Talk:Taken 2

Reviews

Hi there, I reverted a change by an IP User because to say a film has only included negative reviews is against wiki policy and classed as Defamation. As a result any changes that say that the film has received "mostly negative reviews" is against this policy and should be reverted by any user. Saying it has received mixed reviews is not being neutral, especially when the reviews shown show the film to have mostly mixed reviews, and some positive reviews. MisterShiney (talk) 10:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It is not against wiki policy to say a film has gotten all negative reviews if that's the case; you're quoting a libel policy when you should be looking at film review policy:Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Reception. Note it says "To maintain a neutral point of view, it is recommended to quote a reasonable balance of these reviews. This may not always be possible or desirable (e.g. films that have been almost universally acclaimed or panned), and best judgment should again be used." In the case of this movie, IMHO it has gotten mostly negative to mixed reviews, but to say that we should revert any "mostly negative reviews" statement because it's "libel" is inaccurate.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 13:16, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction and help. But I am sure you would agree, that the selection shown does show a mostly mixed reviews...? MisterShiney (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said, IMHO this particular film has gotten "negative to mixed." 19% on Rotten Tomatoes is more negative than mixed, but I'm not overly concerned with the wording. I think there's a fair representation of the critics so people can see for themselves.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 14:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I am just aware that people only read the first line of anything without really reading the next bit. So if it has received mixed reviews...and the section reflects that. MisterShiney (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, remember that it's always good to respect what other editors change; they have as much right to use their own wording. If someone else changes it to "mostly negative" or "mixed to negative," that's their perogative because both phrases are technically accurate. I would only object to just "negative" or "poor" because those aren't accurate. If it becomes a real issue, a concensus should be reached on this page, but including a good representation of actual reviews is more important than how those reviews are described, so be careful of insisting that "mixed" be used if someone else changes it. Just my two cents...Bobbyandbeans (talk) 15:10, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

EuropaCorp

So I just noticed that the Studio Credits have been changed to replace FOX with EuropaCorp...? Not wanting to nit pick and correct me if I am wrong (with references) but I thought it was FOX that distributed the film...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterShiney (talk • contribs) 20:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

20th Century Fox distributed the film in the United States. This is a French production, and EuropaCorp distributed the film in France. We should mention the various distributors in the article body. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Lead section

Seeing as there seems to be some sort of Edit War on over the lead paragraph. I found this policy on Film lead sections. In it, it clearly states that important information should be included. Which by definition includes what language the film was filmed in if it is different from the country of production. MisterShiney (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there is not strong precedent for what to do in instances like this. We could do something like "Taken 2 is a 2012 English-language film directed by Olivier Megaton. The French-backed production stars Liam Neeson..." Since the language is more front-end, it can go first, and the national nature of the production is more back-end, so it goes second. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I like that. It seems to be more of an accurate statement of what it is and provides all the relevant information. MisterShiney (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

