Talk:Cowboy Bebop (2021 TV series)

Why draft article and not MAIN article

If draft articles are submitted for review for a film or tv project once filming for said project starts, then how come this article hasn’t been submitted? FilmLover72 (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Just checking in. FilmLover72 (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

"Panned"

"Largely panned" as the result of two journalists' summaries about consensus seems completely illogical to me. (the Wikipedia page says not to change the 'consensus' part solely because of Vox and another journalist's subjective (and numerically incorrect) summary re: the reviews)Why not reference a review aggregator to establish a better idea for consensus? Especially when compared to other summing-ups' on Wikipedia, "mixed reviews" would be far more suitable for a 50% rotten tomatoes score. Metacritic indicates "Mixed or average". "Largely panned" is clearly inaccurate.

This is my first talk post, as I have never before seen the words "largely panned" attributed to something with obviously middling reviews (at worst) on a Wikipedia article, so apologies for any formatting problems.

(edited for clarity)

Yummyfoodisgood (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. The Screen Rant and Vox articles were released on November 16 and 18, respectively. By that point, most reviews had been negative (as seen here and here). However, reviews have gone up since then, with the Rotten Tomatoes score being currently at 6/10. That's higher than recent films such as Eternals and Venom: Let There Be Carnage, which have scores of 5.60/10 and 5.40/10, yet the consensus is that those films received "mixed reviews". I'm not arguing that sites like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are the be-all end-all when it comes to critical reception, but the fact is that the Screen Rant and Vox articles are (at the moment at least) out of date when it comes to the critical reception. While the reception is by no means positive, it is more mixed than negative. When you have a 51% approval rating, that's pretty much the definition of critics being split. Thus, the critical reception is undoubtedly mixed. I still think the Screen Rant and Vox articles are worth mentioning, but to say the series was "largely panned" would be grossly inaccurate.--SilverBullitt (talk) 10:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

RT categorizes as positive ("Fresh") or negative ("Rotten") = doesn't mean mixed. Metascore description is "mixed or average", not just "mixed". Do not use review aggregator scores (especially Tomatometer) to generalize/summarize critical reception when there are other reliable sources that clearly report the critical response. Also, in addition to Tomatometer and Metascore, showing RT's average rating for your "mixed" interpretation is the most "illogical" thing here. ภץאคгöร 12:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

So your argument here is that there is no such thing as a mixed reception, only positive or negative? Setting that aside, you didn't offer any counter arguments. The Vox and Screen Rant articles are out of date, since there have been more mixed-to-positive reviews coming out. You can't say the series was "panned" or the reception was "largely negative", when the facts go against these statements. When you have 29 positive reviews and 28 negative reviews on RT, as well as 6 positive, 11 mixed and 9 negative reviews on MC, that translates to a mixed or polarizing response, not positive or negative. It's irrelevant if the score is "Rotten" or "Fresh". There are plenty of examples where a film or a series received generally mixed reviews, but received either a "Rotten" or "Fresh" rating. The point is to look at the bigger picture here, and, at the moment at least, the reception is utterly mixed; some like it, some hate it and others are in the middle. That constitutes as mixed--SilverBullitt (talk) 12:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I did not say "there is no such thing as a mixed reception" in any of the sentences I wrote above, I explained that the Rotten Tomatoes score and the expressions "Fresh" and "Rotten" are not equivalent to "mixed". Neither is MC. It is wrong to make an inference based on review counts and review scores. None of what you said is valid because of what I mentioned above. The bigger picture is generalized by other sources. (And the fact that you wrote "There are plenty of examples where a film or a series received generally mixed reviews" shows that, unfortunately, you don't know much about writing/paraphrasing/analyzing reception. There is no such thing as "generally mixed". This isn't "the metal generally mixed with gold while making ornaments is copper"... ภץאคгöร 13:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not here to be antagonistic or anything. I haven't seen the show and have no opinion on it whatsoever. So I have no bone to pick here. I'm just trying to do what's best for the article. The whole thing about "generally mixed" not being a thing is just getting into semantics. Why not just say "The series received mixed reviews from critics" or "It received a mixed response from critics", since there are an equal number of reviews that are both positive and negative. I'm not trying to erase what Vox and Screen Rant stated, I still fell they are worth bringing up in Critical reception. However, like Yummyfoodisgood said, stating that the reception was largely negative in the lead based on two journalists summaries seems inconrrect. Look at Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker or Ghostbusters: Afterlife; both received a similar mix of both positive and negative reviews. In the leads of both articles, it clearly states "mixed reviews". Why is this article any different? Just because two journalists stated that the reception was negative? Like I stated before, when those articles were published a majority of the reviews were negative, but that just isn't the case anymore.--SilverBullitt (talk) 13:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Oh yes, forgot to mention this: No point in comparing articles, especially when one is not related to film articles. Ghostbusters and others' reception have always been reported as mixed. For example, when you look at this, it clearly mentions 83 percent on RT ("positive" in your interpretation) but describes the roundup as mixed. It is described as mixed to this day. The reception didn't drastically change, and this is no exception. ภץאคгöร 15:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay, how about these: Forbes ("it’s getting extremely mixed reviews"), The Verge ("early reaction to Netflix’s live-action adaptation of Cowboy Bebop has been mixed"), Digital Spy ("following all those mixed reviews").--SilverBullitt (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Now you are talking. ภץאคгöร 18:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Faye termed as 'queer'

