User talk:Darkwarriorblake/Seven (1995 film)

TompaRompaStompaDompa

TompaDompa, did you get a chance to look this over with the references in place? I really think it is exactly like the Casablanca section you reference. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

It really isn't. Casablanca (film) states Casablanca received "consistently good reviews". – a statement about the critical consensus, from a source making that analysis. It goes on to say In the decades since its release, the film has grown in reputation. – a statement about how the reception has evolved over time, which appears to be sourced to a documentary about the film. Admittedly, I haven't been able to access either source to verify these passages. It also says Roger Ebert, wrote of Casablanca in 1992, "There are greater movies. More profound movies. Movies of greater artistic vision or artistic originality or political significance. ... But [it is] one of the movies we treasure the most ... This is a movie that has transcended the ordinary categories." In his opinion, the film is popular because "the people in it are all so good" and it is "a wonderful gem". Ebert said that he had never heard of a negative review of the film, even though individual elements can be criticized, citing unrealistic special effects and the stiff character of Laszlo as portrayed by Paul Henreid. — again analysis of the reception, this time quoting a subject-matter expert making that analysis (I have only been able to verify the first quote here).

The closest we have here is the opening sentence In the years since its release, Seven has grown in esteem, receiving general critical praise. and the later sentence Another anniversary retrospective by The Independent said that Seven remains celebrated for its twist ending, which is among the most well-known twists in cinema, and remained both influential on filmmaking and popular with audiences due to its storytelling, cast, and innovative use of psychological manipulation. The problem with the latter is that what The Independent says is David Fincher's grisly 1995 noir Se7en, which marks its 25th anniversary today, is celebrated for many things, among them its shocking final twist. and It's one of the most well-known twists in cinema. – the rest fails verification. For the former, BFI says nothing about growing in esteem or receiving general praise and Far Out makes the significantly more modest statement David Fincher's 1995 neo-noir may not have won many awards when it was first released but it has gained a lot of admirers in subsequent years., while The Ringer says time has conferred a mostly rapturous critical consensus on Se7en (which I take to mean that the consensus has crystallized rather than changed, though I'm not entirely sure exactly what the author meant here). TompaDompa (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

