Talk:Terminator: Dark Fate

The film hasn't been out long enough to see if it'll breakeven or not. So why is that claim there? Dream Focus 21:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

It has now been backed up by numerous reliable sources, all of which are specifically describing it as a "box office bomb". Just because it isn't finished its run doesn't mean they can't foresee that it won't recoup its losses. That's why the article List of box-office bombs has a special color to indicate a movie which is still in theaters, because films are often labeled box-office bombs before they end their theatrical run. Hopefully this will spell the end of the continual removal of that information from the article.— Crumpled Fire • contribs • 21:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

Most films aim to earn almost half their budget back in their Domestic opening weekend. A week, two weeks tops they would have already known it was a dud, and due to prerelease tracking maybe even before that. (Dont forget they spent $100 million on marketing the film too.) -- 109.78.207.234 (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

And don't forget there's revenue from home video, syndication and merchandise too. It should at least have come out even. Anyway, it's hardly credible that $100 million were spent on marketing. --Maxl (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

The reviews cited in this article are only from far-left outlets like The Verge and Mashable. It needs some reviews from people with normal opinions. For example, Nick Nolte of Breitbart panned the movie as representative of the new "woke" culture that has recently taken over Hollywood, and it has resulted in Mackenzie Davis being cast as an androgynous female soldier in a sexless post-#MeToo film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twainnuns (talk • contribs) 23:12, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

I recommend using reviews from the more selective list of critics used by Metacritic (51 reviews), or failing that a reviewer at least respected enough to be listed at Rotten Tomatoes (324 reviews).

See also WP:RSPSOURCES. -- 109.79.174.72 (talk) 03:58, 5 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

It appears that despite receiving a "fresh" rating on RT and an average rating on MC, the section has a lot more negative coverage by a ratio of 8:3, and that's not even counting the "Fate of John Connor" subsection that is almost entirely negative. We need a lot more balance in the main section per WP:WEIGHT, and the subsection probably needs trimmed in half, regardless if it stays completely negative or not. Serving notice that I'm probably going to circle back and clean this up at some point, unless someone beats me to the punch. If there are any concerns about this, now's the time to speak up. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Putting a spoiler right in a section heading, so it appears in the page index, sure is a sneaky way of trolling a Wikipedia article. I suggested changing the section title to John Connor or not having section heading at all (instead having it as a paragraph within the Critical response section). [The section seems to have been previously title "Fate of John Connor" until recently.]

I might also restructure and put the response from the Director and from Furlong (and possibly Other responses, such as from Hamilton) in a separate subsection of their own, apart from the Critical response section.

Could you break down where you are getting your 8:3 ratio? Looking at Metacritic a lot of the reviews included in the Critical response section are Positive or Mixed, but Rotten Tomatoes is simplistic and polarizing, which is in often unhelpful. Also it is easy to select quotes that sound negative from a review even if the review is actually positive overall (reviews often agree on the positives but have a more varied and interesting opinions of the negatives). I think there might have been a bit of selective quoting too. I somewhat reluctantly agree the section needs to be tightened up, but rather than undue weight I'd be more concerned about redundancy and repetition, and ideally it would be best to shorten and summarize more because sources do repeat similar sentiments. -- 109.79.174.72 (talk) 04:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I changed the section heading back to "Fate of John Connor". I tried to condense it a bit too, Fred Topel seemed particularly overquoted (and he used to write for better publications too, seems weird pick CheatSheet.com as sources but he's is actually a well established critic).

I understand the Critical response section is still largely structured critic by critic, and ideally the whole section would be rewritten to group things thematically, but that is more difficult to do. I was hesitant and thought I was going to disagree more but after taking a longer look at it, the section really could benefit from a substantial overhaul, even if that means removing a whole lot and picking a very different selection of better known critics. Do what you gotta do. -- 109.77.203.218 (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I agree with changing that back to "Fate of John Connor". As for the imbalance in the main critical response section, there are 3 positive, 2 mixed, and 7 negative as of today. A better representation would be 4-5 positive, 3-4 mixed, and 3-4 negative. Still haven't had time but might be able to carve some time out later this week. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I see a lot of reliable sources for both. - Immigrant laborer (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Check the film credits. Spanneraol (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

  (On Amazon Prime) No character names at all. And IMDB is not a reliable source. - Immigrant laborer (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

