Talk:Mother!: Difference between revisions
m Reverted edits by Kitty-kat85 (talk) to last version by 65.153.180.10 |
→Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2017: new section |
||
Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
(Because the heart of the house is not unsettling to her, it's comforting...until it starts to die.) [[Special:Contributions/65.153.180.10|65.153.180.10]] ([[User talk:65.153.180.10|talk]]) 16:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC) |
(Because the heart of the house is not unsettling to her, it's comforting...until it starts to die.) [[Special:Contributions/65.153.180.10|65.153.180.10]] ([[User talk:65.153.180.10|talk]]) 16:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC) |
||
== Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2017 == |
|||
{{edit semi-protected|Mother!|answered=no}} |
|||
Second paragraph: |
|||
"The film received generally positive reviews..." Shouldn't this read as "negative reviews" since even later in the article it reads as having "poor reviews"? [[Special:Contributions/12.237.19.79|12.237.19.79]] ([[User talk:12.237.19.79|talk]]) 20:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:46, 27 September 2017
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Contested deletion
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (this is an upcoming major film release.. i dont think it qualifies for speedy) --Spanneraol (talk) 03:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Only use of !
- (cur | prev) 19:30, 7 February 2017 Flax5 (talk | contribs) . . (38 bytes) (+38) . . (Flax5 moved page Mother (2017 film) to Mother!: the exclamation mark appears to be part of the title, per the last announcement. There's no other article called "Mother!" so no need for disambiguation.) (thank)
- We'll have to see if the ! forms part of title in running text in reliable sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Shaggy God Story
I feel like this should be linked to Shaggy God story. Thoughts? 98.102.79.214 (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- That term seems to be more about science fiction, but I don't think this film is science fiction. This film seems more like a regular allegorical story. -- 109.76.196.129 (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
synopsis
The man does NOT claim at any point in the story to be god. This is pure intrepretation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:E851:DD60:455A:52D0:C66D:995E (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Critics
I'm not sure it is a good idea to include the film review from The Economist as their columns are written under pseudonyms. (The books and arts section is written under the pseudonym Propsero.) Also I'm not convinced the comment taken from the review offers any great insight. There are so many other critics that could easily be used it seems as if it would be better to avoid using The Economist. -- 109.76.196.129 (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed. Icarus of old (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
A really remarkable number of audience reviews were negative on RottenTomatoes. 42% average, but a large number labeled it the worst movie they've ever seen. Seems like we should note that; it's not just that not everyone liked it.MikeR613 (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Rotten Tomatoes does nothing to verify user votes. There is no way of knowing if people voting have even seen the film or not. User voted web polls are notoriously unreliable which is why the Wikipedia film guidelines consistently recommend against them.
- Cinemascore (and other like Rentrak) actually directly survey audiences in cinemas, and provide useful verifiable information. Occasionally audience trends become prominent enough that third party reviewers comment on them, ideally a few of them, in which case you can include it but user voted web polls are unreliable unverifiable junk and will be quickly removed.
- I don't have any problem with including reviews from The Economist in general, but I wouldn't give it any priority. In this case the commentary didn't seem to offer any particular insight and many other good sources are also available. I don't mind including reviews from most sources so long as the review has a particularly interesting insight into some aspect of the film. Often the very negative reviews give the best comments about the things in the film they actually like, praising details such as the score or cinematography, whereas reviewers who actually enjoy the film rarely mention such details.
- TLDR. Econmist okay. User voted web polls bad. -- 109.76.196.129 (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
'The Economist opined: "Mother! should open up new territory for creative cinema, especially if it proves to be a box-office hit."[1]
- ^ N.P.B. (18 September 2017). ""Mother!" is a startling scrambling of the horror-film genre". The Economist.
Thinking about it further what really bothers me about this comment is how vague it is, using both the words "should" and "if". I'm not happy with including this speculation as part of the critical response. If it later turns out that the film turns out to be a box office hit (and it isn't looking like it so far) that commentary might be worth mentioning as part of the box office section but I don't feel it a comment particularly worth including at this time. -- 109.79.168.17 (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Lowercase title
Should this article (and this Talk page) not use Template:lowercase title? I tried to add it but it didn't work. Does the page need to be moved to mother!? — Hugh 23:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- For technical reasons the title of the article in Wikipedia's system cannot be lowercase, however I've gone ahead and changed it to display as lowercase with this revision. ( ͡~ ͜ʖ ͡o) talk to me! 21:39, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
- We don't mimic stylization in film titles. Look at Seven (1995 film), I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore, etc. Nardog (talk) 13:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- I understand not following the stylization but I think you've gone to far by not even mentioning that there is any stylization and urge your to restore {{efn|The film's teaser poster as well as its theatrical [[One sheet|one-sheet]] stylize the title with a lowercase "m." to the lead. -- 109.76.225.230 (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- We don't mimic stylization in film titles. Look at Seven (1995 film), I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore, etc. Nardog (talk) 13:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2017
![]() | It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Mother!. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |
Change: She starts seeing things around the house that unsettle her, including visualizing a beating heart within the walls of the house.
Into: She starts seeing things around the house, including visualizing a beating heart within the walls of the house.
(Because the heart of the house is not unsettling to her, it's comforting...until it starts to die.) 65.153.180.10 (talk) 16:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2017
![]() | It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Mother!. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |
Second paragraph: "The film received generally positive reviews..." Shouldn't this read as "negative reviews" since even later in the article it reads as having "poor reviews"? 12.237.19.79 (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
- Start-Class film articles
- Start-Class American cinema articles
- American cinema task force articles
- WikiProject Film articles
- Start-Class horror articles
- Unknown-importance horror articles
- WikiProject Horror articles
- Start-Class United States articles
- Unknown-importance United States articles
- Start-Class United States articles of Unknown-importance
- Unknown-importance American cinema articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests
- Wikipedia edit requests possibly using incorrect templates