Talk:Jupiter Ascending

Box Office

"It also opened in markets such as France ($2.5 million), South Korea ($2.1 million), the UK ($2 million), Brazil ($1.9 million), Mexico ($1.8 million), Germany ($1.8 million), Italy ($1.2 million) and Spain ($1.1 million). The film also debuted in Asian markets, bringing in $6 million in total from Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand."
Is there a reason South Korea isn't included in the 'Asian markets'? --TasioScholar (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Summary

Don't you think it's time someone summarized it? It was released yesterday, wasn't it? 68.149.21.178 (talk) 02:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

"fall to his death"

I'd probably just say "fall". You know how villains can be, especially when sequels are a possibility. I also know that this sort of change can cause major edit wars, so I'm running this here first. - Richfife (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion about gender issues

hello everyone why was the section about the gender-specific audience removed from the page? it referred to this article: http://www.hitfix.com/harpy/jupiter-ascending-is-the-sci-fi-movie-women-were-waiting-for — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.253.8.42 (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It appears that the content has been re-added, or at least I think so, in the critical response section. I think it is noteworthy that some women have taken an unlikely shine to the film, although the current prose is a little unclear to me, and it could much clarification:

The film received attention for the reversed, campy depictions of Jupiter’s and Balem’s personalities. The motion picture has also gained a cult following, particularly among female sci-fi fans, which commentators attribute to its appeal towards "the female gaze."

I'm going to take a stab at this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I made some changes to the prose. I cut two references because they weren't relevant to what I was doing, but if anyone needs them, they're here in the collapsed section:

Extended content

<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.imakeupworlds.com/index.php/2015/02/eggs-bees-and-toilets-jupiter-ascending-as-womanspace/ | title=Eggs, Bees, and Toilets: Jupiter Ascending as WomanSpace | author=Kate Elliott | publisher=[[Kate Elliott]] | date=February 12, 2015| accessdate=March 5, 2015}}</ref> <ref>{{cite web | url=http://freebeacon.com/culture/jupiter-ascending-review/ | title= ‘Jupiter Ascending’: Gloriously insane new film from Wachowskis | author=Sonny Bunch | publisher=[[The Washington Free Beacon]] | date=February 6, 2015| accessdate=March 5, 2015}}</ref>

Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Critical response summary removed

In this edit I removed the summary of critical response. Although sourced, it was relevant to a specific moment, not necessarily indicative of all critical response that the film would receive. Also, we are not critical response aggregators. It's best to let the aggregators summarize their own findings and leave it at that. The summary was being contested by Wikiepdiax818, who seems to be interested in shifting the critical response summary toward negative even though that's not consistent with Metacritic's "average" assessment. Seems more intuitive to avoid the summary. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

In no way can the critical consensus of Jupiter Ascending be described as "mixed. " On Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds a rating of 25%, based on 203 reviews, with an average rating of 4.2/10 on Metacritic.

Other contemporary films that hold similar scores and a "mostly negative" or negative" descriptor in its Wikipedia critical reception lead paragraph include Entourage, which received an even better Rotten Tomatoes score at 30% and a 4.7/10 on Meteritic is described as "negative." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entourage_(film)#Reception

Get Hard also received a higher Rotten Tomatoes score with 29%, and a higher Metoritic score at 4.3/10, and Wikipedia's critical reception claims "Get Hard has received generally negative reviews." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get_Hard#Release

Calling the critical reception to Jupiter Ascending "mixed to negative" is not only biased, but goes against many similar and cemented Wikipedia articles on similarly received films.

Jupiter Ascending has received "mostly negative" reviews from critics.

Mainstream sources that all indicate a negative critical consensus:

The Frame wrote that the film has been "hilariously panned" by critics.