lead sections under "Lead Section" states clearly, "Ideally, the nationality of the film should be identified in the opening sentence." The info box provides areas for the language. Calling it a French (the country of origin) film in the opening sentence is not "nitpicking," but Wiki guidelines.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 17:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The language IS identified in the opening sentence. As Erik has stated above, this is no strong precedent for this incident. I believe that a compromise has been reached with Erik's above comment and this is an appropriate compromise as just stating that it is a french film implies to any reader who hasn't watched the film that it is also a french language film. That statement provides accurate information on the film. My comment to your nitpicking was perhaps a little heated (sorry) but you were edit warring. Oh and for the record, I have in no way implied ownership on this or any other article on Wikipedia. So have deleted your comment on My talk page. MisterShiney (talk) 18:02, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You twice edited the line yourself within 40 minutes, so please don't tell others about edit warring. You are also allowed to clean up your own talk page however often you want. While your apology is appreciated, I would caution you about getting upset when your inaccurate edits are pointed out, and my warning still stands. You've more than once reverted other editors' changes in the Reviews section and ignored Wiki guidelines simply for the sake of disagreeing with me.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Bobby, I was one of those who drafted the guidelines for the lead section. It says "Ideally" meaning that if it is straightforward, it can be included in the first sentence. Some films are obviously American in every aspect; same with French. The guidelines' next sentence is, "If the nationality is ambiguous, clarify the circumstances at a later point in the first paragraph." The goal of this is to say, if it is not straightforward, use the rest of the lead section to explain to the reader the circumstances. I think to say "French film" can be misleading (which is why it has been removed) because it is usually used for French-language and French-produced films. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Normally I would agree with you but the title is in English, so it's (to me) unnecessary to say that it's an English-language film. If the title were "Pris" (French for Taken), it might be necessary to note. It's like these people who keep saying it stars "actor" Liam Neeson. If he's acting in a movie, isn't that obvious? Do we say it was directed by director Olivier Megaton, produced by producer Luc Besson, etc.? No. Some details are obvious and painfully redundant. Do we also need to say in the first line that it has a smattering of Albanian? Of course not; the infobox is also where you add information including language. Keeping "a French film" is adhering to Wiki guidelines as it was produced/distributed by French companies, and other editors have put that in. It's also insulting to the producers to bend Wiki policy and take it out, as if all movies are American and Hollywood-made. If it's done for other movies, it should be done for this one. Wiki guidelines don't say "unless people are stupid and assume that anything coming out of France will be in French because of course America is the only country that speaks English." Since other editors see it appropriate and it adheres to Wiki guidelines, it's (to me) the best choice.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

There are foreign-language films for which we use English titles on Wikipedia, such as A Separation. To call Taken 2 a French film off the bat is to astonish the reader since the film is not French-language. That is the normal expectation. You say "other editors" have added it; "other editors" have also removed it. We're the ones here now to discuss this point, and I'm suggesting that readers misunderstand "French film" to mean French-language. For all we know, they see it as vandalism and try to fix it. My proposed redrafting was a teasing-out of the nature of the film, both in terms of the language and the nationality. It is a relatively unusual pairing, which warrants a little more explanation than the average article, and I think it works. If you need further input, we can notify WT:FILM and ask other film editors. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Other editors have taken it out, but note their reasoning; "It's not a French film, it's a Hollywood movie." No, it's not a Hollywood movie, so I don't put a lot of stock in editors that a) don't know what they're talking about, and b) aren't adhering to Wiki policy. If anything, it should be "a French-produced film," not "English-language French film." If you're purely worried about vandalism, the practice is to put in a hidden note not to remove it and direct people to the talk page.

Astonishing a reader is one thing, but Wiki is also (supposedly) a place where people come to learn. They may learn that not all movies are made in the U.S. and that some other countries actually speak English and make movies in English. Interesting that we assume everything from an American, English POV and anything different needs a note. Do whatever you want, film editors don't need to get involved over something so small, but MisterShiney calling me "nit picking" because I'm adhering to Wiki policy is unacceptable.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The Nitpicking comment was in the heat of the moment and I have already apologised. Either way, if you are editing something to policy you should reference that policy, especially if you have given someone the same advice to another editor...The policy that you quoted as Erik has pointed out doesn't allow for this unique situation where there isn't a precedent. Which is where the discussion part comes into it. For the record, I agree, the film should point out that it is a French produced film, but as has already been said, to most readers who don't know the film, they may automatically assume that it is a French language film and this needs to be made clear in the opening lines as this is an important piece of information. On a side not, it should also be made clear on the first Taken also, for continuity. As for editing twice in 40 minutes - I was online at the time and was not upset, I was ever so slightly irritated that the same thing was going back and forth, especially after a medium had been identified before it got out of hand and you reverted it, again without discussion. I have not intentionally ignored any wiki guidelines and it is by no means against yourself. Although you do seem to be taking some of my edits a bit personally. If you dont agree with something I have said/written, please ask me. I will happily clarify my reasons and justify what I am saying and/or come to a mutual understanding. I am very approachable and due to current employment status (I am a supply teacher) I am online quite a bit. MisterShiney (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I have referenced the Film Guide policy, as you can see from my comment at 17:50 above. As for taking your edits personally, I have merely pointed out actual mistakes you've made, not just about grammar but also about policy and guidelines, and backed up each point with sources. If you take that personally and get "heated," I would suggest you reconsider editing Wikipedia in the first place. Blatant mistakes, especially claims about policy and guidelines, should be pointed out and corrected, even if an editor assumes someone is taking things "personally." We're done here.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 00:30, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Im talking about your actual edit summary. I didn't take that personally. I was annoyed to begin with, but then I saw the spirit in which the comment was meant in, and that was cooperation and helping out a new guy.