Erm.. not that I care about alphabet stuff.. none of my business. But Faye in the series is bisexual.. as seen in the episode 'Galileo Hustle'.. Faye is reading adult magazines about both sexes. The magazines are; The September 1977 Playboy and the fictional 'Intergalactic Erotic Leathermen'. She also remarks in that episode and same scene 'I've been spending too much time limiting myself.. life's a buffet'.

Dava4444 (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Ollie Barder of Forbe

Ollie Barder is a contributor of Forbes thus he is not a staff of forbes. The article is not appear in the print version of the magazine thus according to WP:RSN, should not treat as reliable source. The Paul Tassi one probably not a RS too. Matthew hk (talk) 08:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

yeah, Forbes is tricky since they have what amounts to a lot of online bloggers and it's hard to tell which is part of the main Forbes list and which is just Forbes bloggers. Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Episodes vs plot summary

@Harizotoh9:, I think most of the content in the plot summary could back into the episodes. This is really messy and confusing for casual fans and viewers. Most television and webseries articles on Wikipedia would have the plot summaries in the episodic sections. I am thinking of restoring the episode plot summaries but wanted to check what other people think. Andykatib 23:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I would support the episode approach, Andykatib. It gives more flexibility, and the current Plot section is already tagged for being too long. Per MOS:TV that overall Plot summary should really only be ~500 words, whereas if you do a summary in the episodes, you get ~200 words per episode. -2pou (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Fandom wikis can go into a lot of detail for episodes, but we don't need each episode summaries for here. The series isn't even 10 hours long and only has 10 episodes, os it's not like there's this massive plot that would take ages to explain. This page should absolutely adhere to MOS:TV. Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Harizotoh9 I had a read of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Plot section. It states that For main series articles, plot summaries of no more than 200 words per episode should ideally be presented in a table using {{Episode table}} and {{Episode list}} (such as State of Affairs). It also states that If the plot summaries are moved to a separate list of episodes (such as with The Blacklist) or to individual season articles (such as with Monk), then the plot summary at the series article should be replaced with a simple overview or premise section that allocates around 100 words per season (such as a logline for each season in non-copyrighted language). This gives us a few options. Since Cowboy Bebop was cancelled after its first season, we could just have the plot summary in the main article. We could either have the plot summaries in the episodes table or have a separate section. Given that section is considered too long since it exceeds the 200 word count, perhaps having the plot summaries in the episodes table is better. One good article that Cowboy Bebop could follow is the one for Firefly, which has both a premise section and a separate episodes section. Andykatib 10:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Reaction to cast.

I remember there being significant online backlash against the cast, whereas the "Reception" section only covers positive critical reactions vis. the cast. Specifically, the decision to cast a black actor as Jet, contributing to the Netflix Adaptation meme, and Eden Perkins as Ed. Ought this be reflected in the article, or does it not rise to the same level of noteworthiness as the opinions of professional critics? 173.166.60.89 (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)