  I checked on Amazon in the end credits she is just listed as Dani... perhaps we should just list her simply the way the credits have her? Spanneraol (talk) 21:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

  I agree that the credited character name is the best option here. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

This article has become the subject of an edit war because apparently someone has got the idea that because James Cameron produced this film, it is the only direct sequel to Terminator 2 and the other films are considered as taking place in alternate timelines. Was this the case with The Sarah Connor Chronicles? I seem to remember that it was marketed as an alternate version of Terminator 3. Shouldn't the same apply to Dark Fate? Its a direct sequel to Terminator 2, yes, but it isn't the only one out there. Terminator 3, The Sarah Connor Chronicles and Battle Across Time are all direct sequels to Terminator 2, so why should Dark Fate be considered the only direct sequel and not another alternate sequel? To call it a direct sequel is like saying the other films and series are no longer canon when Cameron has never said that, he has said that the other films exist in alternate timelines. I think this needs to be put to a vote, and to begin, I vote alternate sequel. Jienum (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't really understand that gripe, if I'm honest. The fact that it is one of several (and in some ways competing) "direct sequels" doesn't preclude its being a direct sequel. In fact, I don't see how saying that it is one takes anything away from T2's previous sequels. At any rate, the very next clause (starting with "while disregarding...") explains the movie's position pretty clearly and succinctly so I don't see the need for "alternate" to be there at all. The simplest solution, to me, would be to drop both "direct" and "alternate" if their usage is at all controversial. --MasqueDesRonces (talk) 00:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Incidentally, Wikipedia doesn't typically function through voting. Any contested change needs to achieve consensus on the talk page rather than a majority, with arbitration coming into play if a consensus isn't reached. --MasqueDesRonces (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I was recently thinking the same, actually, to just put that its a sequel to the first two films and disregards the others as occurring in other timelines, in a way that its not a sequel to T2/prequel to T3. Jienum (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Glad you agree. In the same vein, I'd remove the phrase "as occurring in alternate timelines," which, as far as I know, is only based on a single and obviously facetious remark by Cameron, and goes beyond the simple description of the film's place in the series into fancruft-esque questions of canonicity (a concept that I find somewhat spurious and unencyclopedic when it comes to works of fiction, to be perfectly honest). --MasqueDesRonces (talk) 12:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

The end of the movie, with the Jeep driving along a residential alley while the camera rises [1] (1:14), is an obvious reference to the other 1980s time travel movie series, Back to the Future. One literally expects an oncoming flying DeLorean. --2003:C6:3724:4BA3:E81F:1354:95D1:A167 (talk) 08:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

That's trivia and WP:OR. InfiniteNexus (talk)

Thank you for improving wikipedia with that non-condescending remark.  Matthead  Discuß   12:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Matthead: I'm sorry, how exactly was I being condescending? That information the IP was proposing was indeed trivial and unsourced. I'm not sure how else I could have phrased that. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Of course, the irony is that the comment "Thank you for improving wikipedia with that non-condescending remark" is itself no improvement, and also fairly condescending. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

wallyfromdilbert, hope you always know you can ping me anytime to the talk page to discuss prior to reverting. In fact, I would encourage you to do so, because you know I'll respond in a timely manner. In your edit summary, you say "unsupported content". Can you expand and describe this in more detail? The critical summary statement, if anything, is the element here that lacks proper support. Everything I brought back into the lead, where it existed for quite a while (like 5 months) was properly sourced and covered in the body. Furthermore, the sources you brought back with your revert (source #'s 2, 3, and 4) do not adequately support the critical summary statement they're referencing. So unless I'm missing something, this move is a head-scratcher. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

