Talk:Parker (2013 film)

The Budget

Since the entire previous discussion here was removed, I think it'd be helpful for people who came in late to know what has happened. I found an unimpeachable source (the head of one of the studios that produced Parker) saying the budget was 'Mid-30's'. I accordingly put up a budget figure of ~35 million--since the exact figure is unavailable, and probably always will be, and that seems a reasonable interpretation of this studio executive's comment. This edit was undone, because there were a number of sources that said 30mil, based on earlier and less accurate estimates. I decided to send the information about the Variety interview I'd used as a source to The Numbers, Box Office Mojo, and IMDb, all of whom very shortly afterwards had 35mil as the budget, indicating that all of them agreed this was a good source and a reasonable interpretation of 'Mid-30's'. There was some dispute as to whether by doing this, I'd violated the No Original Research guideline, and also protests that 'Mid-30's' is not an exact figure, and we ended up at the Dispute Resolutions Noticeboard, where an agreement was reached to wait three months and see if any better and more specific sources about the budget became available--if not, the 35mil figure would be put up in the databox, and in the meantime information about the Variety article was put in the body of the article. So July 1st is the date agreed upon, I believe. I am not going to take it upon myself to delete anyone's edits, but I completely support Arre9 if she wishes to stick to the agreement as it currently stands. No other source is likely to appear, so the outcome is the same either way. Status, who was also involved in the earlier dispute, was worried this kind of conflict might arise, because people would wonder why the article doesn't have the budget information up when the three most important sources of film financial data all say 35mil. While the talk page probably needed some pruning, I think deleting the entire discussion without putting up some kind of explanation of what had previously transpired was probably bound to lead to misunderstandings like this.Xfpisher (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I meant to add a notice to the page, but I completely forgot. Whoops! Thanks for writing an explanation. Zach 20:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Today's the day. Who wants to make the edit?Xfpisher (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Added.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.Xfpisher (talk) 00:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The photo of Lopez is not related to the film.

It seems to be from her recent world concert tour, which bears no relation to "Parker". I'm sure there must be more appropriate photos to use--either promotional film stills, or shots of her on set, on location, at the red carpet opening, etc. Also, the caption about how her performance was praised for its comic relief seems out of place. It's technically accurate, in that a minority of critics did praise her performance, but it doesn't belong there in any event, any more than a comment about how her performance was lambasted by many other critics. I don't see why the caption should say anything other than when and where the photo was taken. WP:NPOV would seem to apply here, as would concerns about redundancy. It's stated in the article that some critics liked her performance. To single out those opinions in a photo caption (for a photo that isn't even related to the film) is both redundant and non-neutral.Xfpisher (talk) 14:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Minor issue.. Forgive me here I was meant to say free to use. This free image shows the movie's leading female actress. That was the main reasoning in placing it there. I could move it somewhere in the production section if that would suit you better? Also the fact that it's from a concert or not is irrelevant, its an image of the actress. Arre 10:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I see no point in having an image of Lopez not in any way related to the film, where she doesn't look at all like she does in the film. I also find it hard to believe there aren't any free-to-use images of her related to the film. There must have been a number of photos released to the press that would be perfectly okay, and I've seen a bunch of photos from the red carpet opening where she quite honestly looks a lot better than she does in the photo now being used. I won't press the issue, if you think this is the best option available, but I won't accept the stuff about critics praising her comedy chops, because they mainly did not--perfectly okay to say some did, in the section about reviews. To say it in a photo caption would be to imply broad critical consensus on this point, and no such consensus ever existed. If a concert photo is going to be in the article, it's going to be identified as a concert photo.Xfpisher (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

There's really no point. And obviously she wouldn't look like she did in the film, she was playing a character. This image is of the person. Example here, a picture of Beyoncé Knowles is used in concert in the reception area.. It really doesn't matter where they are, it's an image of the person who stars in the film. Stating its her in concert is even more random, I'll just find a new pic of it's such a big issue. However, if you'd like to upload a non-free image of her at the film's red carpet opening, you can. I'd say someone here would find a reason to quickly delete it, though. Additionally, there was several remarks about the comical relief from Lopez's performance by reliable critics such as Christy Lemire, A.O. Scott (The New York Times) (among other sources). I don't get how it's WP:NPOV. Arre 10:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The photo of Beyonce you link to is from a general article about her, not an article about one of her films, so that doesn't support your case. Now if you go (for example) to the article for her film Dreamgirls, you find that there's a picture of her at the red carpet opening--not a concert photo. It's extremely odd, to say the least to put a concert photo of a star in an article about a movie that star appeared in. Red carpet photos are obviously free-to-use--and are used, constantly. Why don't you want to use one here?Xfpisher (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Also I don't appreciate the fan page remark in your edit summary, using an image of an entertainer performing doesn't exactly fall under the FANCRUFT category. Arre 10:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I want there to be an image of her, so that's not an argument. Now explain to me again why this is the only photo of Jennifer Lopez that can be used on this article? And why it's necessary to tell readers that her performance was critically praised, when in fact it was praised by a few critics, and disparaged by many others? WP:NPOV, at the very least, demands that you present all sides. Yes, the reviews section does that, but it's so long and tediously written that many readers will just skim over it, and light on the photo caption (which I can't help but think is the point of the photo caption). Now do you really want to go through another long arduous time-consuming process of mediation, when with a few tweaks, we can both be happy?Xfpisher (talk) 11:08, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The fact that critics noted her comic relief in a crime film is notable, which is why that is mentioned. This is notable in a sea of reviews that say the same thing (generic action/good action/bad storyline pacing, etc). It's a key point, here. It's not about presenting "all sides" obviously, if it was, a word such as "widespread" would be used. It's not like she's winning a Golden Globe or something Lol. I'll tweak the caption. The Knowles article was about a film she starred in, not about her or her life. Arre 11:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

