Talk:Hotel for Dogs (film)

Wording

The article is not worded very well but after a google search I found that it is a film to be released in 2009. See [1]. It may violate WP:Crystal however. If not, it can be rewritten. Thanks. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 22:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Plot

IMHO, I think that the plot section needs work. I noticed that when the author described how Heather followed them to the hotel that afterwards a lot of plot events were skipped, i.e the challenges they face taking care of the of the dogs before Mark shows up and how Andi was convinced to go to the party, which recalled past fabrications Andi told Dave in the pet store. I also noticed this:

"Pressured by the media at the scene, the police are persuaded to allow the dogs to remain at the hotel, which is eventually restored as a full-fledged canine retreat where the kids and even some of the dogs work and the new hotel is like a real hotel with some restaurant, entertainment, salon, adoption, bellboy, rooms, massage and more."

Why is it written with the "some" in front of the features of the hotel? It seems to disagree with the rest of the sentence.

Tell me if I am wrong on anything I mentioned. Usb10 (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

I just edited this:

"Hotel for Dogs 2 Ximon't' a middle school student who have stuck in school with a bunch of morons. To see full interview search in wikipedia <diary of a wimpy kid> is a 2012 Americans children's comedy film"

First, it was made in 2009, not 2012 and the beginning part that I edited this is just nonsense. Usb10 (talk) 16:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Can cause explosions

Opening" paragraph:

"According to the film review aggregate website Rotten Tomatoes, 46% of critics gave Hotel a positive review.

'Critical' paragraph in reception:

According to Rotten Tomatoes, a website which aggregates film reviews, 45% of critics gave Hotel a positive review.

REALLY? (*head explodes*) --77.99.231.37 (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I am going to try and find the true rating here and remove the incorrect one. There shouldn't be contradicting sentences on a Wikipedia article. Usb10 ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 01:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Neither of them are correct. It's 47%. It seems rather odd because they both the incorrect facts cite to the same link. It must have first said 45%, then someone saw it go up in it's rating and added the new one to the lead section without knowing it was already mentioned in the sentence which at the time was incorrect (possibly WP:CRYSTAL?) and didn't remove the outdated sentence at the time. Usb10 ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 01:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Now I get it. The one that says 45% is what it was rated at the time of release. So that one does not need to be removed. Usb10 ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 01:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"Mixed reviews"

Yes, Metacritic calculated a number which they say indicates "mixed or average reviews". Heck, sometimes they'll calculate an 81 (from 54 critics) and call it "universal acclaim" (an interesting use of the word "universal"...) while Rotten Tomatoes noted that 28 of 264 critics didn't like the film (The Force Awakens, in this case). The point here is that Metacritic surveys a small number of critics, converts their reviews to numbers, performs some black box magic and comes up with one number. That number and some loose interpretations of words tells us that, despite 28 of RT's critics not liking the film, everyone loved it.

Metacritic uses a subset of "critics". Their score summarizes what their critics said, not what critics said. Reducing "the set of critics surveyed by Metacritic" to "critics" is similar to reducing "Seventeen magazine readers responding to a poll" to "magazine readers" and saying "magazine readers want more coverage of" the latest boy band. It is entirely possible that Metacritic's sample is not representative or that their scoring method is wonky. In the present case, Metacritc surveyed 25 critics. Rotten Tomatoes? 117. "4 out of 5 dentists surveyed" is not "4 out of 5 dentists".

That they mechanically apply the term "mixed or average" to a number does not mean the reviews were "mixed". The average of 100, 66, 36 and 2, is 51. The average of 100, 99, 4 and 1 is 51. The average of 55, 53, 49 and 47 is 51. Those sets of reviews are, IMO, "mixed", "polarized" and "average". Your opinion might be that those are all "mixed". Someone else's opinion might be that they are all "average". - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

CityOfSilver: Please discuss the issue.

While I have read your edit sumamry, I am not disputing that Metacritic is a reliable source for its scores. However, their summary statement is just that: their summary statement. It is not a statement of fact, but what their scoring system considers the scores to mean. For this reason, an acceptable statement here would put that reading in context.

Note the wording at Star_Wars:_The_Force_Awakens#Critical_response. While it does say the film "received overwhelmingly positive reviews from critics", it cites major news outlets directly making that statement, rather than a cookie-cutter statement mechanically applied by Metacritic's black box, as we have here.