GoneIn60, thank you as always for starting this conversation and being so helpful. Regarding my reversion, the content about "box office bomb" was sourced solely to sources published in its opening weekend, which does not seem adequate for content purporting to describe the film's overall performance. I am also not sure what you mean when you say that content has existed for the past 5 months, as that language seems to have been changed a while ago. Going through a few dozen versions in the page history for the past year, all of the versions I checked had basically the same the language I restored earlier today. The content you had restored also claimed that the film's losses "reached $130 million" as a factual statement, when that is not supported by the article, which gives estimates of different ranges with $130 as the upper potential estimate. The phrase "claimed to have lost as much as $130 million" seems far more accurate to reflect the sources cited in the main body. I'm not particularly in favor of including weighted phrases such as "box office bomb" in the lead unless they are clearly and widely supported in the main body, but if that type of language is restored to the lead, it should be accurate as to what the sources cited in the article say. As for the critical summary, I believe the sources cited in the lead are a leftover from a previous version, but the "improvement over recent predecessors" language seems widely supported in the main body reception section, including from the Rotten Tomatoes summary. I would not be opposed to simply shortening the summary to that, while removing the "cast and action scenes" and "narrative decisions" language, although the latter also does seem to be supported in the main body. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Since there was so much to describe here, this probably should have gone right to the talk page to begin with. I'm going to break this down into two relevant sections below. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

The "box office bomb" phrasing was originally inserted in November 2019 (not by me) and lasted until December 2020, when you decided to remove it here. It found its way back in on two occasions in 2021, both lasting for about 3 months until you eventually removed them here and here. So overall, this bomb phrasing existed in the lead for approximately 19 out of 26 months following the film's release. You seem to be the only editor removing it, and I found your comments interesting, "Seems to have been changed a while ago" and "all of the versions I checked had basically the same the language I restored" as if you've forgotten your involvement! Now to be fair, I goofed and said "5 months" earlier because I didn't dig deep enough. Also, it's worth mentioning that this bomb phrase existed in the body since day 1.

Now, I'm not married to this specific phrase/term, but it does seem to have the sourcing it needs. Early sources include Screen Rant, IndieWire, Slashfilm, Variety, Forbes, and Hollywood Reporter. Then a later source, Deadline (April 2020), mentions it as well calling it the biggest bomb out of all bombs in 2019. Speaking of lists, there's also a List of biggest box-office bombs, where the film ranks #13 all-time (#21 adjusted for inflation). A vast majority of the other films in the top 25 mention "box office bomb" in their leads as well. Taking all this into account, maybe we should be giving it serious consideration without knee-jerk removing it on sight. We have sources and WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY covered, so what remaining issues are there? --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Apologies for not responding in such a long time. I still have concerns about the term "box-office bomb" being used when only one source describes it that way beyond the sources discussing the opening weekend. I think those types of issues are better dealt with in the main body. The lead is only supposed to contain the most important aspects of the main body, which is why I think its helpful to see multiple reliable sources, especially for weighted language, to guide my decision about what is most important. When the only source being used to make factual claims is a list-style pop news article, then I have even more concern about its importance, as well as its potential verifiability. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:06, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

"...but the "improvement over recent predecessors" language seems widely supported in the main body reception section"

Rotten Tomatoes does mention it, but both aggregators diverge on their overall findings, with Metacritic settling on a more lukewarm, middle-of-the-road verdict. When these two differ, it's usually best to avoid summarizing critical reception in the lead, unless we can tie that directly to a high-quality source (non-aggregator) that has done that assessment for us. On the surface, it seems like we might have one in this Hollywood Reporter source, but when it says "the critics", it only seems to be referencing the 7 it sampled. I'm on the fence as to whether this is good enough for the lead. Maybe it is, but I'm not so sure. HR is generally a good source for statistics, but for judging overall reception? It's no USA Today, NYT or LAT.

"...while removing the "cast and action scenes" and "narrative decisions" language, although the latter also does seem to be supported in the main body"

So this is the bigger issue. First and foremost, we cannot summarize the reviews we've compiled in the "Critical response" section, because they were randomly selected by us. We don't know with any certainty that our sample is representative of the 300+ surveyed by aggregators. It's possible that an aspect described in one of the reviews we chose is outnumbered 10-1 in real life, meaning for every review that mentions it, there's 10 that don't. We just don't know without performing original research, giving more reason to avoid summarizing. In fact, the only two statements we can even remotely consider using as a source are the RT summary and the single sentence from that HR source, but neither are all that great for the reasons I mentioned. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

WP:FILMLEAD accurately summarizing the Reception section/critical response section is important and editors are right to be skeptical and to challenge and request explanation if in any doubt. But I think for the most part that is a fair summary. In particular I think "narrative decisions" was a very concise, well written, and circumspect way to summarize the opinions expressed in the subsection "Fate of John Conner". -- 109.76.203.12 (talk) 05:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Again, we have two aggregators, and both have drawn somewhat different conclusions (and this has also been the case with "recent predecessors"). To summarize in the lead, we need to look beyond either one. Can you provide an excerpt from the article's body that supports the claim that critics "praised the cast and action scenes"? How about the claim that critics were "critical of the narrative decisions"?

