Jump to content

Talk:The Angry Birds Movie 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Distributor

[edit]

I sure hope someone doesn't change the distributor. Because I want it to say distributed by Columbia Pictures once and for all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:120E:C0C8:0:222A:66BC:2530 (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dang.

[edit]

Dang it pushed up 2 times already this year to August 16, 2019. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 10:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklynn Prince's character voice

[edit]

Is there any source where Brooklynn Prince will voice Zoe (one of the Hatchlings)? I don't see any source about them. We might have to wait for the trailer or the whole movie to come out to see her character's name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.31.232 (talk) 07:12, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed reviews

[edit]

Several people have changed the article to say the film received positive instead of mixed reviews. Objectively and in keeping with WP:NPOV Metacritic says the film received "mixed or average reviews". I understand that there is a selection bias and that people editing this article are likely to have enjoyed the film but the reviews were mixed. -- 109.76.152.228 (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that to claim the reviews were positive you are cherry picking your source, and you must completely ignore Metacritic and also interpret the Rotten Tomatoes score. -- 109.76.135.145 (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed reviews seems reasonable from the reception section and the overall summary from Metacritic. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:ThunderPheonix2021 has repeatedly tried to changes to the article, but has not added any comment here, or tried to get consensus.

Mixed always includes some positive, so the suggestion (in a recent edit by User:ThunderPheonix2021) of a wording like "mixed positive" doesn't seem workable or appropriate. The all or nothing approach of Rotten Tomatoes is the problem here, reducing every review to either bad or good has in this case taken a whole lot of reviews that were generally mixed but leaning slightly more positive and come out with a bigger score over all. Metacritic is more objective and transparent in their ratings, they take more neutral point of view which I think is more appropriate, than the polarizing approach.

Ultimately it is difficult to summarize conflicting sources, without selection bias. It might be better to not try at all in this case, and instead include a few specific quotes, that are fair and representative such as "improves on the original" CommonSenseMedia (APNews also praised it "for finding a way to actually improve on the 2016 original"). But please try to discuss something we might be able to agree on first. -- 109.79.187.214 (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editors still trying to ignore Metacritic without any discussion, not even an edit summary to explain themselves.[1] Reverted. -- 109.78.211.204 (talk) 04:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

