Talk:Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2023

In the plot description, change "He gives Jones the Dial but, fascinated with the watch, keeps it." to: "He gives Jones the Dial and the watch." 78.185.14.236 (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Archimedes not only kept the watch, but he wore it to the grave. Any proof otherwise?$chnauzer 05:40, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2023 (2)

Can you please add the following under cast:

The Apollo 11 astronauts were played by Bryn Thomas (Buzz Aldrin), Jefferson King (Neil Armstrong) and Luke Cloud (Michael Collins). Source collectspace.com and indianajones.fandom.com Lasthattrick (talk) 08:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, is there an alternative for the second source you mentioned there as Fandoms are written by users and not considered reliable sources (see WP:RS)? Also is the first source there a primary or secondary source? Galaxy111 (talk) 10:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Possible spelling/grammar mistake?

In the Themes and Influences section, a line reads ″Mangold compared Dial of Destiny to his finale X-Men film Logan" Should that not read ″Mangold compared Dial of Destiny to his final X-Men film Logan″? To be fair I'm not 100% sure myself!

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&create=Create+edit+request&editintro=Wikipedia%3AEdit+Request+Wizard%2FProtected%2FEditnotice&preload=Wikipedia%3AEdit+Request+Wizard%2FProtected%2FPreload&section=new&title=talk%3AIndiana+Jones+and+the+Dial+of+Destiny Jucy7683 (talk) 09:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: In my opinion, finale is the correct word. Any editor that feel otherwise is free to overwrite without consult. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2023

71.94.28.77 (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Can you edit paramount pictures on there they produced it

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Betty Logan (talk) 15:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Summer Flops

Should we make an article detailing on the many summer 2023 bombs and showing the ones less affected like elemental and the ones hit hard like this movie. Im putting this here because this one bombed more than the others Refsrdr (talk) 09:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

It defepends, what sources do you have in mind? Dimadick (talk) 10:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Every summer has a few flops. Apart from The Flash (which had serious off-screen problems) and Indy 5, there hasn't really been any other huge flops. Rise of Beasts just continued the downward trajectory of a tired franchise, Fast X did around as much as Fast 9, and Elemental is Pixar's best performing non-sequel since Coco. Mission Impossible is under-performing too, but that is mostly explained in the collapse of the Chinese market. I think this probably falls into the categories of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. Betty Logan (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

O ok Refsrdr (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Needless removal of harmless, interesting plot details after a month

As per Sjones23's suggestion, am discussing this on the Talk page. ...Back on July 15, viewable at link https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indiana_Jones_and_the_Dial_of_Destiny&oldid=1165515383, I added/restored and/or approved someone else's addition and/or restoration/alteration in the Plot section,

1. "into a parade celebrating the Apollo 11 moon landing, then an anti-war protest, and through the New York City Subway." This was my restoration. I would have preferred to add the words "on horseback" before "through the"..., which would've been only 2 words, but added color to the Plot.

Quoting some recent comments of mine, "If it was such terrible 'fluff', there were plenty of chances to remove it before now. ...Apollo 11 is important because it ties into Voller's NASA job; the protests are important because Mutt died in Vietnam; the subway is colorful (I'd like to mention the horse, too); and people can reconcile hesitantly, or... romantically."

2. "romantically reconcile." Somebody put "romantically" rather than "affectionately", the latter maybe being my invention, but as I said at the link supra, "romantically" may be even better.

These lasted for a month (or more, for #2), then recently disappeared. I don't see this as good practice, in that:

A. They are perfectly harmless, and even beneficial, parts of the Plot. The 700-word limit is not near being reached, and lest we forget, the default on Wikipedia is that even if something is not brilliant or absolutely necessary, it's usually to be accepted if harmless. (I hope I don't need to cite sources for this; if it's not true, then things degenerate into a war of Madame (or Mr.) Defarges looking for any excuse to cut someone else's work, just because of the cutter's personal taste.) -- Indeed, "personal taste" is a lot of it. Sallah being a cab driver, isn't "strictly necessary" for us to know, but I don't think it should be cut. The gang using a "tuk-tuk" vehicle during a chase, isn't "strictly necessary" to know, either, but it, too, needn't be cut. Thus, when a lot of stuff is really personal taste, maybe we shouldn't be too quick to cut other people's stuff. The more contributions from diverse people, the better.