It's equally notable that many critics said she was miscast, and a drag on the narrative. And no, she's not winning a Golden Globe, or even getting any critic award nominations, which calls into question whether even the critics who said nice things really thought she was all that good--again, it's fine to mention her positive notices in the reviews section, but not in the photo caption, unless you also mention the bad reviews. The photo you have up now is even worse, and the caption uses more words to say the same thing. You need a photo related to Parker, and you need a caption that doesn't try to make it sound like the critics all said she gave this amazing performance. Let the reviews section do its work. The tweaks have made the situation worse, not better. I'll accept 'some critics'. That's the best I can do. And again, find a photo relating to the film in some way. That's not going to be hard. They release photos to the press to promote any new movie. Those photos are perfectly kosher for Wikipedia.Xfpisher (talk) 12:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

If you are intent on those photos, you can have them brought onto Wikipedia. There are plenty of film FAs and GAs with free images of actors which isn't related to the film. Don't you get that these are free images? They don't have to always be of someone at the movie premiere of that specific film or anything. E.g. on song articles that have pictures of the producers often, but not in the studio producing that very song. What I'm saying is the photo isn't non-free meaning it doesn't have to be justified to the T. Arre 14:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Another thing I don't understand your personal reasoning for disliking the images? The Statham photo isn't of him on the red carpet of Parker or anything, I don't see you mentioning that. What do you mean by "even worse"? Arre 14:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The photo of Statham is a separate issue, but worth bringing up--certainly not an asset to the article, since it's not related to the film either--again, I'll accept the current photos, but not a review posing as a caption. Neither photo really enhances the article in any way, and many film articles get by fine without extra photos of the stars--certainly minor films like this one. I looked at the articles for most of her films, and I just don't see this on any of the others--with one exception (which I note is on an article you edit) they use images RELATED TO THE FILM, and they don't put review comments in the captions. Are you saying you don't want to go to the trouble of importing free-to-use photos of Lopez & Statham that are related to the film onto Wikipedia, but if I did it, you'd accept them as substitutes? I don't honestly see why you're so intent on having these photos on the article, which is overly long as is. Many far more popular and well-reviewed films have shorter articles. The reviews section in particular is ridiculously long. Anyway, you've changed the caption, and let's just forget that most of those comparisons were highly unfavorable to Parker.  :)Xfpisher (talk) 15:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not find the Lopez image to be problematic. Images do not have to be directly related to the article. For some examples, see the Featured Articles Barton Fink and Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. Using free images (and/or quote boxes) help break up what would otherwise be a wall of text. Just my $0.02. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I never said the photo itself (either one) violated guidelines, simply that it isn't optimal, and it isn't actually that common (as a brief scan of articles about Jennifer Lopez movies demonstrates very well). And the Barton Fink article doesn't use a generic photo of a star of that film. It creatively uses several images that are not from the film, to underline certain points made about an influential film--not to try and boost a star's image by selectively referring to her few good reviews. And I think we both know this is never going to be a featured article--what makes sense for a film like Barton Fink does not necessarily make sense here. The Star Trek article uses one generic photo of Shatner, that makes no mention of critics. Anyway, Arre has changed the caption--it's a start. But IMO, the caption is still being used to express a non-neutral point of view. Xfpisher (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for those examples Erik, that's exactly what I'm trying get across to Xfpisher. Wikipedia encourages us to use free images instead of non-free wherever possible. Xfpisher please read the caption again, there's nothing "non neutral" about mentioning "comparisons". It doesn't say "critics praised Parker for being similar to Out of Sight", no. It's not bending over backwards to present a positive critical review which you are clearly against. Also, "some" sounds way less formal than "multiple", but Icbb. Overall, the free images are of the lead stars of the film; there is nothing wrong with them being present here and your argument against them isn't that strong. Arre 06:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I slightly condensed the Critical response section. However, I strongly disagree that the article is "overly long" and like Erik said, images help bring the article together which otherwise would be a slab of words which nobody likes. The article covers necessary topics related to the film. Arre 06:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm tempted to say that a slab of words nobody likes would at least match the film the article is about. But seriously folks.... And seriously, Arre, thank you for making the effort to address my concerns. On Wikipedia, as in politics, we must learn to accept compromise. I think the reference to Out of Sight is actually rather good, and leaves it up to the reader as to whether the comparison is a favorable one. The reviews section is a bit less of a thicket now. Good work, all around.Xfpisher (talk) 11:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

A whole lot of unsigned edits.