• It really isn't. Casablanca (film) states Casablanca received "consistently good reviews". – a statement about the critical consensus, from a source making that analysis. - This is the initial reception which is separate to lasting and I've already sourced
• It goes on to say In the decades since its release, the film has grown in reputation. – a statement about how the reception has evolved over time, which appears to be sourced to a documentary about the film. Admittedly, I haven't been able to access either source to verify these passages. - Yep, and here Ebert says In 2011, as part of his The Great Movies series, Ebert upgraded his original score for the film from three-and-a-half stars stars to a full four stars, lauding it as one of the darkest and most ruthless Hollywood productions, anchored by the stellar performances of Freeman and Spacey. Ebert concluded that while Seven may not delve into profundity or depth, its rich mythology and symbolism elevate its impact. So, 16 years after its release he says it is STILL one of the darkest and most ruthless hollywood productions anchored by stellar performancesm, mythology, and symbolism
• the later sentence Another anniversary retrospective by The Independent said that Seven remains celebrated for its twist ending, which is among the most well-known twists in cinema, and remained both influential on filmmaking and popular with audiences due to its storytelling, cast, and innovative use of psychological manipulation. The problem with the latter is that what The Independent says is David Fincher's grisly 1995 noir Se7en, which marks its 25th anniversary today, is celebrated for many things, among them its shocking final twist. and It's one of the most well-known twists in cinema. – the rest fails verification. - I missed a reference, it's now added
• For the former, BFI says nothing about growing in esteem or receiving general praise - The statement is grown in esteem and general praise, the source calls it a landmark, and states "Two decades on from its original release, David Fincher’s sophomore feature remains a breathtakingly bleak portrait of an American city drowning in moral corruption... But while Se7en’s despairing world view and technical prowess have been discussed to death over the years...Se7en’s enormous box office success ensured that Hollywood was quick to take notes, and the film continues to exert a significant influence." Is this untrue?
• Far Out makes the significantly more modest statement David Fincher's 1995 neo-noir may not have won many awards when it was first released but it has gained a lot of admirers in subsequent years. so it's grown in esteem?
• Honestly, Tompa, you're being unreasonable and you must at least somewhat consider that? I've found the sources, they've made the statements or claims, you're asking for medical grade peer-reviewed sources that say "Seven has grown in esteem over the years" instead of accepting that its commentary that is going to originate from multiple sources that can be summarized per guidelines. You cannot say I haven't done everything in my power to satisfy your requests that no other reviewer, and they are competent as much as anyone else, has asked for, and you're still nitpicking over lack of a single source making one specific phrasing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
  • The difference between the Ebert quotes is that in the case of Casablanca, Ebert is talking about the consensus opinion (hence "we"), whereas with Seven he is giving his own opinion. When it comes to BFI, the source says the film is still good, that it has been the subject of much discussion, and has been influential all the while since its release – none of which is the same as growing in esteem or receiving general praise (it doesn't say that it's better, nor does it say that this is the consensus opinion). The Far Out quote about gaining admirers would likely be fine for saying it has grown in popularity, but not esteem – growing in esteem is a rather strong statement about reevaluation/shifting opinions, whereas gaining admirers could equally well be referring to reaching new audiences. TompaDompa (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
    • The definition of esteem is "respect and admiration" and/or "respect and admire" so how can you argue that Far Out is fine for "gaining admirers" but esteem is too strong a word? Same with Ebert, he's good enough to state what other people think, but him saying the film is X is somehow only his opinion? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
      • Perhaps a couple of examples might help illustrate. Citizen Kane has received more positive reviews in more recent years than it did upon its initial release. The Iron Giant was mostly overlooked by audiences upon its initial release but has since reached a much larger number of people who appreciate it. Both have perhaps gained admirers, but while Citizen Kane has grown in esteem, The Iron Giant has grown in popularity; The Thing is an example of a film that has done both.
        Roger Ebert is probably the most respected film critic in history. If we want to give an example of an individual critic's appraisal, his is likely to be a good choice. Nevertheless, his opinion is sometimes at odds with the critical consensus; Collider has a list of examples. Honestly, I don't see what's difficult to understand about the difference between Ebert talking about the critical consensus and Ebert talking about his own opinion.
        I gather you think what you're doing is summarizing disparate sources to say something about trends; I think that in doing so you're performing WP:ANALYSIS. TompaDompa (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
        • I'm not analysing anything, I'm taking the words they say and putting them in the article. You can nitpick about esteem vs admire but the definition remains the same. Ebert calling it one of hte darkest and most ruthless Hollywood productions is never followed by "IMO", he never presents it as anything but fact. The problem I'm having is you seem to be taking issue with individual words or phrases like "grown in esteem" and instead of just saying "change it to 'popularity'" you go round the houses to instead undermine the references used or say that I'm generating content by analysing. If reference one says that "Two decades on from its original release, David Fincher’s sophomore feature remains a breathtakingly bleak portrait of an American city drowning in moral corruption... But while Se7en’s despairing world view and technical prowess have been discussed to death over the years..." and that article is published in 2016, 21 years after its release, then surely it's fair to say it high standing remains true? So is your issue saying that it has grown in esteem instead of saying it "remains in esteem"? I've said it what feel slike a dozen times but it's not plausible to find a singular reference with a line discussing its popularity in detail because from what I have found there has not been any actual change, it endures because of its content. You seem to think you're giving me clear answers and yet I'm competent enough to know I'm not particularly stupid so are your answers clear or are your expectations misguided? I wrote The Thing, the drastic change in it's perception has been studied for over 40 years so there's going to be tonnes of specific sentences saying 'this or that happened', Seven just was as it was and ever shall be. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
        • Reading Citizen Kane's Re-evaluation section it again is mostly a list of poll results and critics giving their personal opinions, including Ebert's "the greatest film ever made: 'But people don't always ask about the greatest film. They ask, 'What's your favorite movie?' Again, I always answer with Citizen Kane." which is much more a personal opinion. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
          • Just to be clear: I'm not talking about the articles Citizen Kane, The Iron Giant, or The Thing—I'm talking about the movies themselves, and only as examples to explain the difference between receiving more positive reviews and reaching a wider appreciative audience.
            Ebert calling it one of hte darkest and most ruthless Hollywood productions is never followed by "IMO", he never presents it as anything but fact. – okay, but surely you understand that that's a matter of opinion and not fact, right? That's a very basic level of understanding of WP:NPOV: Avoid stating opinions as facts.
            it's not plausible to find a singular reference with a line discussing its popularity in detail – if it isn't possible to find references discussing aspect X, the article should treat it as a WP:MINORASPECT.
            If reference one says that "Two decades on from its original release, David Fincher’s sophomore feature remains a breathtakingly bleak portrait of an American city drowning in moral corruption... But while Se7en’s despairing world view and technical prowess have been discussed to death over the years..." and that article is published in 2016, 21 years after its release, then surely it's fair to say it high standing remains true? – well, no, as a matter of fact. Or more to the point, it's not appropriate to say in WP:WikiVoice. You're allowed to make the personal assessment that it means that, but putting it in a Wikipedia article with that source as a reference is not okay. This is part of our policy WP:No original research: Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. References must be cited in context and on topic.
            I'm not trying to communicate unclearly. My aim is to point out issues and allow you to decide how best to deal with them – you are more familiar with the sources than I am, after all. I may sometimes give direct "change X to Y"-type suggestions, but most of the time I don't because I don't want to rewrite the article for you. TompaDompa (talk) 01:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
            • • You are and continue to be unreasonable Tompa. If I find 50 sources calling it one of the Best Thrillers, you complain it's just too extreme a claim to make, so I take it and the 50 references out and you complain more. Honestly, I won't feel bad if you choose not to review any of my articles going forward because you've absolutely killed any enjoyment or interest I had in working on any more topics, I haven't touched my Matrix project since you started commenting on Seven because it's taken THAT MUCH TIME to appease you and you still weren't happy. I have no further interest in your opinions. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2024 (UTC)