B. The words in question lasted for a month or more, I think, from July 15 (unless someone cut them out and restored them, and I didn't notice?). If there were plenty of opportunities to cut them out, and that didn't happen, it looks a little odd for someone to cut them out after all that time. On Wikipedia, there could even be people (hypothetically) who wait until they think no one is looking, and then surreptitiously cut out stuff they don't like. (Not that this happened in this case; just talking theoretically.) -- But Wikipedia is collaborative, not just at the mercy of one person who doesn't like your stuff.

That's it for now. Even to have to argue over it is time-consuming, but better that than just letting people cut out long-existing, harmless or beneficial details without some colossally important reason, which of course does not exist here. (If there were, then the language in question should've been cut out around July 15, not August 15.) Thanks. (And if someone wants to add the words "on horseback", that would probably be a good idea. I wouldn't mind a brief mention of Agent Mason, either, a woman of color who could use some acknowledgment in the Plot section...) John315 (talk) 02:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I have been editing the Dial of Destiny plot summary since the movie debuted. I would have made the most recent changes sooner, but I have been away, so that is why a month lapsed. There has been considerable differences of opinions about what should and should not be in the plot summary. Movie summaries are supposed to be a BRIEF overview of the plot and written in a simple encyclopedic style. Too many novice editors want to completely retell the entire movie as if they are writing a novel and include every scene, describe and embellish details and add every minor/insignificant character until it becomes a bloated mess. Tying the Viet Nam protest march to Mutt's death and Indy's depression was redundant, as that was already established. Saying the Apollo parade was important because it was tied to Voller's work was weak and not needed. Nor was describing Indy riding that horse through the subway, which was "fluff." Just let moments like that be enjoyed by the audience. And just because the plot limit is 700 words, doesn't mean it has to reach the maximum length. Some editors become overly attached to certain scenes and jam them in, giving them unequal importance, without enhancing the overall article quality. One editor wanted to include the most insignificant characters simply because they were POC and to "honor" them in some way. That is inappropriate and patronizing. PNW Raven (talk) 01:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have an opinion (and I too have been editing this article for a while), but I have to repeat that, e.g., if Sallah's being a cab driver is included, it is hard to argue that anything else is less relevant than that. We know about Mutt's death in Vietnam, but that doesn't mean that the war protest is "repetitive" or "irrelevant", I believe, just because it's resonant with Mutt's death. Also, ignoring the Apollo thing entirely seems a little bizarre: why did the filmmaker put it there? It adds context that the events happen during the moon shot. Too, I don't see it as "patronizing" to include people of color, and Agent Mason is not an insignificant character. Finally, to take the time to cut out the word "romantically"... if it were a racial or sexual slur, that would be one thing, but be so troubled by it as to remove it repeatedly, seems a little unusual. ...Hopefully, you will be convinced, but we'll see what happens. I think I can guess. Fortunately, I also have some free speech rights, like every editor here. John315 (talk) 05:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Let me say that deleting the word "romantically" had nothing to do with it being a "racial" or "sexual" slur. And I have no idea how you leaped to that conclusion. I also repeatedly removed it. This is about following the rules of good writing. One rule is "always use as few words as possible." To quote Mark Twain, "If you catch an adjective, kill it." If something can be said with two words instead of three, then go with two. Adding "romantically" was a superfluous word and just adds "dead weight". Also, Agent Mason was not significant enough to mention by name, nor was Sallah's nameless grandchildren who had no dialogue whatsoever and were merely background characters, yet an editor in an earlier version repeatedly insisted on mentioning them as an "honor" to their color. Singling them out because they are people of color, was indeed patronizing. I agree it is unnecessary to mention that Sallah is a taxi driver and will delete that. As I mentioned, we are not here to retell the entire movie plot or be a substitute for seeing the film, but to give a BRIEF overview of the story, written in a neutral, encyclopedic style. PNW Raven (talk) 10:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Huh? I wouldn't cut out the taxi driver if I were you; I was trying to make a point. ...I wasn't saying "romantically" was a slur, I was saying that if it were, there might be a point to removing it, otherwise, it's arguably obsessive to try to remove it after all the time it remained there. (Future historians reading this Talk thread itself, might wonder if people had lost their minds, arguing/debating so long about a few words.) The grandkids may not be important, but Agent Mason was a driver of the story, with multiple appearances and speaking parts; thus, it might be especially important not to omit her as a woman of color. ...Brevity can be good, but the 700-word limit already imposes that on us. Anyway, we have discussed; since neither one of us is the owner of this article, while I may make some additions/restorations to the article, I might do fewer than I want to. On the other side of the coin, people need not feel obliged to revert all my changes. Have a pleasant weekend. John315 (talk) 10:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Whoops, while I was writing that, it seems... you got rid of the cab driver. Who knows, it might be restored. Or not. Anyway. John315 (talk) 10:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I have to say, watching you guys go at it over the plot summary of this dud has been much more fun than the movie itself. So… thanks! Supertheman ^(talk) 04:23, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

