Talk:Antebellum (film)

"Untitled Bush + Renz project" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Untitled Bush + Renz project. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Reviews

There doesn't seem to be any consensus about how to summarize the reviews for this film in the intro. Various editors seem to be revolving through a few different choices.

At the time of writing Rotten Tomatoes (RT) score is 28%. Metacritic (MC) score is 45%. RT says anything less than 60% is negative, so it does not seem unreasonable to summarize 28% as "negative reviews". But I don't like to contradict Metacritic unless there is good reason to do so. MC summarizes the reviews as "mixed" and an argument could be made to support that too. Breaking down the MC score further, of 35 reviews it categorizes 8 as positive, 17 as mixed, and 10 as negative. Some editors have asserted that the reviews are somehow "polarized", it is not clear how a spread of 8:17:10 amounts to "polarized". Sources should be provided to support any claims that the reviews were polarized, the article does not yet have anything to support that subjective interpretation. I would revert such claims,[1] but since there already seems to be some back-and-forth over this it would be better if people discussed it and came to a consensus. -- 109.78.207.89 (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Since it needs to be written from a neutral point of view, and the fact that we should go off of both RT and Metacritic reviews and not just RT, I would just simply go with “mixed reviews”. KaitoNkmra23 talk 06:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I would support "mixed reviews" as well but would want to make sure the language is clear because "mixed" can be just the "lukewarm" ones or a literal mix of positive and negative reviews. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

But I think we can all agree the claim of "polarized" reviews has not been shown. It might not be what everyone else would do (and I didn't want to prejudice the discussion but saying so in my first comment) but I am also fine with a very broad definition of mixed, and to leave it up to the Critical response section to explain in more detail. -- 109.78.207.89 (talk) 19:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Again someone claiming it was somehow more accurate to described the reviews as "polarized" rather than "mixed" but there does not seem to be any basis for this claim.[2] -- 109.79.83.218 (talk) 09:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps the script is just so unlikely to happen that makes it hard to live for any expectations. Nevertheless, it touches indeed the America’s “original sin” in a very original way and 28% RT seems harsh. Pazvilre (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Box office gross in Infobox

An editor deleted the box office gross from the Infobox[3] with the edit summary "Box office is misleading as the film came out during a Pandemic", November 17. I reverted this delete. If the figures need clarification then please do expand the article body to and explain the details more clearly, but it is not a good reason to delete those figures entirely, in this article or in any other film article released during the Covid19 pandemic.

Almost exactly the same delete was made before, November 16 [4], November 13 [5] by [User:Elikujy], November 12 [6][7], ... October 28 [8] etc., u.s.w., and so on. The delete appears to be the same person every time. The reverts are from multiple different editors, there appears to be a clear consensus against this delete. User talk:Elikujy has been warned but continues to make the same edit. There does not seem to have been any effort to discuss the edit or suggest any other changes besides the same delete.

I'm surprised this user has not been hit with a temporary block for this already. Please stop. -- 109.76.154.4 (talk) 03:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Reverted again and [User:Elikujy] was blocked for 72 hours. -- 109.76.194.97 (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

At it again, still failing discuss.[9] -- 109.79.166.37 (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Plot

WP:FILMPLOT says plot sections should be 400-700 words, but some editors have repeatedly expanded the section over this limit. Writing a concise plot summary requires brevity and careful phrasing. There are some verbose and unnecessary phrases that should be avoided:

• The film starts
• The film ends

Every film does, it is entirely redundant and absolutely unnecessary to ever say this in a plot section.

A plot section should stick to the plot, the story you can see on screen. Do not speculate! Don't write about the start of the film based on what you have learned from later in the story. Try to keep the plot summary in roughly the same chronological order as the film. If we are shown something, say what we are shown. Try to reveal plot twists roughly when they are revealed to the audience.

The plot section is well written but editors are trying to rewrite the section are making it longer and unintentionally making it worse. Please think carefully about your writing, and do not add anything to the plot section unless you can also shorten it somewhere else. Also please follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and explain your changes with an edit summary, or discuss here why you think your changes to the plot section are necessary.

TLDR: Keep it simple, say what you see. -- 109.76.154.4 (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Add "The scene shifts to"[10] to that list, another bit of needlessly verbose phrasing.

WP:FILMPLOT requires brevity, there is little enough room so don't waste time on anything other than the plot. -- 109.78.215.166 (talk) 14:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)