As for Metacritic's scoring, the article says, "On Metacritic, the film has a score of 81 out of 100, based on 52 reviews, indicating 'universal acclaim'." Note that we do not regurgitate their "universal acclaim" statement for the film's widespread (but clearly not "universal") acclaim. - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@SummerPhDv2.0 and Jonesey95: I guess I'll try to flag downthe person who just reverted me with an edit summary that's both irrelevant to the edit and wrong. Let this edit consist of my apology for not getting back to this sooner; while the plan was to not get as obsessed with editing as I used to be, this kind of delay is obviously too long. Stand by. CityOfSilver 19:33, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because you broke the prose in the Critical Reception section, as I noted in my edit summary. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: I'm aware that you reverted my edit because I broke the prose in the Critical Reception section, as you noted in your edit summary. I believe the prose as I restored it was fine. Instead of explaining what it was that's broken, you came here and just restated what you already said, despite my request for what, specifically, you're talking about. Would you try again, please? CityOfSilver 19:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Did you follow the link I pasted above? Here's how the prose started in that section:

The film received mixed reviews from critics.. Metacritic %5dtitle= Hotel for Dogs Reviews - Metacritic http://www.metacritic.com/movie/hotel-for-dogs ]title= Hotel for Dogs Reviews - Metacritic Check |url= value (help). Unknown parameter |accessfate= ignored (help); Missing or empty |title= (help) According to Rotten Tomatoes, ..."

That is broken. I have no opinion regarding the prose that you would like to insert there, except that it should be readable English sentences. The above text does not meet that criterion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: It was a malformed citation, not broken prose. I'm still rusty on those sorts of things. And even though it would have taken you about ten seconds to fix it, you instead swung a wrecking ball, removing a cite that, while this discussion is ongoing, absolutely has to stay. In the future, if an edit is malformed, please repair it rather than revert it. CityOfSilver 20:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

When editing, the "Preview" button can be your friend, showing you what your change will look like before you save it. By reverting your edit, Jonesey95 sent you a message that there was something wrong with your edit. This give you a chance to not make similar mistakes in the future. Yes, correcting your error may have been faster, but it also means the next mistake is just as likely to happen, possibly with no one catching it. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@SummerPhDv2.0: What I said was that Metacritic has long considered itself the discussion-ender when it comes to critical consensus. You seem to be saying 25 versus 117 tells you that Rotten Tomatoes covers far more critical reactions than Metacritic. But can't that also mean that Metacritic is far better at rounding up worthwhile reviews while weeding out chaff? I wonder if you're proving that RT's "All Critics" tab isn't picky enough to be mentioned here. Because just to take a random example that popped up when I scrolled, they list a review by Jackie Cooper of jackiecooper.com. Is whoever that person is being given equal weight to Joe Morgenstern of the WSJ, who's been getting paid to review movies since 1965? CityOfSilver 19:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

My brother-in-law considers himself to be God's gift to women. I think his self-appraisal is rather off. What Metacritic wants to consider itself to be is irrelevant (RT may disagree with MC's self-appraisal).

Your explanation seems to indicate that what you meant your edit to say is not "critics" but "critics that Metacritic believes to be the worthwhile critics as opposed to the chaff of critics, weighted according to their formula". Additionally, by "mixed" you seem to mean "mixed or average according to Metacritic's assigned category for films receiving a set score based on their calculation from worthwhile critics". I would suggest that a less wordy reading would be:

On Metacritic, the film received a score of 51 out of 100, based on 25 reviews, indicating "mixed or average reviews".

If you feel it is obvious and non-contestable that this means the same thing as "The film received mixed reviews from critics.", your version adds nothing. If you feel your version adds something, I'm having trouble seeing where that "something" would be coming from. The version I've suggested above gives all of the information available from MC, without narrowing it down from "mixed or average" to "mixed" or pretending that Metacritic's opinion came down from Mount Sinai on stone tablets. Metacritic gave the film a score and assigned an interpretation to that score. The Force Awakens received an assessment of "universal acclaim". It did not receive universal acclaim. This film received an assessment of "mixed or average reviews". - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:19, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hotel for Dogs (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.darkhorizons.com/films/270/Hotel-for-Dogs
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://rss.xinhuanet.com/newsc/english/2007-08/16/content_6542295.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306234650/http://www.monstersandcritics.com/movies/news/article_1373752.php/Kevin_Dillon_checks_in_Hotel_for_Dogs to http://www.monstersandcritics.com/movies/news/article_1373752.php/Kevin_Dillon_checks_in_Hotel_for_Dogs
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090727001453/http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA6629635.html?nid=2413&source=title&rid= to http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA6629635.html?nid=2413&source=title&rid=

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:48, 7 November 2017 (UTC)