mixed-to-positive is not acceptable, pick one or the other[2]. It is bad writing, it is vague. See also WP:VG/MIXED. -- 109.78.195.140 (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS only shows many editors keep making the same mistake. That kind of wording is generally discouraged by WP:FILM see this old discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_52#Summary_statement_for_"Reception"_section Reception section quote: "I think a lot of us are opposed to "<degree> to <degree>" language." endquote. -- 109.78.203.56 (talk) 07:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another archived discussion again says how the editors of project film are against wordings such as "mixed to positive" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_48#Mixed_to_positive_%2F_Mixed_to_negative -- 109.78.210.212 (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors really want to ignore the fact that Metacritic says the reviews were mixed.[3] This was discussed and agreed already, so if you not already read the above discussion please read it, and then explain how you would strike a balance between both Metacritic AND Rotten Tomatoes? -- 109.76.200.55 (talk) 05:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@109.76.200.55: The Incredible Hulk (film) has a metacritic score 1% higher and a rotten tomatoes score 6% lower, and is listed as "generally favorable reviews. [[Les Miserables (2012 film)] has a metacritic score only 3% higher and a rotten tomatoes score 3% lower, and is also listed as "generally favorable reviews". This film, with slight but noticeably higher reviews on one website and insignificantly lower reviews on the one you keep parroting, should be given the same treatment. Unnamed anon (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You reverted to your preferred version before discussing, but at least you have finally made some effort to discuss instead of ignoring the previous consensus like too many others before you. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is unfortunately still not a good argument and it is disappointing to see it yet again. (I don't know the history of those articles, I don't know what discussion did or did not happen, I don't know where the review aggregator scores for those films started or in what way they may have drifted.) Instead of looking at other articles look at this article and this film. The reviews were in the middle with only a very slight lean positive. (Keep in mind that Rotten Tomatoes uses a simplistic system and summarizes each review as either positive or negative, and that anything less than 60% overall is by their own scale negative.) If you objectively look at RT 73% / 110 reviews and MC 60% / 23 reviews and weigh up the balance. Then you need to say that on balance you think the number of reviews from Rotten Tomatoes is enough to outweigh Metacritic. There are now significantly more reviews listed at RT than MC and you would have a reasonable argument if you actually bothered to make it. Now many more reviews have come than when we first had this discussion and it would be a reasonable argument to make but you still have to actually make that argument and not steamroll right over the previous consensus or throw out Metacritic without any discussion.
I still have concerns that the all or nothing approach of Rotten Tomatoes makes the tepid reviews (that leaned slightly positive) seem more positive than they really were. I don't believe the critics were really saying it was a good film just that it wasn't a bad film and was better than their low expectations. Best reviewed film based on a video game is still the best of a bad bunch. The previous the discussion tried to not get stuck on just a simple summary and tried to also say something more insightful, i.e. that the film was better than its predecessor. Similarly if we are ready to change the summary and claim that the reviews overall can be called "generally favorable" we might also want to emphasize that critics are saying that in the context that it is good by the standard of a kids film and will appeal to that audience. (Although due to WP:FILMLEAD the Critical response section would need to be expanded to support any such generalizations.)
Geraldo Perez (talk · contribs) what do you think? Is the weight of reviews from Rotten Tomatoes enough now to reasonably say the reviews overall were generally positive? What else might you change? -- 109.76.138.196 (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rotten Tomatoes has a larger selection of reviewers than Metacritic so put more weight in their data. At this point reflecting RT looks best. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also if you look on Metacritic there are 11 positive reviews for the Angry Birds movie 2, 10 mixed reviews, and 2 negative reviews. There are very slightly more positive reviews than mixed reviews even on the site you keep parroting. Also, the general response I see is that "best out of a bad bunch" applies to the first movie, but the general consensus I see for the second is that it's legitimately funny on its own merit. Unnamed anon (talk) 22:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rotten Tomatoes almost always has a larger selection of reviewers, and I was rejecting how some editors automatically put it ahead of or entirely ignore Metacritic (and without considering how reductive Rotten Tomatoes are when they quantify reviews as either entirely positive or entirely negative). That is what people were trying to do early on and several editors have tried to since without any discussion. It is not "parroting" to give due consideration to Metacritic and to insist that changes be discussed. At this point when there is a significant disparity and there has been some discussion so I accept that it is reasonable to putting more weight on the Rotten Tomatoes score and say that on balance the reviews are positive.
Rather than all this emphasis on the summary in the intro the Critical response section could do with expansion. -- 109.79.177.13 (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Best reviewed film based on a video game

[edit]

The article states that The Angry Birds Movie 2 is the best reviewed film based on a video game of 2020. However, this is contradicted by the Wikipedia article of Detention and its Rotten Tomatoes page. With 33 reviews and an approval rating of 85% this makes Detention, not The Angry Birds Movie 2 as the best reviewed film based on a video game on Rotten Tomatoes, as of 2020. -- Rory Kamau de Alencar Lourinho (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Let me start by blaming Rotten Tomatoes, you might need to take this issue up with them directly and encourage them to update their list. They might then make some excuse about when exactly Detention was released or that it did not receive US cinema release, or something. They've updated that list before,[4] they may eventually update it again.
Unfortunately WP:NOTTRUTH, we are supposed to go with what the sources say, and this article does use the qualification "According to Rotten Tomatoes" and the referenced article does say Angry Birds 2 was the best reviewed film based on a video game on their site at the time.[5]
It might be better if we didn't put WP:UNDUE emphasis on it and removed the line " It is also the best reviewed film based on a video game on Rotten Tomatoes, as of 2020." from the article intro, and maybe change the text in the article body "It was the best reviewed film based on a video game on Rotten Tomatoes, at the time of release". It is a somewhat dubious achievement to be the least worst of a bad bunch of films. -- 109.78.196.158 (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The full title of the film in the second or third paragraph

[edit]

I get it that it could be repetitive, but the full title of the film should be repeated because it is necessary, especially when it comes to being released in the day. This is also consistency for film articles (e.g. Five Nights at Freddy's is scheduled to be released simultaneously in theaters and on Peacock in the United States on October 27, 2023, by Universal Pictures.). LancedSoul (talk) 02:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Angry Birds Movie 3

[edit]

Uh... where is it said that Sony won't be involved? It seems very likely that Sony WILL be involved! 2600:1700:2230:CCB0:2925:1331:2059:BA33 (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Angry_Birds_Movie_2&oldid=1236920055"