Talk:Last Ounce of Courage

Please no reversion without talk

The Reception section of the page is getting reverted in violation of NPOV. Folks that don't like the film feel its relevant to include information of negative reviews, but irrelevant to note positive reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.0.98 (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding the WP:NPOV policy and how it works. NPOV doesn't mean giving equal coverage of all opinions. From NPOV: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." (significant points highlighted) If the vast majority of reliable sources are providing negative reviews, then the vast majority of the section should cover those opinions. There is 1 positive review and 3 negatives currently; that seems more than adequately balanced and in accordance with NPOV. DP76764 (Talk) 15:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Reception

The guideline involving citation of audience members is the opinion of a few wiki editors, and not especially valid. Wikipedia guidelines are not the word of God. Basically, it says that while the subjective opinion of a single film critic is a reliable source, the reaction of thousands upon thousands of viewers of the film is unreliable and invalid. That is absurd on its face. In this case, the website in question is Rotten Tomatoes, who may pick and choose the film reviewers commentary they decide, thus creating POV to the article. So, either the negative commentary of the "Tomatoes" reviewers must go, or the audience reactions must stay. Either the observations of Rotten Tomatoes is relevant here, or it isn't. 64.222.94.115 (talk) 07:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

RT audience reactions are NOT relevant; the guideline is more than just the opinion of a few editors, it is an (what passes for) official policy. Please review the contents that expressly deals with this topic: WP:MOSFILM#Audience_response. And I quote: "Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew." If you have a problem with the policy, I suggest you discuss it on the appropriate talk page vs soapboxing here. Don't expect much traction though; it's an fairly common occurrence to see the argument "I'm not getting my way and the policies don't support me, therefore the policies are broken." Find a different, reliable source, and the material may be suitable for inclusion. Leaving it in with a citation tag is actually a generous condition as it should just be removed completely. DP76764 (Talk) 15:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I think audience reactions are relevant. We're talking about how a film was received, but we can't ask the audience...wow, that makes sense. This isn't rocket science, it's going to see a movie. If you liked it, then you did, if you didn't, you didn't. The guideline is NOT official policy, it IS in fact the "opinion of a few editors". I do not recall when Wikipedia took the vote that Rotten Tomatoes was no good, but Metacritic was, but IMDB wasn't. Wikipedia is in and of itself user-generated data, so the concept of outlawing the use of user-generated data on Wikipedia would mean that Wikipedia itself would have to vanish. Now, here's a policy that supports me: "Wikipedia does not have firm rules." So, instead of making an ad hominem argument, try explaining why a few very negative choice phrases regarding this film, written by two or three experts, are encyclopedic NPOV commentary, while the opinion of thousands, written and sourced on the same page, have no relevance to informing or educating the public. Could you do that, please? Oh, and cut the sarcastic crap such as "thanks for ignoring the note on your talk page". Doesn't impress me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.7.212 (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but the guideline does in fact represent the outcome of years of discussion and consensus with regard to the use of noted critics as opposed to the general public. (As an aside, it is best if you do not delete that portion of the guideline while arguing here against its application.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have no reason to believe that is the case...in fact, I think that part of the guideline was put into place in August, am I wrong? It's pretty clear that DP76764 simply does not like this film or the idea of it, so he's trying to edit the article to create a biased presentation, even to the point of removing a sourced, credentialed review quote regarding the film, because it did not fit in with his viewpoint. This is not good-faith editing. And Catz, Wikipedia is open for editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.7.212 (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Page semi-protected for 12 hours; IP, I'd rather explain this to you than end up having to block you. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:23, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's get one thing clear off the bat, Ckatz. No one is "forced" to block anyone. Stop making threats. You want to explain something to me, do it. There is no reason to semi-protect the page. I edited, DP undid my edit without addressing the question. So did you, including things that had nothing to do with the critic/audience issue...it was a wholesale reversion without explanation...that's an edit war, now you're threatening a block. Terrific. Might be time for me to get some other Admins in here to see what you're up to. 66.87.7.212 (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to request input from another admin, as I stand behind my actions. You're repeatedly reverting in your changes, despite having had the guideline explained to you, and you've even tried to change the guideline without discussion. I've semi-protected the page for your benefit, not mine. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course I've reverted my changes. One of the fallback tactics with Wikipedia, is to revert an editor's changes, without comment, and then when the editor reverts them back, accuse them of some type of malfeasance. I'm aware of the "guideline", but the "guideline" is not the word of God. The goal here is to present the reaction to the film, in an unbiased way. The fact of the matter here is that critics despise the film, and audiences love it. (those who've seen it) I am not second-guessing why this is in the article, as that would be inappropriate, but there needs to be a way to present this, and none has been offered. Therefore, no serious discussion took place before reversion occurred. There is no onus to prove a need for inclusion.

