mixed.” And Misplaced Pages has made it clear that using Metacritic to speculate the way you are doing is called “original research” and that is a violation. All the press on this says something along the lines of “the majority (most) critics negativity reviewed Glass” or the “consensus in the press is that critics were disappointed”. Nothing “mixed” about it. And you don’t have a prevailing consensus on this talk page to back your stance. You are just edit warring. Will give you a day or two to correct this or I will do it myself, or enforce change through arbitration if need be.Luciusfoxx (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Luciusfoxx: Your ignorance is truly stunning. Please, go begin arbitration against me. I'll be waiting. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Says the editor who cites "Metacritic" as a 'direct' source.lolololol Given your odd post about "another" banned editor in your intro, an SPI would be more appropriate. "Ignorant" indeed. P.S. The prevailing consensus on the page is TWO against "mixed". Have fun with that. Thanking you in advance to respect that consensus per the established rules on consensus until something changes in your favor.Luciusfoxx (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I've cited nothing. You are attributing to me things I did not originally add to the article. You're also being a dick. Don't do that. You also don't understand what consensus is. Consensus is not majority rule. You can learn more about that at this page. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, moving on. I looked for summary statements in reliable sources, directly stating what critics thought of the film. At the moment, three sources are cited to call it "mixed".

Rotten Tomatoes signed article says critics are calling it "a disappointing trilogy conclusion...an underwhelming missed opportunity." Mashable says critics called it "dull and disappointing" and that critics "agree across the board: … an underwhelming squelch of a conclusion not worth the price of admission."

The New York Times article cited says nothing about what critics thought.

Additionally, we do have a number of individual reviews. We cannot, however, combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.

None of the sources cited say "mixed" directly. Interpreting them as "mixed" is both synthesis and hard to imagine. Both sources say "disappointing" and "underwhelming".

I see no sources for movie goers reactions, other than possibly misinterpretation of CinemaScore and PostTrak. Both provide scores from early movie goers, disproportionately fans of the franchise/director/stars/genre. You might think a B from would be pretty good and a C would be OK. You'd be wrong. "A's generally are good, B's generally are shaky, and C's are terrible. D's and F's, they shouldn’t have made the movie, or they promoted it funny and the absolute wrong crowd got into it". Even with that, it varies with genre and audience demographics. We currently do not have a basis for saying "audiences", "moviegoers", "fans" or anything else loved/liked/disliked/hated/were unsure about/anything else. - SummerPhD 14:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Proposed text: Critics found the film "disappointing" and "underwhelming", citing Mashable and the RT article; additionally, remove the OR about audience reactions and the NYT cite.

Comments? - SummerPhD 18:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

"Critics found the film "disappointing" and "underwhelming", citing Mashable and the RT article; additionally, remove the OR about audience reactions and the NYT cite." Perfect! Much better in the lead. Yeah, re-read the NYC article. Missed that. Nuke that. I think between the clear SYN violation and the prevailing consensus, we can move forward with the change. VOTE: Approve.Luciusfoxx (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Categories: