Talk:Madea's Family Reunion

There has something something missing from the Internet Movie DataBase for a long time, and I think the scoring for this particular movie has boldly illustrated the point. There is a huge lack of racial, gender, and age diversity at this site. I don't know how it can be solved, considering that the exit Lions Gate exit polls show that the majority of this film's audience (52%) are African American females over the age of 35. Older black women, for the most part, simply do not take part in the ratings for that site. A movie that has earned almost $50 million over 2 weeks (and also the top movie in the industry during that time period) should not be rated a current 2.7. I am not implying racism - if you don't like the movie, you don't like the movie, especially if you cannot relate to the subject matter. However, I believe IMDB.com should attempt to reach a more diverse audience through its existing marketing and/or advertising outlets. This movie could be to that site what Anita Hill was to the Wall Street Journal.

This page is actually describing the play, not the 2006 film. Characters from the film, such as Boris Kodjoe, Jenifer Lewis, and Blair Underwood aren't even mentioned. FamousBobby 05:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great eye, Bobby. Fixed it per your note.

First off, quit putting HTML in the code (the paragraph and justify tags) - it gums up the works. Secondly, the POV description is what keeps gettign reverted. There has to be a way to put the same information in without the POV. --Mhking 18:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe it is in the best interest of the reader that all articles are justified and does not "gum up the works." In any case, I also believe it's rude to demand things of someone you do not know, especially when there is no official policy stating either case. I've combed through that summary multiple times, and I'm pretty sure it's a NPOV. The social impact of this movie is something to behold, and I think an encyclopedia needs to pay attention to that.

I think both versions have good and bad elements. Mhking's version doesn't go overboard marvelling at the success of the film, and also avoids dating the article by making it too reliant on current events (like saying King Kong was the last Hollywood blockbuster; that won't be true after the next one comes out). The other version has more detail but too many peacock words like "huge success" and "staggering". (Personally, I'm not staggered at all by a $30M gross. Garden State made millions more than that and I wasn't "staggered" then, either.)

I take exception to both versions claiming that it was marketed to faith based audiences; the reference cited is talking about "Diary of a Mad Black Woman", not this film. I know this is a sequel, but that doesn't necessarily mean they used the same marketing techniques. If they did, fine; find a reference that says so about this movie.

It seems you are both editing in good faith, so I caution you both about the 3 Reverts Rule. You've both gone over the limit today and a lot of admins would issue blocks to both of you. I think with a little more talk and a lot less reverting we can come to a compromise. Kafziel 05:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Staggering referred to the average amount made per theater. No one gets even half those first week numbers except heavily marketed, star-laden, huge expense Big Six movies (blockbusters). Case in point - the wide release film average winner this past week was again Madea's Family Reunion with $5,765 per screen, in spite of 4 new titles being released.

I'm willing to come to a compromise, as I mentioned previously. But I have the impression (as noted by the continued reverting) that MarcyU/68.1.74.140 (obviously the same person) does not wish to compromise, and only wants to impose her will on the group. She has already stated that she does not wish to adhere to Wiki standards of editing and does not wish to identify herself in her posts. --Mhking 13:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section in dispute

I have reworked the section in dispute to try to find an acceptable compromise that satisfies both parties. I am trying to work fairly and in good faith. Please consider what I've posted, and if you have fault with portions of it, let's at least discuss them as opposed to just wholesale reverting (and continuing what has is a pointless edit war). --Mhking 13:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have adhered to the wiki standards you keep mentioning; it is only your opinion that I am not (identifying yourself and left justification are not required). You keep deleting the section about the staggering numbers. But as you can see above, it is worth mentioning as this film not only had the highest per average wide release opening of the year, it also had the highest opening overall. This is phenomenal considering Madea is an independent film, especially considering the cost at which it was made. It is actually a landmark movie in that regard. What you and Crumbsucker are doing is merely rewording all the articles that I am referencing. And why are you deleting the wiki links to the actors and actresses?

As I've explained to you already, specifying justification of paragraphs with HTML tags is not necessary and actually reduces the options of the reader. Any user may set justification preferences, and forcing justification in this way overrides that preference setting.

It may not be required, but it's strongly encouraged that you sign posts on talk pages. It's not like you remain anonymous by not signing. You just make it more difficult for the rest of the people involved in the discussion.

Lastly, it's your opinion that the numbers are staggering. This is original research (as is the comparison to King Kong) and non-neutral language. Reporting that the film had the highest per average wide release opening of the year and the highest opening overall is just fine, because these are indisuptable facts. If you can find a prominent film critic or film industry commentator who uses such language to describe the film's opening, it can be used with attribution. If it's the opinion of a large number of such people that the film's performance thus far is "phenomenal" or "landmark" or whatever else, then it could probably be used without attribution. android 79 15:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How are number comparisons "original research"? Numbers are indisputable facts. And how would you gauge "large number of such people"? Do I have to quote every major news organization to receive that label (now that would be research). And I am the only person here listening to other people's recommendations. My edits are almost never wholesale. If you compare the edits, I am the only person deleting, adding, and modifying comments because of recommendations from people on this page. Mhking and Crumbsucker do just a Revert, even deleting the updated numbers and information other people (besides myself) have added. Those are the guys you should be commenting about, not someone who doesn't want to sign what they write or attempts to make text more legible (both of which are NOT against policy - they're only recommendations). And if I ever do break them, as I've mentioned before, here's what you can do with your rules.

Equally important to WP:IAR is m:Don't be a dick. If, by ignoring some of the rules, you're pissing people off, maybe you ought to rethink that. If Crumbsucker et al. are doing blind reverts, well, they shouldn't be. They should consider this post a warning to stop doing so, and a suggestion to discuss edits here, as should always be done. You're seriously misinterpreting and misapplying WP:IAR – if we ignored all the rules all the time, we'd no longer have an encyclopedia.

Maybe the King Kong comparison is okay; it may just be the way it's presented that I object to. I'll have to think about that one.

And you wouldn't have to find a statement from every major news organization. The more, the better, though – that way, the article could describe the film's performance as "phenomenal" without need for justification or qualification. All I can find on the web at the moment are articles describing the raw numbers, without commenting on how the success of this movie is unusual or surprising. android 79 16:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK - just so I have everything straight: In good faith, I rewrote the section this morning to include both the information you originally posted along with what I had posted. You, without so much as a by-your-leave, deleted said portion in favor of your original revision. You took my olive branch and tossed it; you pretty much said 'the hell with any compromise.' --Mhking 17:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am most definitely not doing blind reverts. I explained my case in his other user discussion page. The user(s) is doing pure Original Research and POV writing, and I told them that very clearly, but they have decided instead to be a dick. Crumbsucker 01:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you cannot refrain yourself from using grossly inappropriate language, you should not be editing on this site.

Who is that directed at? android 79 15:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am placing the King Kong reference back in. Any objections? This number comparison is done for many movies on wikipedia already. For example, the King Kong box office section to which I'm referring compares itself to the blockbuster preceding it, The Chronicles of Narnia.

I don't see the point; it's not even a flattering comparison, because King Kong was not by any means considered a huge success by Hollywood standards, compared with how much it cost to make. Why can't this movie just stand on its own without comparing it to other things? Kafziel 20:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree...I see nothing that this adds.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 20:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about flattery - it's about putting this movie in historical perspective of other box office hits, especially in the per theater venue. If you look at other films on wikipedia, especially the financially successful ones, they all do such comparisons (Star Wars Ep. III, Chronicles, King Kong, Harry Potter, etc.). Considering this is currently the top grossing movie of 2006, I am merely maintaining the standard to which all movies on this site are presented.

It makes sense to compare those because they are all big-budget fantasy/sci-fi films that compete for opening weekend records, international box office, and highest grossing film of the year. Madea, by the end of the year, will be far from the highest-grossing film. It's not in the running at all: Star Wars, Kong, Narnia, and Porter all were. Crumbsucker 21:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is why it should be kept in historical perspective. This movie, by average screen, matches up to all those blockbusters you just named, in spite of the fact that it is a low-budget, independent film. To wit, I've yet to hear any reason not to put this information in here. The only reason I've heard is "it's not big enough," which hardly qualifies. The numbers have been placed in a NPOV, and I consider any information added to this film to be helpful. The people who have actually added to this article (such as updated numbers, additional links, corrected information, etc.) besides myself are not people who are on this discussion page.

Doesn't sound like you read my message. Read it again, please. BTW, changing your username and IP every two seconds won't help you get your way, buddy. Crumbsucker 07:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plus there is no "historical" context regarding King Kong, which arguably was a flop. Mhking 19:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With the continued back and forth, I have removed the "King Kong" reference until further discussion can take place. Mhking 00:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Title

According to Yahoo!, IMDb, and Office Box Mojo, the official title of the film is Tyler Perry's Madea's Family Reunion. Should the article's title be changed? =D Jumping cheese 01:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good thought, but it's a common marketing ploy to put the name of the movie's well-known director/writer/producer in the front of the title to attract attention (like Stephen King's The Green Mile, Mario Puzo's The Godfather, etc.). So the title probably shouldn't be changed - otherwise, we'd have a glutton of movies (7 in this case) starting with that person's name.

That, and article titles should generally be kept as short and simple as possible. android 79 15:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

whi deleted the page on the play and diary of a mad black woman's play.I'm not tring to be racist but many white people believe that this is a stupid movie or have never seen the play and they try to destroy the good name of Tyler Perry

Fair use rationale for Image:Madeas family reunion.jpg

Image:Madeas family reunion.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Madea's Family Reunion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060426175541/http://www.boxofficeprophets.com:80/column/index.cfm?columnID=9450 to http://www.boxofficeprophets.com/column/index.cfm?columnID=9450

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]