References

The statement "In no way can the critical consensus of Jupiter Ascending be described as "mixed." Is a statement based on vapor. Metacritic, a reliable source, summarizes the critical response as "mixed or average", the other aggregator, Rotten Tomatoes, has a low percentage. You don't get to unilaterally decide what the overall critical response toward a film is. That's textbook original research. By removing the summary, we don't have to worry about this, and readers can draw their own conclusions and not be spoonfed your opinion, or the opinion of the person who submitted "mixed to negative". That seems a reasonable solution to this, and your reinsertion of this POV content on the basis of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is limp, at best. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Every other film on Wikipedia has a lead paragraph summary in their critical reception Wiki. This film cannot be any different. Furthermore, its lead section claims "the general attitude toward the film was negative." The article's critical reception section must match that and be consistent with every other film page on Wiki.Wikiepdiax818 (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Every other film on Wikipedia has a lead paragraph summary Total fabrication, or hyperbole. Not every other film has these summaries. Mad Max: Fury Road does not. Jurassic World does not. These summaries were problematic and we decided to omit them. And again, this would be an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. That's an invalid argument, so you can stop using it. You're stonewalling change. You didn't like "Mixed to negative", which was directly sourced, so I removed it. That's a rational compromise. If you're trying to force "generally negative" into the article, that's not a neutral addition considering the two aggregators are at odds on the summary. If you're adamant that an introduction sentence is necessary, it should be reflective of what both aggregators decided. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

This is hyperbolic bias. Those examples have summarizing opening sentences nonetheless. Regardless, there are even more sources cited that list the film as "negative," generally negative" or "panned." You don't get to unilaterally rewrite history and make unprecedented changes to Wikipedia's film reception summary standards. I have found other, contemporary films with even better Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores that are easily listed as "negative" or "generally negative." Find other films with just as low scores that are listed as "mixed" and it won't be a problem. Wikiepdiax818 (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I can tell that you haven't yet clicked on WP:OR to learn what original research is. It's not our place to arrive at conclusions based on our personal counts of references. That's why we rely on critical response aggregators. Further, my most compelling argument is to avoid the summary entirely, which you don't seem to get, since you are accusing me of unilaterally rewriting history. Although I am tickled that you're recycling my vocab words. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I feel that there is some WP:CHERRYPICKING going on here. I want to make a couple of observations before making a suggestion:

1. First of all, on the subject of aggregators it is important to note that the percentage score on Rotten Tomatoes only indicates the percentage of positive reviews (see What is the Tomatometer?), and in cases where the score is 25% it is WP:Original research to conclude that 75% are negative. It is not clear how Rotten Tomatoes categorizes "rotten" reviews. What does Rotten Tomatoes do with "average" reviews? Does it split them between "fresh" and "rotten"? Are all average reviews categorized as "rotten"? We can conclude that there are not many positive reviews but that does not mean they are all negative. This becomes clearer when you look at Metacritic: only 8 reviews out of 40 (20%) were positive, but Metacritic does not conclude the reviews were negative from the low ratio of positive reviews. It concludes the reviews were mixed overall. There was a similar discussion at Talk:Transcendence_(2014_film)#Mixed_vs._negative last year and we found that in the case of the reviews that the two aggregators have in common, nearly all the "average" reviews" on Metacritic were graded "rotten" on Rotten Tomatoes. On that basis "rotten" reviews may be all negative or they may be all average so we have to be careful about what conclusions we draw from Rotten Tomatoes.
2. Secondly, there are reputable sources out there describing the reviews as "mixed": both Variety and CinemaBlend judged the reception to be mixed, and along with Metacritic those findings are not isolated or insignificant.