If you are tying either claim directly to a film aggregator, then that is mistake #1. Mistake #2 is the phrase "narrative decisions". The fate of John Connor is one aspect of the narrative, and if that's the only aspect properly cited in the article, then we need to be a lot more specific if we're going to state it in the lead. Per WP:FILMLEAD, we need to be mindful of the statement: "Any summary of the film's critical reception should avoid synthesis and reflect detail that is widely supported in published reviews". The notion of wide support is what is being contested, and the reviews we have randomly chosen to include in this article may or may not reflect that. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:38, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure if you are stating things more strongly than you intend or if I'm misreading your tone. I'm not saying the article couldn't be better, I'm merely saying that it is adequate and good enough to keep for now until someone has such time as someone proposes something better to replace it with. (I didn't add this mess to the intro, and rarely add summaries to the lead, and even then it is only going to be the most generically easily supported statement like mixed/positive/generally negative reviews.) I think I could break it down and explain further why I think the generalizations do not seem unreasonable, but if other editors want go further and survey or poll numerous reviews and provide more solid justification for other generalizations they may well be able to do better, by all means go for it if you want to spend time answering those questions more clearly. I'm merely saying that what is there now isn't utterly terrible. (Coincidentally just before this I was reviewing an old discussion when an editor removed large chunks from the Critical response section of an article, but never really made clear what their specific complaints really were, and the deleted chunks have still only been partially replaced. So the principle of WP:PRESERVE keeps coming to mind.) If you can summarize and be specific at the same time that would be great but I think a certain amount of generalization in a summary is to be expected. Writing a better summary is undoubtedly difficult, but lets not rush to throw away this version without a replacement is what I am trying to say.

THR ended their overview by saying the reviews sample by saying "critics seem cautiously excited". There is an argument to be made that more WP:WEIGHT should be given to the aggregator that survey nearly 7 times as many critics, and that balance the reviews were (mildly or) generally positive (despite Metacritic saying mixed), I don't feel strongly about it personally. Editors could decide and agree based on local consensus, it might not be perfect but it would be generic and good enough. As for more specific notes, at least one critic did praise the cast, and at least one critic did praise the action scenes but yes that is admittedly weak and it is probably not clear that enough critics said it to make that specifically something that should generalized and highlighted in the intro. I already said I thought "critical of the narrative decisions" was a reasonable generalization (and WSJ saying "The plot makes no sense" can be taken as another data point if you like) but if maybe editors wanted to generalize and phrase it less specifically and more generically as criticism of the plot/script rather than "narrative decisions" maybe that would be better. Praise for the cast? There were a few bits of praise for Hamilton a few bits of praise for Davis, and Reyes. Editors could probably dig deeper and more firmly prove or disprove that generalization but I wouldn't throw it out. Praise for the action scenes? That's a weak claim, one I would probably remove, I think it is evidence of bad writing, that editors say comments like praise for the "scale and visual effects" (from Variety) and did a really poor job of trying to turn it into a generalization. Again the current summary isn't' entirely terrible but far from perfect and at least in the short term I think small adjustments would be better than throwing it out. -- 109.76.146.58 (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

"...if other editors want go further and survey or poll numerous reviews and provide more solid justification"

No, that is not acceptable, because surveying the reviews ourselves would be original research. This point has been covered numerous times at the project. We need secondary sources to do that analysis for us, and so far the only sources I see doing that are the film aggregators, and both here are not in agreement. As for your RT vs MC WEIGHT argument, this is not the best venue to have that assessed; that should go to WT:FILM or WT:Manual of Style/Film. Historically, we give them equal weight in discussions about overall reception.