Second, the changes reverted in the header section, which you do not address, do not relate to audience reaction policies or guidelines. The prior version was presenting concepts which are not in the film, and needed to go. 22:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.7.212 (talk)

I am requesting you remove the page protection Ckatz. There is no grounds to have protected it and no grounds to block me or to threaten to. This is a violation of dispute resolution policy.

Ckatz - Please explain, using this criteria, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rough_guide_to_semi-protection, what ground you had to semi-protect the page? If you cannot, you have abused your Admin authority. 66.87.7.212 (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

(comment): I have little/no personal opinion on this film (having not seen it). The MOS policy says Reception sections should reflect what WP:RS reviews say (and expressly not audience ratings via RT or IMDB); my edits have been completely in accordance with that policy.

(side note): A simple solution has already been suggested a couple of times: find a reliable source (not Rotten Tomatoes) that supports the IP position. DP76764 (Talk) 23:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of what your opinion of the film is, the edits you made, including those unrelated to the MOS, clearly show the article in violation of NPOV. All quotes from critics are not only negative, they are the strongest possible negative phrases from those reviews. One such edit was to remove a positive review comment. I do not know what the "IP" position is, please explain. If Rotten Tomatoes is not a reliable source, then we must remove the comments from reviews listed there. The edits to the header section describing the film, i.e., "struggle to reverse separation of church and state" are cotained nowhere in the film, its promotion, reviews, or in any other source, so must be considered original research and removed. 66.87.2.164 (talk) 00:20, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

See my comments above: From WP:NPOV: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Additionally, let me point out that I did not add any of the critical quote additions, nor do I recall removing any positive additions (in fact, I distinctly remember letting 1 positive review slide when it was added, despite it making the section unbalanced), nor have I edited the lede. If you have concerns about the quotes used, then be constructive and suggest alternative ones; I think you may find some traction under the 'fair' aspect of NPOV. In terms of RT, it IS a reliable source, but just in terms of aggregating critical reviews from other reliable sources; audience scores, being self-published and easily manipulated, are obviously not reliable or significant. Finally, "IP" = you, since you have no actual account/name and your posts are signed as just an IP (it's common terminology here). DP76764 (Talk) 01:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

See also: WP:AGG DP76764 (Talk) 01:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've tried. Stacking the deck with negative review quotes is in no way "neutral". You let one positive review "slide"? How gracious of you. I have been constructive, I suggested other things that could be done to eliminate the POV bias here, but you've dismissed or ignored them. The guideline does not account for films where the bias of "professional reviewers" creates a wide disaparity between the audience and the "critics", most of whose negative comments consist of "the message is stupid". The Admin that locked the article said the "onus" was on me to "prove" concensus before my edits warranted inclusion, which is something I've never ever heard of on Wikipedia. So, here's what we'll do. When the block is lifted, tomorrow, next week, next year, whenever, I'm going to put my edits back in. I'm tired of wikilawyering used to bias right-wing films, magazines, websites, etc. So, I am making it my life's work, seriously, to see my edits are included here, to protect at least this one article...unless somebody decides to play fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.2.164 (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

"Neutral" does not mean giving every opinion an equal amount of coverage (see WP:NPOV again). We report proportionately what the reliable sources write. If you disagree with the essence of the guidelines/policies, then you're entirely free to discuss and dissent on their respective talk pages. Frankly, I think your perception of the scope of the audience approval is incorrect; RT has 3000 user reviews (not all positive), out of perhaps 250,000 people who've seen the movie. What are the opinions of the other 247,000 viewers? Lacking a decent poll (conducted by a reliable source) on those opinions, the RT audience information is entirely irrelevant and biased itself. Finally, let me just point out that it will be far easier for you to be banned or blocked than it will be for you to prosecute a long term edit war. Good luck with that! DP76764 (Talk) 02:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the policy. One of the pillars of Wikipedia is: "Wikipedia does not have firm rules." You do what makes sense to make articles informative and encyclopedic, not follow a "guideline" slavishly. RT has 3000 reviews out of a quarter million people, which you feel is not a good representation. That being the case, would recommend removal of all or most political polls, most of which reflect the viewpoints of only a few hundred versus thousands or millions of voters, from being posted as "unreliable"? It is irrational to conclude that RT is reliable when it comes to aggregating critics, but unreliable, on the exact same page when aggregating the audience, you do not address this point. Further, you make reference to "We report proportionately". Who is this "we"? Last I knew, no editors own wikipedia or articles. Are you with the Foundation?