The current introductory summary describing the reviews as "mostly negative" is not adequately reflecting the spectrum of secondary opinion, which WP:WEIGHT obliges us to do. Neither do I agree with the "mixed to negative" nomenclature either which is grammatically poor. Now bearing in mind I have not seen this film so I am completely impartial in regard to the film's perceived quality, I think the overall sentiment arising from these sources is that the reception is generally unfavorable. At best it is a deeply mediocre film and at worst it is a poor one, but perhaps not terrible (as evidenced by the MC score of 40/100 and the RT rating of 4.2/10). I would actually summarise the reception in those terms: "The critical reception was generally unfavorable, with Jupiter Ascending receiving mostly negative and mediocre reviews from critics". Betty Logan (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Good comments, Betty, thank you. I think we find ourselves in another situation where we're trying to summarize a range. The numbers don't have any value to us in terms of summarizing the summary of critical response. One site (RT) doesn't really summarize, instead gives a percentage over a pass/fail system. The other, (Metacritic) summarizes. If we're looking at the numbers and drawing conclusions, that's not really our job. I've never been a fan of the summary sentence, and I wasn't the one behind the "mixed to negative" summary. (I even mocked it here in the context of this film.) Per the MOS, if we include summary statements, they should be attributed to a source. The previous "mixed to negative" was attributed to a source, but now Wikiepdiax818 is attributing conflicting summaries to other sources. If the summary is in dispute, I'm not sure how we resolve that except to either omit it, or present a broader and more neutral explanation. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• This dispute was not adequately resolved. There are two reliable sources with differing evaluations of the critical response. Though I understand Betty's argument that the numbers were in the same area, the summaries were not. My middle-ground proposal was that we omit the summary statement, which should allow content from both aggregators to be presented in a neutral fashion. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with removing the opening line summary because it does not comply with WP:WEIGHT. But remember, aggregators are not "arbiters of critical consensus" either per WP:AGG, so in that sense they do not "trump" other sources in their findings. Betty Logan (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Betty. If the aggregators are not arbiters of critical consensus, then I don't see why we would ever use their summaries in our own summaries. (Which I am okay with...) Likewise, I don't know why we would use any other single reviewer's summary as was previously in the article. How is the Christian Science Monitor's evaluation "mixed to positive" any more definitive than the aggregators' summaries? Perhaps a discussion for a different day? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Aggregators survey a selection of reviews and publish their own findings. Metacritc saying the reviews are mixed for example, is no more valid than sources that claim the film was panned. As I see it there are several sources in each camp saying the reviews were either mixed or negative so ideally they should have equal representation. Take a look at The_Hobbit:_An_Unexpected_Journey#Critical_response which should give you the general gist. Betty Logan (talk) 04:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Science Fantasy (?)

Do you think Jupiter Ascending is science fantasy? It does contain dragons and other fantastical elements. Similarly, can the entire genre of space opera be classified as science fantasy? Comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14C:1:4DD0:F8C5:130D:BB44:E1DC (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, can you please be more specific about how this discussion would improve the article? If you're proposing a change to the genre "space opera", the more pressing question would be whether a reference can be found for "science fantasy" as a genre, not whether we as individuals think that it better conforms to this genre. Genre can be subjective, so we need reliable sources to make that determination. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I just want to classify the film according to its genre, which in this case, could be science fantasy. I was unsure if it would fit the definition, so I decided to get some other people on board with it. I understand what you mean by needing a reference, however, because genre is subjective, starting a discussion on a talk page could lead to people posting links to a host of sources that can help me understand how to properly classify this film, instead of just one person's opinion. 2601:14C:1:4DD0:F8C5:130D:BB44:E1DC (talk) 14:04 1 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14C:1:4DD0:78:ED1B:AE40:503D (talk)

There used to be Science Fiction. Good Science Fiction was written by people like Jules Verne, H.G. Wells, or Isaac Asimov. Most Science Fiction today is Science Fantasy. Science Fiction vs. Science Fantasy is the difference between Star Trek T.O.S. vs. Star Trek T.N.G., or George McFly predicting in 1955 that Darth Vader would be from the planet Vulcan, he just got a little confused. Just an opinion.Easeltine (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Easeltine As stated above, we need references to support genres, not personal evaluations. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

"Science fantasy is a mixed genre within the umbrella of speculative fiction which simultaneously draws upon and/or combines tropes and elements from both science fiction and fantasy." "Distinguishing between science fiction and fantasy, Rod Serling claimed that the former was "the improbable made possible" while the latter was "the impossible made probable"." The genre is not well defined, but also based on this article, it appears that E.S.P., and Parapsychology, we are getting into the realm of Fantasy. http://sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/science_fantasy and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fantasyEaseltine (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

"There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the Twilight Zone." - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052520/quotesEaseltine (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

What I mean by "we need references to support genres" is that we need a reference, like a magazine, newspaper, book, web news site, or other source with a clear editorial standard, that describes Jupiter Ascending explicitly as "science fantasy". Also, note that IMDb is not a reliable source. WP:RS/IMDB, WP:RS, WP:TVFAQ. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Put in "Jupiter Ascending Science Fantasy" and see how many articles you get!Easeltine (talk) 00:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

This should be check

I think this part Despite this, the film has found a more positive response, particularly among female sci-fi fans who appreciate the film's campiness, and that the film deviates from typical gender norms in a genre that is traditionally male-centric should be remove. How is that a character that is basically the classical damsel in distress deviates from typical gender norms in a genre that is traditionally male-centric? It is the opinion of one commentor, hardly enough to be in the openning of the article. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 10:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Dereck Camacho It's not the opinion of one person, it's a summary of numerous opinions about why the film became popular among some women, as detailed further down in the critical response section. Many of the opinions expressed appreciation for the way Kunis's character (the hero) was not portrayed as a hard-nosed "Schwarzenegger with boobs" rather that she was depicted as soft and flawed and feminine.The Daily Dot called it "gender-flipped", and expanded, "Women don’t always want superhuman robots to look up to. We want to be the same klutzy nobody who is cosseted and petted and told we’re special — despite all evidence to the contrary." A writer for HitFlix noted, "All the men are in love with Kunis or, barring that, are scantily-clad for maximum objectification. The women are the most competent, level-headed characters."[1]. Caitlin Orr at CultureMass said, "Jupiter Ascending finally gives teenage girls the same kind of fantasy that teenage boys have been given for years." She compared it to "almost any action movie where the everyman hero discovers his secret destiny as a Chosen One, defeats the bad guy, and gets the girl ... fulfilling a certain fantasy aimed squarely at the young male demographic." She describes the film as "a 14-year-old girl’s novel come to life ... Jupiter finds out she’s a space princess, gets her wolf-man love interest, and goes toe-to-toe with a rasping Eddie Redmayne."[2] So, a classical damsel-in-distress film? I don't know if these critics would agree with you on that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb How representative are those opinions if may I ask? The movie was a flop which means not many people saw it, clearly didn't atracted enough public (female or otherwise) to think that was a hit among viewers. Was panned by critics, and yes the page says its becoming a "cult classic" but practically the same is in every article of every bad movie in Wikipedia. During the movie she was basically kidnapped and rescue like five times, and have no direct impact in the plot really, the hero, Tatum, is the main chainging force in the plot. And that is not my opinion, is the opinion of several film critics. So, again, how representative are the opinions you are quoting? because it seems to be like three or four commentors.

I correct you, that people HAVE SEEN the movie. It could be flop in USA, but I remember in London it was in cinema for at least two-three weeks. My friend was working at cinema at the time and she remembered it was mostly teenage girls watching it, pretty unusual for cience- fiction movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.60.6.163 (talk) 03:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

So, what about all the many critics, commentors and reviewers have a different opinion and think that the movie is clearlt sexist and encourage stereotypes on females? and why isn't their opinions also included. I mean, Wikipedia should be neutral and reflect all opinions on a film, or at least the most representative ones. I can provide the sources of the many authors who think this movie is the typical damsel in distress film. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen the film, so I can't comment on interpretation of the themes. What I can say is that I think we present the critical response fairly neutrally. We describe the overall response as negative, but then point out that a niche of fans sprang up. If you think the wording in the lead should be a little more clear that this was a niche, I wouldn't be opposed to that. I don't think it should be ignored entirely in the lead because it does seem somewhat noteworthy, particularly when there are numerous reviewers who feel that way, and other sources [3][4][5][6] that have noted the "cult" attraction (i.e. loving how bad it is). How representative are these views of all the reviews? Not very representative, but I don't think we're presenting the content in a way that suggests it was what most people thought. We say pretty clearly that the general attitude was negative. Typically I'm not a fan of making proclamations about a film's general critical response, be it "generally negative" or "mostly positive" or "mixed" so I'd be fine with omitting all critical response from the lede including the cult stuff, but not everybody feels the same way. If, however, we're going to include the critical response content in the lede, I think it deserves a little balance. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, I think we can agree on that. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 07:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Currency