Also picking anecdotal evidence from a handful of sources (such as WSJ as you suggested) doesn't qualify as acceptable. I understand your point that the summary isn't terrible, but that doesn't equate to the need for inclusion. The WP:ONUS to gain consensus for inclusion is on those who wish to keep, whether you were the one who added it or not. There are 3 possible outcomes here, and two of the three – no consensus or consensus against – result in exclusion. For anyone reading this that wishes to retain the summary statement, please weigh in with sources that are looking at the reviews as a whole. We need to be able to show wide support for any summary we provide. Then we can properly summarize reception if there is consensus to do so. Otherwise without consensus, I see no reason not to remove it outright. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Well, it's been a week now. Are there any additional thoughts/suggestions before I revert the lead back to its former state prior to the reception summary? Without solid sourcing, it doesn't belong. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think we have been discussing this at cross purposes, not that it really matters. I don't think this as bad as GoneIn60 seems to think it is, but it is up to Wallyfromdilbert to discuss it further if he does not want his attempt to summarize the critics removed. I have seen Wallyfromdilbert apply the rules of WP:FILMLEAD to remove summaries from the lead of other film articles many times before, I doubt he will object, or add anything more than his earlier comment above I would not be opposed to simply shortening... -- 109.78.192.128 (talk) 04:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think we've given this ample time to form some kind of consensus. Since there is none, it's getting removed at this point. That doesn't mean discussion needs to end, however. If someone decides to pony up the sources needed for inclusion and address the multiple concerns, we can always revisit. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I thought this was done already weeks ago, whatever you are going to do to the intro please just do it already. -- 109.78.192.128 (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I left a small portion in for now as a compromise of sorts, but I wouldn't stand in the way of someone removing it completely at some point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

You certainly shortened it, more even than I expected. While I don't like when people make things up and add them to the lead section I think being too strict about and having little or no summary is an overcorrection. I don't think it is an improvement but I basically said that already. Also I would prefer if the critics and the box office were not both in a single long run on sentence. I think it is better to keep the two separate things separate, because often in Wikipedia film articles other editors end up trying to claim that one is "despite" the other. But it will do well enough I suppose. -- 109.79.177.125 (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

This is why I kept coming back to discuss, but then it seemed like you were done with discussion in your previous comment. There are remaining concerns that need to be addressed with the content I removed, and as I said before, editors are more than welcome to revisit and seek consensus at any time. As far as the long-winded sentence goes (and I disagree it is a run-on), that's not set in stone either. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

MOVIEFAN2001, when content you added is reverted, you are expected to take the discussion to the talk page or seek other forms of dispute resolution. Regarding your recent edit, there are several problems. First, we don't need to list every company that participated in visual effects and previsualization. This is an encyclopedia, not a film database. We include information that is predominantly referenced in reliable sources. Second, you didn't even list every company. As you can see in the text version of the film credits, you left out:

There may even be others I missed. In addition, you clipped the name of Unit Image & Unit Motion Design, and you left out Blur Studio as one of the previsualization companies. Then there's the ILM supervisors, of which there are 4 names listed, not just Eric Barba. The title is "ILM Visual Effects Supervisor" not "Overall Production Supervisor". We could make all these corrections, but that's missing the overall point that we shouldn't be doing any of this. Instead, we should be looking to reliable, secondary sources for this information. If a name is significant, the sources will publish it. Are the film credits your only source? Per WP:FILMPRODUCTION, we should only be listing items that are noteworthy in the production section, including "key events" and other details that had a significant impact on production. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that, sorry I lashed out, I've seen on that revision you just made there were 2 key companies removed that had involvement which was UPP aka Universal Production Partners I couldn't find a source on their website but I found a link to a VFX breakdown uploaded by their official vimeo account https://vimeo.com/417605672 and WetaFX done some work too https://www.wetafx.co.nz/films/filmography/terminator-dark-fate/ I would cite it but after my selfish edits and you having to do the hard work in removing it. I'll let you fix it on. Apologises again - MOVIEFAN2001 MOVIEFAN2001 (talk) 08:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

MOVIEFAN2001, no worries, I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page. I think we're getting closer. Did you come across any secondary sources reporting the involvement of these companies? It's great that we have a primary source (meaning they announced it themselves), but did anyone outside of the film recognize their work? I searched and found this for UPP, but I didn't see anything of note about WetaFX. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I searched for Weta Digital instead and found this source. I think that will pass as acceptable. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

No worries, I'm glad we are on the same page aswell, and that source you just linked about Weta that should count as a pass. For UPP that would definitely be acceptable MOVIEFAN2001 (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I just added the cites in and I directed people to this section if they need more information or want to make an inquiry, I also said people are more than welcome to fix my edits or revert to your good faith edits MOVIEFAN2001 (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply