Talk:Escape from Planet Earth

	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 articles
	This article is supported by the Canadian cinema task force.

Animation: Canadian / Films Low‑importance

	Animation portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Canadian animation work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Animated films work group (assessed as Low-importance).

It says the budget was 4 billion, when the reference states it was 40 million. 65.34.91.165 (talk) 04:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

Just a quick question, even though it received mostly negative reviews, why bother calling it mixed? It just don't make sense. 73.219.248.94 (talk) 16:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rotten Tomatoes is simplistic in calculating the score. A review can only ever be positive or negative. So while "35%" seems low, it just means that RT categorized 35% of reviews as positive (and 65% as negative), with no clarity about where mixed reviews went. We can see from the average score of 4.62 out of 10 that a lot of reviews were in the middle. This is further supported by Metacritic, which categories reviews by positive, mixed, or negative, and it shows eight mixed reviews versus three negative (with no positive). So there is some basis for putting "mixed". Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

35% is still a Rotten rating no matter what. Also, when we say below 50%, that's Rotten, your not making any sense at all. Metacritic on the other hand indicates 35 out of 100 as "unfavorable reviews". Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 22:34, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On that topic, The Garfield Movie has a 36% or 37% score, which is a bit higher than this, and yet they deemed it as "generally negative", so why not deemed it "negative" for this as well? Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have to be mindful of how we use Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic on Wikipedia. It can be simple to just report the main numbers we see, but we have to remember that these are commercial websites trying to tell people whether or not to see a movie. They have to keep simple and keep making money, unlike some academic study of an older film that will research the reviews and draw a more historically-minded conclusion. Here, Rotten Tomatoes dumbs it down by saying if a film is "Fresh" or "Rotten", and the main percentage is based on if a film review was liked/loved or disliked/hated, and who knows how they categorize reviews that just consider it OK.

Yet RT and MC can help us, better than us looking at individual reviews, get a general sense of how critics received a film as a whole. Like for example, looking at the Metacritic breakdown, Escape from Planet Earth has eight mixed reviews and three negative reviews. (The metascore is Metacritic's secret commercial, proprietary formula.) So if there are more mixed reviews than negative, is it fair to say that this film got negative reviews? I don't think so. And while we don't see every review's RT score, the average score is 4.62 out of 100, so it's a very in-the-middle film.

As for The Garfield Movie, the Metacritic breakdown shows 14 mixed reviews, 14 negative, and 1 positive. So the film really received both mixed and negative reviews. The RT average score is 3.8 out of 100, which is lower, but it also hides that there are two apparent "camps" of reviews -- mixed and negative. What if we had a film that had 10 positive reviews, 10 mixed, and 10 negative? Would the aggregate score really represent these differing groups?

We want to record in an encyclopedic manner how a film was received. For me, to just use the commercial websites' big scores doesn't do that. But we can review their breakdown and adapt them as best as we can. I do acknowledge a lot of people just want to just use the big scores, but they're not enduring. What makes more sense 100 years from now -- "Escape from Planet Earth got 35% on Rotten Tomatoes" (and if RT even still exists then), or "Escape from Planet Earth got mixed reviews"?

What are your thoughts? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I don't know. Mr.Shadow514 (talk) 03:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]