If you will leave the section about the parade and the protest march as it is now, I'll accept that. I'm fine with mentioning that Sallah drives a taxi, though I reworded it a bit to flow better. Also, I repeatedly removed "romantically" from the reconciling phrase, but it, or other similar words kept being restored. It wasn't just wordy, but came across as corny sentiment.PNW Raven (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. "Taxi driver"... Sallah almost sounds like Travis Bickle! (heh heh) ...If you don't like "romantically", I think my changing "reconcile" to "reunite" may have covered some of the distance. Thanks. Be well. John315 (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm . . . I changed it to "cab driver" just to avoid any comparison, but yes, it does rather evoke Travis Bickle. "Reunite" actually works better. PNW Raven (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

"Jonathan Kasdan replaced Koepp and eventually left the project"

Did Kasdan really leave the project? Koepp did, but surely he didn't hang around idly after having been replaced, gradually realizing how boring that is and eventually leaving. Anyway, the sentence's grammar isn't open to such an interpretation. 2003:DE:2F45:6894:E9E1:11D:3FFE:4ADE (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Overall critical reception in the lead (again)

Trailblazer101: Actually, this was briefly mentioned a long time ago in this thread, and you can see an active discussion about this very same issue at Talk:Bad Boys: Ride or Die#Reception summary (just skip to my most recent comment at 04:57, 20 June 2024 to get to the meat and potatoes).

When Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic disagree, then typically we do not add summary statements to the article, especially the lead. Claiming reviews from critics were "negative", "mixed", or "positive" is choosing the results from one aggregator over the other. In order to make a claim like that, it needs to be cited to a different source (at least one that is highly-reputable). I saw your recent comments here and here, so I thought maybe there was some confusion regarding this topic, or maybe I'm missing something about this specific film article? --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey, thanks @GoneIn60 for pointing me to those threads! I have not seen any policy saying we use either RT or MC to determine what our critic summaries are. My understanding was that we summarize from multiple sources in the articles and from the reviews in the articles themselves, not just going off of these two aggregator sites. See the critical summary and details at Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom for this approach, at the very least from how I have understood it. I know aggregators and other critic summaries do not always line up, though in the name of neutrality and accuracy, basing our summaries off of RT and MC just seems plain wrong as they are not the sole or final determinators of critic reviews, rather a way to compile them. I have personally never seen much merit in them, though I have them the benefit of the doubt in years prior, but I fail to see how using their brief consensus for our summaries is the accurate way to go. I also tried explaining this to the IP over at my talk. I also think simply excluding a critic summary is not the best course of action, though the reason I reverted this IP's edits was because they weren't explained or discussed beforehand, especially after similar edits were recently reverted. I'm happy to seeing if the critic reviews here need to be reviewed and if the summary we have needs better sources or wording. Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh okay, I think I might understand where you're coming from then. So you are thinking that the balance of critic reviews that are actually listed in the Wikipedia article should be summarized in the lead? In other words, if most of the reviews listed for Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny in this Wikipedia article are mixed, then we should say "The film received mixed reviews", despite the fact that one of the aggregators (in this case, RT) shows a 70% positive rating?

If that's the case, then understandably I can see why there might be some confusion. According to MOS:LEAD, of course, the lead section is a summary of the article's "most important contents". So you're just doing your due diligence and following the guideline to the letter. You're summarizing the "Critical response" section. The problem, however, is that the critic reviews in this article were chosen randomly by us, Wikipedia editors. There's no guarantee that we are compiling them in the right mixture of positive/mixed/negative to truly represent how the critics' consensus received the film. We really only have the RT and MC aggregator scores as a true measure of that consensus. Does that make sense? --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

That is correct. I can understand how there can be an imbalance or confusion between what reviews we have in the articles and what reviews those aggregators use, though I have seen instances where they just accept reviews from any random blogs as "critic" reviews, which I find concerning as most of those don't hold up to Wikipedia's standards on reliability. I prefer to take a firm literal and direct stance in these articles and how we cover the contents, which is why when I see these inconsistencies between our reception sections and the aggregators, it either means we need more sources or there is something up with the aggregators. I prefer to treat having no reception summary as a nuclear option, as I am sure there are some third-party sources talking about what a general critical consensus is other than the aggregators. Trailblazer101 (talk) 08:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I understand that viewpoint, but here's the problem: Rotten Tomatoes is literally cited by every major film and entertainment news outlet covering the industry, including the heavy hitters Deadline, Variety, and THR. The aggregator holds considerable WP:WEIGHT in reliable sources, so while it is not the only source for measuring critical reception, it is a significant one that deserves fair representation. If an editor goes into the lead and claims overall critical reception was "mixed" when RT states it was "positive", that looks like original research and something that violates WP:NPOV, especially if it is based off of a personal compilation of reviews that was thrown together by a group of Wikipedia editors.