The article should probably clarify whether it is referring to American or Australian currency. 207.161.217.209 (talk) 07:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done - It's a good note, thanks for the tip. I'm curious to see if it stays... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

On Listing Lilly Wachowski or simply The Wachowski's under Producers

Next to the name of the producers, there's a comment states that consensus must be reached on the talk page before any change is made to Lilly's name. So let's have a discussion! What is the protocol on updating the names of transgender folks involved in productions when the production was released under their previous name? Is there precedent already set? I'm partial to using the person's new name as much as possible out of respect and accuracy. The other parts of this section dodge the issue by listing the sisters together as The Wachowski's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.21.153 (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a precedent set by The Matrix and the articles on there, which have kept their names as "The Wachowski Brothers" as that is how they are identified in the credits of the films in question. Gistech (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Reversion of edits by Wallyfromdilbert

In this edit I reverted changes made by Wallyfromdilbert. I know they were made in good-faith, but I think it's really over-the-top weird to scuttle the summary of critical response, which was well substantiated by, what, five sources? And the replacement "mixed to negative" commentary, is shunned by multiple WikiProjects, including WikiProject Film, so it's unlikely to be appropriate here. Further, there's nothing wrong with attempting to summarise the praise and criticism on the various critical highlights. I don't really understand the major refactoring to an article that's remained largely stable for a few years. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb, did you read the sources you say substantiate the summaries of the critical response? The first source cited, and the only one that appears to discuss the overall critical consensus, says "mixed to negative" (Christian Science Monitor). The others are discussing individual reviews rather than critical consensus, and WikiProject Film has already discussed that individual reviews should not be synthesized together by editors to reach an original conclusion not stated in any sources (one of the sources that is cited even praises Redmayne's performance as the best part, despite Wikipedia's text claiming that is part of the central criticism of the film by critics). The problems with this type of synthesis is also discussed in the MoS's guidance against weasel language such as "some critics" (see WP:WEASEL). The two sources that discuss the overall critical consensus appear to be the CSMonitor source and the Metacritic source, which say "mixed to negative" and "mixed or average reviews".

I am going to remove the relevant information from the Wikipedia article and copy it here so that they can be discussed and supported. I will replace "mixed to negative" with "mixed" since you objected to the "or", but I'm not sure how we could use "generally negative" given the CSM and MC sources.

Content removed from lead:

The film received generally negative reception upon release, with most criticism focused on incoherence in the screenplay, Redmayne’s melodramatic performance, the characterization and an over-reliance on special effects. Some critics praised the visuals, originality, world-building and Giacchino's musical score.

Content removed from critical response section:

Jupiter Ascending received generally negative reviews from critics. Criticism has centered on the incoherence of the film's screenplay, Redmayne's melodramatic performance and its over-reliance on special effects, although the visuals, musical score, and originality were praised by some.

References

If you could explain what sources support this content, that would be very helpful to me, as I do not see the support for this summary outside of synthesizing individual reviews. I think the RottenTomatoes summary provides a good guide if we want to include additional information in the lead. For the main critical reception section, I think it's probably better to let the individual reviews speak for themselves, and the critical consensuses provided by RT and MC are also quoted there at the top of the section. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: You are in contravention of our edit-warring policy. When you restore the content, then I'd be happy to engage with you. Per our WP:BRD system, you made a bold change, I reverted you, and your recourse is to discuss, not to reinstate the version you prefer. I actually did you the favour of opening the discussion for you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I removed unsourced content as well as content that is contradicted by the cited sources. I have copied that material here on the talk page so that it can be discussed. If you do not want to engage in a discussion, that is your choice. Please also note that WP:BRD is an explanatory supplement, while WP:BURDEN is a policy. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: I have over 14x the experience you do at Wikipedia, based on edits alone, but I thank you for your attempt to educate me on edit-warring policy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

With all that experience, you should have read the WP:V policy, one of the core policies. If you do not want to discuss content, then I have nothing else to say here. Feel free to ping me if you change your mind. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: Thank you for citing WP:V, which, at present is irrelevant. Right now I'm concerned that you ignored our edit-warring policy to reinstate content you felt was right, after it was reverted by another editor, i.e moi. I'd overlook it if you legitimately didn't know, but I made a point of noting it my edit summary and you seem to be a Wikipedia expert. Since you're citing policy, per WP:EW: Wikipedia encourages editors to be bold, but while a potentially controversial change may be made to find out whether it is opposed, another editor may revert it. This may be the beginning of a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. An edit war only arises if the situation develops into a series of back-and-forth reverts. Please note that BRD isn't just "an explanatory supplement", it's in the policy. My "R" was a legitimate reversion. Your reinstatement of the content you prefer would be the initiation of an edit war. Since I'm sure you're aware that any form of edit-warring is disruptive, I hope you're not gambling on skating by for not yet crossing 3RR. Once we address and resolve your edit-warring move, then I'd be elated to discuss with you the various intellectual points you've raised about the content, and I may actually agree with you on some of them. So just to be clear, I'm very willing to discuss, buuuut, you've created a situation where you've forced your preferred version into the article despite my objection, and contrary to the status quo. As you no doubt know, typically after a rejected edit, we would maintain the status quo until a new consensus is built. If you're not willing to do that, then please, per policy and/or Wikipedia norms, tell me what my next option would be. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

You could discuss the content, which I copied above and is unsourced or contrary to the cited sources. Otherwise, there is no need to ping me. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what happened after the discussion above but the deleted text was never restored. I particularly want to talk about the chunk of text right before Rotten Tomatoes.[7] I don't disagree with reorganizing the section but I think there were details in there that should have been moved down and improved instead of deleted entirely.
The Critical response section has been left with a only a small paragraph about the negative responses from critics, and a large paragraph (starting from Donna Dickens) that is more about Audience response and the cult following the film developed. For a film that was so negatively reviewed this is WP:UNDUE emphasis on the positive. Gone is the criticism of: the incoherence of the film's screenplay; Redmayne's melodramatic performance; its over-reliance on special effects. Wallyfromdilbert seems to dispute those points by pointing to WP:VERIFY but The CS Monitor summary said "the story is at times difficult to follow"[8] and CSM quote a review that called it "convoluted" and another "incomprehensible". The Independent highlighted that not only that Redmayne's peformance had been criticized, but that it was so bad that people even thought it could affect his chance of an Oscar.[9] It might need to be rewritten, and presented better but I think most of the points were verified with references. I don't think TheMarySue.com, EntertainmentWise, or The Cougar Chronicle, are good sources but I think it was a case of {{better source needed}} and cleanup needed, not a great big delete. Medium.com is not a good source either but it wasn't deleted (and Taste.io looks a lot like it might fail WP:USERGENERATED).
It would probably be better if the Critical response section was expanded and the reviews that complained about the plot were directly referenced, and for the Critical response section to focus more on the Critics and their reviews. It might be better to separate out the Cult following bits into a separate paragraph.
If Wallyfromdilbert could please clarify his objections then maybe we could start to restore the bits he doesn't actually have a problem with and add more reliable sources for things he believes are dubious. -- 109.79.65.133 (talk) 03:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Treybien2 has made some significant improvements to the Critical response section[10] adding a parapgraph to address Redmanynes much derided performance (although from the comparisons I've looked at it seems to be all new[11], rather than restoring anything that what was chopped out earlier). -- 109.78.195.140 (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

“Jupiter Jones” name coincidence or taken from Robert Arthur’s “Three Investigators” on purpose?

Is it known whether the “Jupiter Jones” name is a kudos to “The Three Investigators” book series (where that is the (male) name of the most important character) or whether it’s pure coincidence? -- 2003:C0:9729:900:654E:ABE3:3E23:7D54 (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)