Now, if I get banned, that's fine. Ckatz has not stated a reason for protecting the page, thus allowing you to edit, but barring me from doing so. The protection itself is a violation of dispute resolution policies of Wikipedia because there was little discussion or evaluation of any consensus before the protection was imposed, number one. Number two, Wikipedia forbids an administrator from protecting or blocking to further in a dispute in which they are involved. Ckatz abused her power and will not respond to numerous inquiries as to why this is permissible. So, therefore, if she is not "playing by the rules", why should I? If I get blocked or banned unfairly, I'll keep going. There's sockpuppets, ban evasions, multiple accounts and other tools. We could do this for years. Or, you can have a fair and honest discussion. Ckatz chose the banhammer, not me. 66.87.2.164 (talk) 03:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

"No firm rules" is just ONE of the pillars and is not a magical panacea that allows someone to override the OTHER pillars (consensus (ie the MOS), NPOV, RS) whenever they want to. There is a HUGE difference between professionally surveyed opinion polls and random public internet submissions on sites like RT; if you think that those two things are, in any way, equal, then we'll never get anywhere (see statistics). RT is reasonable to use when citing general critic response because it is in turn using material that is already (generally) from reliable sources; conversely, audience/random comments are NOT reliable sources (your or my opinion is not innately encyclopedic or reliable or notable). Put another way, RT is just doing some of the legwork for us by collecting and doing some math on sources we might use here anyway. Have you looked at WP:AGG yet? "We" = "all editors of wikipedia"; you, me, everyone. I have no further comment on your other disagreement. DP76764 (Talk) 05:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

IP, with respect to your assertions about neutrality, please note that you and I are approaching this from very different perspectives. You are actively involved in editing the content of the page, and are attempting to argue your case for why your interpretation of the rules should allow you to shape the content in the manner that you prefer. I, on the other hand, am not actively involved in editing the content. Instead, I have become involved in an administrative capacity, based on observation of the manner in which you have been editing. You have repeatedly reverted in your material, in contravention of a long-held and oft-discussed guideline, and have even attempted to delete the relevant portion of said guideline. In addition, you have even stated your willingness to continue your efforts to insert your material, even if it involves disruptive behaviour. The only reason I temporarily restricted IP editing on this article was in the hope that it would allow time to better explain the situation to you, and in order to avoid a block. I would ask that you take it in the spirit in which it was intended. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm ALLOWED TO REVERT. Threatening blocks for this is inappropriate. AND "concensus" does NOT mean, two editors, one's opinion wins, one's doesn't.66.87.0.99 (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

DP76764, You're not even addressing what I'm saying here. You're right we may never get anywhere, until you do. We don't have any concensus, I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong, oh well. I cited no audience comments, nor did I quote my opinion, so don't bother going there. And if WE is all editors, DP, please don't dictate what WE do. - Thanks 66.87.0.99 (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's Stop An Edit War

So, for those here who have issues with edits made to the article, let's discuss this before it goes off the rails.

In the description, the film was characterized as "Bob Revere's struggles against the separation of church and state", or some such. I haven't seen that descriptor in any trailers, reviews, promotion, or anything else related to the film...so, what's the issue with how the lead section reads now? The character is apparently upset with his community's efforts to not put up a Christmas tree. He sees that as interfering with his freedom of religious epxression. Any issue here?

In the reception section, the entirety of the section is made up of the ugliest choice quotes from reviewers that didn't like the film. This is seriously a film that creates a clear divide between professional reviewers and those who saw the film. The film is biased towards a conservative viewpoint, no doubt. Those who bought tickets went to see a ptolemic on conservatism, they liked it. This has got be relevant is some way, and there's a way to present it. While some of the critique of the film was legitimate in that the film was technicially weak due to a small budget and some of the acting may not have been a is smooth as they would have preferred, much of the "professional" commentary from critics is more related to the film's message and is in and of itself NPOV. Calling a film "numbskull" cannot be encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.7.212 (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Semi-Protection Status

