Talk:War for the Planet of the Apes

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Science Fiction Mid‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 3 times. The weeks in which this happened:

Positive Reviews/Praise/Acclaim

I understand that there is dispute over how the film's critical response should be worded. 'Unanimous Praise' may be a hyperbole, but 'Positive Reviews' is an understatement. Critical acclaim is the most accurate phrase, especially since films with comparable reception have been described that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.137.119 (talk) 23:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any description that does not directly quote a source is your interpretation.

Think of it this way: If the cited information is obviously "positive reviews" (or whatever else), adding a statement to that effect is not necessary. If, on the other hand, it is not obvious, where did you get that interpretation from?

So far we've had "acclaim", "praise", "positive reviews", "unanimous praise", "universal acclaim" and a few more. Each one is someone's opinion. None of them are verifiable. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:46, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to Metacritic, the film has received "Universal Acclaim". That's verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.137.119 (talk) 02:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is verifiable that Metacritic said the scores they collected signify "universal acclaim". It is not verifiable that the film received enthusiastic public praise ("acclaim") from every critic in the world ("universal"). - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the "summary" (a.k.a. POV) keeps evolving: "critical praise", "praise", "universal praise", etc. There's a reason we can't agree on something here: Though we are all looking at the same sources, we all synthesize a bit differently.

There are three basic directions we can go here: Find a direct statement that sums it all up (by an actual author, not the mechanically assigned phrase from Metacritic) an directly quote it, not have a summary of the disparate sources or continue to change the statement several times a day until we get tired of this movie and move on to the next one. Lather, rinse, repeat. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There already is a direct statement that 'sums it all up'. It's in the source that's already provided (Hollywood Reporter's "What the Critics are Saying). It describes the film's reception as "Critical Praise". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.137.119 (talk) 06:28, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done.[1] All that's left to do now is repeatedly revert the next several weeks' worth of varying opinions from everyone who sees the film. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:35, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is meaningless due to all the marketing hype. One only need look at a few of the User Reviews on IMDB to see that the film was panned to pieces and almost universally disliked by all who saw it. It's about 90% terrible reviews to 10% good - much different than what is claimed in this article. Clearly, someone is being paid to write and monitor this marketing blurb / article - and I'm sure it serves that purpose well, but it defeats the purpose of Wikipedia. There seems to be no rational oversight or moderation here anymore. I paid to see this film, and I am astonished at how far off from reality this article is. People left the theater booing and grumbling. To see it proclaimed here as "great", etc - is a travesty. 98.194.39.86 (talk) 04:34, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. The review aggregators cited in the article refer to professional film critics, 93% of whom liked the film. Their sample is 280 professional film critics published in reliable sources (major newspapers, magazines and such). (This sample would likely say the finest clothes come from a bespoke tailor in Milan.)

You are looking at site user reviews. The sample there is whoever went to IMDb and felt like writing a review. Basically, you are looking at reviews written by people who felt strongly enough to go on the Internet and anonymously vent. IMDb users are disproportionately American middle class male teenagers, significantly skewing the results. (This sample would more likely say the finest clothes come from Hot Topic.)

Also included in the article is the CinemaScore rating: a sample of people at the theater to see the movie are selected. On an A to F scale, they rated the film A–.

You seem to have been similarly confused about Wonder Woman[2] and Starship Troopers.[3] Given that you've gotten pretty much the same response three times now, is it starting to sink in or are you going to ask the same question a few more times? If your plan is to keep asking the same question, I can assure you it won't end well. Please ask for clarification on your talk page before continuing. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:07, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementing Summer's correct comment above, from MOS:FILM: "Unless quoting an author from a reliable source citing public commentary, do not quote comments from members of the general public (e.g., user comments from Amazon.com, the Internet Movie Database or personal blogs), as they are self-published and their authors have no proven expertise or credibility in the field." There are few, if any, WikiProjects that care what random Internet cranks think about any given subject. Think of how strong our encyclopedia would be if we cited facts to Yahoo! Answers. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Final"?

We cannot say this is the final film in the series because War_for_the_Planet_of_the_Apes#Possible_sequel makes it clear there might be another. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I wanna change bad English, jeez Frizzler (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fix chronology in summary

War takes place five years after Dawn. The opening scroll indicates it has been 15 years since the events of Rise, and Dawn takes place place 10 years after Rise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.102.71.136 (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Colonel's full name

Woody Harrelson's character, the Colonel, is named as Colonel J. Wesley McCullough in the shooting draft of War for the Planet of the Apes, specifically page 19. Now his first names are not given in the film, but he is referred to as Colonel McCullough once or twice throughout the film.216.85.40.69 (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the film, not the shooting draft. In the film, he is "the Colonel", not "Colonel J. Wesley McCullough". - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The shooting draft is essentially the movie as presented onscreen. Nevertheless the character is also referred to as Colonel McCullough in-dialogue in the film, not to mention the name is on his uniform.I could see there being a discrepancy if I pulled this from the film's novelization, but this comes from a document that the movie would not exist without. 2601:5C2:4480:106:E842:CDE2:9541:248E (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The shooting draft is a draft version. Between the draft and the final film, material changed. There is likely other material in the draft that was changed or dropped between the draft and the final film. This material is not about the film. Yes, in various TV shows and films, there is material briefly shown giving names, addresses, birth dates, etc. that aren't mentioned in the production or reliable sources discussing it. In every example that I am aware of, the material ends up being left out as a trivial detail. In early drafts of a production, background information is included. Polishing the production shaves away some of that information (full names, birth places, addresses, entire characters and events) as extraneous. Some of that material might be dumped into "deleted scenes", trivia books, etc. None of it is part of the film. If you find multiple independent reliable sources discussing (not mentioning) some of this information, there might be a place for it in the article. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Edits

Is there a way to contact an editor to explain why an edit was reverted on this particular movie?? I am still learning about being an editor myself. Helipilot68 (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

can ping them on any talk page by writing {{ping|username}} which shows as @Rangertapper: or click "Talk" next to their name for their page.

Looks like your edits were a big expansion of the plot above the 700 word maximum mentioned in the invisible comment at top of plot section, also they were unexplained. Indagate (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so very much. I had zero clue about the 700 word maximum. You indicated they were unexplained. Can you please elaborate on that?? I’ve never seen the “invisible comment” at the top of the plot section. I just want to make sure that I follow the rules properly. Helipilot68 (talk) 11:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just found the invisible section at the top of the plot section. You’ve answered every one of my questions perfectly. Thank you for taking the time to help me. I am very grateful. Helipilot68 (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two quick questions about your reply.

1. You had stated that if I wanted to talk to someone, I could type on any talk page by entering their name in a certain format. Where in the talk box would I type the name information?

2. And you also indicated that edits I did make were “unexplained.” I would appreciate immensely if you could elaborate.

Thank you so much,

Max aka Helipilot68 Helipilot68 (talk) 07:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]