Somebody changed the budget (ahead of the agreed-upon date) with an unsigned edit. Half the time I can't even figure out what's been edited, or why, because there's no explanation. Now I would have thought the proper procedure would be to undo an edit like that, but Arre seems to disagree. Arre, I could be completely wrong, but could you or somebody explain why it's kosher to change a Wikipedia article without identifying yourself, or the changes you've made?Xfpisher (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I never said it was okay to edit without adding a summary or anything. I'm not sure why the budget has been added either and I'll remove it. The only edit I reverted was here, you just reverted someone without seeing what the actual edit was. If that's what you're talking about?? By unsigned, do u just mean without an edit summary? If u want to talk with me directly please do it on my talk, thanks. Also about the budget, what are u talking about? My eyes aren't on this page 24/7, u know. I only saw it there now - if you thought I saw those edits and didn't wanna rv. Really sorry if I'm going off topic here, but I'm not exactly sure what you're talking about. Arre 02:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Nobody's eyes are on anything 24/7--not accusing, just questioning. I'm saying that I'm seeing edit after edit from people who aren't identifying themselves, specifying what they are editing, or why. And that even if you find the edit, and it's okay, that probably shouldn't be tolerated, because it encourages others to do the same. Wikipedia does allow people to change things without identifying themselves (I've long wondered why), but it's accepted practice to explain all but very minor edits.Xfpisher (talk) 11:06, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh okay. Well I hadn't seen it up till now. Why didn't you revert the budget if you saw it earlier? I've been a bit busy and have many other articles on my watchlist sorry. I agree, it is annoying when people don't specify their edits, but reverting without checking what the edit was isn't helpful. Arre 12:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

What WAS the edit? Where was it? I honestly couldn't see it, and I did check, Arre. I don't understand people who go from article to article, making changes so minor that they can't be discerned without a microscope, and they don't even seem to have a Wikipedia account. I've made unsigned edits by accident, here and there--thought I was logged in, but I wasn't. I certainly do very minor edits (punctuation error needs correcting or like that) without explaining them. Is that what it was? As to reverting the budget thing, I basically recused myself from all budgetary editing as part of our agreement. And btw, July 1st is next Monday.  :)Xfpisher (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Article must mention review embargo.

In the Hollywood Reporter review that is prominently mentioned in this article, it's reported that the studio insisted that critics attending a special screening had to sign an agreement that they would make sure their reviews weren't published until Parker opened. This, in film biz parlance, is called a 'review embargo', and it is widely recognized to mean the studio believes reviews will do the film more harm than good, and therefore they want to keep people from seeing them for as long as possible, to maximize the opening weekend box office. The reviews were, in fact, heavily negative, so the studio's concerns were warranted. I felt this was worth mentioning, so I edited the article, mentioning that this critic had said this. This unusually positive review for Parker had received more space than any other in the review section, so I felt it was necessary to take out a rather gushy comment about Statham that didn't add much of anything, as well as a mention of the on-location shooting, which the reader already knows about from the production section. Now honestly, the review embargo should be even more prominently featured than this--it should probably be mentioned at the very start of the section. But I didn't want to make the section even longer, and to more significantly tamper with the flow of the section, so I did it that way. If anyone has any suggestions how to do it better, I'm listening. But I will not accept the embargo not being mentioned, and I will not accept this atypically positive review getting more space than any of the much more representative pans of Parker. It was a badly reviewed film, and clearly the people who made it EXPECTED it to be badly reviewed, and did all in their power to head off those bad reviews for as long as possible. That, in Wikipedia parlance, is relevant information.Xfpisher (talk) 10:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with this "review embargo", but if the Hollywood Reporter is reporting about them and others having to sign an agreement not to publish reviews until the film was released, it should definitely be mentioned in the article.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 10:50, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

It is relevant, but word it differently in that case The observation of this agreement is not apart of the critical review. Move this to the start of the section. It looks awkward and random to readers who aren't familiar and don't care. Sections must flow well.Arre 13:02, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

And I don't think u need to keep worrying about the size of the section (again). It's not huge & it is manageable the way it is.Arre 13:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not worried about it, and we can agree to disagree--it's definitely better than it was. I'm okay with the current edit. It did seem you were saying the review embargo mention was irrelevant when you first removed it. Glad we could come to an agreement so quickly. Xfpisher (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Well yes, because the way it was just squeezed into a paragraph of film reviews, it didn't seem noteworthy or relevant. Once it is mentioned more prominently average readers will be able to get it.Arre 09:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, I was simply trying to avoid a multiplicity of references to the same source, but I'm glad you put it up top. I don't think 'irrelevant' is really the right word, but I know what you're talking about. It wasn't just this particular critic who had to sign this agreement, so it's something the reader should know before wading into the reviews.Xfpisher (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant.Arre 14:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Plot needs fixing

General grammar and structure edits needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.206.18 (talk) 07:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)