There are no grounds to have this article under protection or semi-protection. Admin Ckatz protected the article without grounds. Attemptted requests for explanation have gone unanswered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:PP#Content_disputes - "Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page to further their own positions in content disputes." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.2.164 (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The protecting admin explained his position quite clearly in his last comment a couple sections above. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection restored, as the IP is continuing to engage in the same practices that led to an earlier block, including the deletion of a standard reference source for film reviews (the RT aggregate). He/she can make their case on the talk page for any changes they wish to make. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey Ckatz, you are not even supposed to be protecting this page as an Admin, you are editing content, and you are involved. See 21:05, 19 September 2012‎ Ckatz This article was unnecessarily protected by Ckatz, acting in violation of Wikipedia policy and abusing her Admin status. Please lift protection. "They are never required to use their tools, and must never use them to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they are involved." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators 66.87.0.215 (talk) 11:01, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, you are confusing involvement with content and involvement with your situation. I am addressing the latter, not the former, and will continue to do so. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Further changes to Reception

1. The film clearly did not receive “universally” negative reviews, so that line has to go.

The text of the article indicates that positive reviews exists, so therefore, the reviews were not universally negative.

2. The Rotten Tomatoes critics’ info reference is specifically noted as “no consensus”, by them. due to small sample size, so that has to go as not notable.

If the audience aggregate for reviews from Rotten Tomatoes cannot be used, a policy I STRONGLY disagree with, btw, than the reviewer aggregation cannot stand either. Especially in the case of this film, where RT themselves note "there is no consensus." The aggregate score is not notable.

3. The Mark Feeney review of Last Ounce in the Globe, “numbskull travesty”, is not encyclopedic. It invokes no professional standards. It cannot be here.

Calling a film names, without attributing some professional quality, standard or regard to it, is simply not professional. Feeney does not say the acting is numbskull, or the script, or the lighting, or the editing, he simply says the film itself is "numbskull". That isn't a professional review, regardless of who wrote it, and doesn't belong here. 66.87.4.30 (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with item 1. Not so much with 2. And am supportive of the point in 3 in that a more polite review could be selected instead.

In terms of recent edits, making a lede paragraph for the section and then sticking a positive review into that prominent position gives that review undue weight and is a bit of a push-poll, as it were. Additionally, the new section-lede paragraph needs a source as it smacks of WP:OR and opinion. DP76764 (Talk) 23:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you on point 1. On point 2, RT is noting they don't have enough reviews to form consensus. My original point was that given a few critics panned the film, that should not be the only view reflected in the article, that's why i wanted the audience reaction included. Apparently, without a second battle over that guideline, those numbers cannot be included. I still disagree with that policy, especially for films like these. This leads me to point 3.

In the lead paragraph of this section, a summary inclusion of what's going on here is clarifying. It does reflect opinion, but is not dissimilar to other such notations on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of facts. The inclusion of Chuck Norris' endorsement speaks to this point. Norris is not a professional film critic, but certainly is notable on several fronts. Norris is not endorsing the film because the acting is outstanding, or the editing is brilliant, he is doing so because he likes the film's message. Conversely, this explains many of the bad reviews by mainstream critics, they do not like it. There is no Original research here. The conclusion can be gleaned by reading the reviews cited for the film in the article here. Very few reviewers say the acting is bad, or that the editing is poor, they comment over and over in nearly every review...the message is overbearing...this film is only for conservatives...etc. No source is needed to summarize what's already there.

Thanks for discussing and not creating an edit war.66.87.4.30 (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

The last few edits have been on the reasonable side, though I would like to warn against attempting to stack in positive reviews in order to make it look like an equal good/bad reception (see WP:WEIGHT). I also think your grounds for removal of the RT summary are not correct. Apparently, the way RT works is once they get X number of reviews, their staff makes a summary; we're not necessarily in the realm of 'insufficient reviews to form a consensus' as it could just as easily be 'their staff hasn't gotten around to it yet'. Currently, with 2+ and 2- reviews, I believe we are out of balance and need to either add another negative or remove one of the positives. Finally, thank you for not attempting to re-add audience reception figures. DP76764 (Talk) 00:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Please don't "warn" me about anything, thank you. It sounds threatening, and we don't need it. I'm not attempting to stack anything. Assume good faith.

RT SAYS they have no consensus, it literally uses those words, so why dispute that? One thing that is important here, which explains my edits, is that critics of this film are not reviewing it with any professional merit, which calls the guideline itself into question. The guideline at WP:FILM was established, it appears, to keep volunteer audiences from skewing an accurate portrayal of how people reviewed the film, any film in question. However, in the case of Last Ounce, the film is not being viewed by "professional critics" in any professional way. They are largely not commenting on lighting, editing, acting, script, dialoge or any traditional element of filmmaking, they are commenting on the film's editorial content, which is not professional. If we're going to go there, then one with a political science degree might have a more useful outlook on Last Ounce than a graduate of UCLA Film School.