We're not done here until we have come to a medium on the content... MisterShiney (talk) 09:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Your personal and blatantly inappropriate attacks at me and my repeated defending my proper use of Wiki policy in response are done. As I said, do what you want on the page, but you and I are done here.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 12:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't made a personal or inappropriate attack on you..? Yes there was that nitpicking comment, but that was it and could hardly be constituted as a personal attack. If you feel though that I am in serious breach of NPA then first off I apologise again and I suggest that you report me. MisterShiney (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Saying that I'm "throwing [my] toys out of the pram" is a personal attack. Even though you've revised that comment, it still remains in the history and still something you said, and is grossly inappropriate for Wikipedia. As Erik said on his page, keep your comments relevant to the article and issue at hand or you will be reported for NPA violations.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

You're right. It was inappropriate, thats why I removed it within minutes. Now, can we get back to the topic at hand? MisterShiney (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't understand my closure in the phrase "Do what you want on the page" and "We're done here." I have nothing more to say on the topic at hand and have respectfully bowed out of the debate over the wording (as of yesterday), so you feel free to return to it if you have something else constructive to add regarding Wiki policies and guidelines themselves, or to that topic itself.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 16:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep your nationalist squabbles AWAY from pages such as these, please! And we never list the nationalities of actors in the lead, it is completely irrelevant, and not covered in WP:MOSFILM and WP:LEAD. --Τασουλα (talk) 03:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

This isn't about nationalism and it's not a squabble; this is about following Wiki guidelines. You'll also note I'm the one consistently removing the phrase "Irish actor" from the lead paragraph. Your comment is irrelevant and obviously directed at the wrong person.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? We aren't talking about the nationality of the actor...? We were discussing the relevance of pointing out it was an English Speaking French Film. I am sure you know this already, but If you are going to contribute please don't skim read the Article history and discussion. As the point you just raised was NOTHING to do with the discussion we were having. MisterShiney (talk) 09:02, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

We've got a whole article about throwing toys out of prams, you know. If the nationality of the film and the actors is contentious, I'd say leave it out. But I'm personally not fussed one way or the other. Everyone take a deep breath, please. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is Taken 2 considered a US film?

The film seems to be financed and produced entirely be French film companies:

Production Companies

• Europa Corp. (as EuropaCorp)
• Grive Productions
• Canal+ (with the participation of)
• M6 Films (as M6) (with the participation of)
• Ciné+ (as Cine+) (with the participation of)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1397280/companycredits

It may have had a US distributor but the distributor doesn't seem to have any involvement in financing and/or producing it.

What US film company(ies) had any involvement in financing and/or producing the film? SumaiyaJ SumaiyaJ (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Last half of plot section is not in coherent English

I will fix it once I watch the film. I would not want to put in wrong info. But it needs to be edited for proper grammar and tense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfoofnik (talk • contribs) 20:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Huge goof

There are several references to the 'American Embassy' in the film and after the car chase they end up at the 'U.S. Embassy'. As almost any child over the age of 4 knows there is no American Embassy in Istanbul (a consulate no doubt), simply because ALL embassies are located in capital cities, and Istanbul, although Turkey's largest city, is not its capital, which is Ankara. Someone should hang their head in shame for this unforgivable basic cock-up.