Reliablity guidelines may have to be reviewed in the future to reflect that in recent years, the public trust in media reporting in general has degraded, as have publishing standards and codes...punditry rules the day. While at one time, the New York Times could be regarded as an unquestioned "Newspaper of Record", today in it regarded in many circles as having little editorial merit. The guidelines need to reflect this. The main difference between the L.A. Times film reviewer and my Aunt Tillie is one gets paid to say what they think about movies, one doesn't. With audience aggregators, what we have is essentially a poll. Polls are regarded generally by Wikipedia standards to be "reliable sources", but we had a scientific political poll in my home state be off by 27% in the primary...is that reliable? I'd say not.

Creating balance is why I had the audience figures in there in the first place. The opinion of four paid reviewers should not outweigh the opinion of over 3000 people who saw the film. That is a guideline battle for another day. We neither need to add a negative nor remove a positive to create or maintain balance. The article is clear on the point that paid critics do not like this film. We also clear up why this is so. I would strongly recommend not altering the article by adding more bad reviews, the article covers the point already. See your talk page. 66.87.4.30 (talk) 02:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry you've lost faith in the reliability guideline and the media in general, however, this isn't the place to debate those topics, nor should we apply any different standards here.

I would absolutely disagree that audience aggregators are equivalent with professional polls (yes yes, some of them are wrong sometimes; that doesn't negate the entire industry though). Standards and methodology aside, user-submitted reviews are entirely not reliable due largely to the fact that anyone/everyone can participate in them (ie: there is no verifiability!). I would also say: the opinion of 3000 people who passionately liked the film should not outweigh the 10's or 100's of thousands of other viewers who did NOT like the film and who didn't bother to go out of their way to self-submit a review. This is entirely why reliable sources (like CinemaScore, for example) are used; they employ methodology and report a more accurate picture of audience reception (of people who have actually seen the film). Without a professional polling effort (a WP:RS), we don't know what the real ratio of like/dislike actually is (verifiability!).

In terms of balance, let me elaborate again (from WP:WEIGHT): "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint.". If the majority of reliable sources have published negative reviews, then the majority of the reception section should cover negative reviews. "Balance" here does not mean "equality". DP76764 (Talk) 05:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I concur with what DP said. We should keep looking for sources as time passes so we can illustrate reception of the film in greater detail. I would also like to recommend that we extrapolate additional points. For example, The Washington Post mentions "eyebrow acting" and the "heavy-handedness" of the message. I would also recommend excising the unreferenced conclusion in this article about "general entertainment critics" and "right-wing pundits" because it is original research. We need to reference this kind of meta-analysis, and hopefully we will get a reference soon. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, Erik. Since Ckatz needlessly locked the page without trying to work this out, I can't edit it. I'll be back in a month, or a year, or when ever I need to be to make this article right. In reference to what you said about the conclusion of "right-wing pundits" and "general critics", it isn't original research. Its reflected in the text of the article itself. You will be hard pressed to find a general media critic who likes or recommends the film, you will not find a right-wing or Christian website that doesn't love the film. In both cases, they rate the film on the merits of the message, not the theatrical quality. Making a conclusion already in evidence is not original research, it's writing English coherently.66.87.4.197 (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:OR says, "[Original research] includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." We have one meta-analysis in Metacritic, albeit with a limited sample set of five reviews, and we have an anecdotal compilation of conservative commentary. Combining all this to draw this new conclusion is original research, and unfortunately, we do not have enough coverage to verify this overview. Waiting for "Superman" is a documentary film about the failure of public schools that was well-received by critics, so I'm wary of applying a simplistic liberal-conservative dichotomy here. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

We Don't Need Protection Here

We worked it out. Somebody lift the protection, please. We may only need protection from User:Ckatz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.7.227 (talk) 10:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The Box Office Section is Wrong

Boxofficemojo says this, "Last Ounce of Courage opened in 15th place with an atrocious $1.59 million from 1,407 locations. Unlike many Christian movies which rely primarily on word-of-mouth, Last Ounce actually ran commercials in major markets like Los Angeles (where a movie like this usually doesn't even open), which means this is probably a pretty serious financial disappointment." - It never says the film IS a disappointment, it says it probably is, and bases that on nothing except speculation. Is that encylopedic? 66.87.0.238 (talk) 17:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I added "probably" to the quoted passage. By the way, start a new discussion at the end of a talk page. You can do this by clicking "New section" at the top of a talk page. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is an article with some more commentary about the film. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)