I know you think we should be plucking reviews at random and then somehow assuming this is going to give us a good indication of how a film was received, but unfortunately, that is not an acceptable process. We are not film aggregators, and there's no way of knowing if our so-called "plucking" is ever truly random, or if our sample size is too small. It might even be biased in favor of certain critics, publications, demographics, countries, locales, etc.

That's not even the biggest problem. Beyond all that is a policy you're probably already aware of regarding the Synthesis of published material. We can't take different pieces of published information and combine them together to form our own conclusion. The conclusion we write on Wikipedia must be explicitly stated within one of the sources, otherwise it's a form of "editorial synthesis" which isn't permitted. In a nutshell, that means we cannot do our own compilation of reviews, assess them, and then determine a trend by saying they were negative/mixed/positive, because this draws a conclusion that none of the sources themselves explicitly state. Hope that helps drive the point home! -- GoneIn60 (talk) 09:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

After an exhaustive review of the reliable sources, including recent ones, there appears enough consensus in the press to call this; based on the sheer WP:WEIGHT of the reporting. Either "mixed" or "lukewarm", in the voice of the citations-- provided we directly quote them, and pick the best ones "to summarize the critical consensus" per MOS:FILM.

Given the significance of this major tentpole movie as far as its performance, it is certainly WP:NOTABLE enough for the lead (i.e.given it was used by the aforementioned consensus of analysis in the press to explain how one of the most expensive movies of all time, coming off an amazing run of a franchise, bombed so badly). Leaving that out or watering down it to quibble about the finer WP:POINTs here seems only to serve as spin for some who simply love this franchise so much that they can't bear to see bad news about it. We should avoid trying to WP:EDITORIALIZE these film articles, as this seems to happen a lot with popular movies on Wikipedia (i.e.the fan service & PR of sorts for populist-blockbuster films that are less than successful). My 2 cents. 2601:282:8980:C0F0:29B1:446A:9F02:2F3E (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

That's a lot of fancy language highlighting terms without saying much of anything. Where is this "exhaustive review of the reliable sources" you speak of? You didn't provide links to any of these sources. Do you have any to share, or should we just collapse your comments for making wild accusations of "loving this franchise". I wasn't involved in any of the recent edits to this article. In fact, I haven't edited the article in almost a year. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't challenging you.

So maybe try to AGF?

I was challenging the disruptive editor who started all this (who is apparently using socks now to obsess over this article, and game it) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:HumansandFish&diff=prev&oldid=1230080300

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indiana_Jones_and_the_Dial_of_Destiny&diff=prev&oldid=1230038003
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indiana_Jones_and_the_Dial_of_Destiny&action=history

As an aside, he was just blocked (again!) for warring over on pages about jewish history and figures (both socks obsess over that as well as comic-book movie pages). So that alone indicates someone who is operating with agendas per say, hence my allegations of such.

In any case, I was actually concurring (read: agreeing with you) and the other editor on this talk (not to be confused with the aforementioned bad actor). However, I was also trying to clarify my stance, and if necessary, I guess I can list the sources.

However, "lukewarm" reception at least has been used long enough on this article, or even "mixed" as recently as March 2024 https://screenrant.com/indiana-jones-dial-of-destiny-box-office-loss-report/ and Jan 2024 for instance https://www.cinemablend.com/movies/bethesda-indiana-jones-great-circle-game-trailer-looks-better-dial-of-destiny that it is more than reasonable to call this.

Without splitting hairs, or WP:POINTing out wiki-dogma that would conveniently hold up this information (i.e. with the obvious agenda of watering-down said important info because that seems to happen a lot with this film pages, and reeks of spin.) MOS:FILM advocates for "a reasonable summary of the film's critical reception should avoid synthesis, meaning it should reflect an overall consensus explicitly summarized by one or more reliable sources" and there is no community consensus about how to summarize Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores, and the use of prevalent summary styles or templates is not required...Caution should be exercised...

Thus, the reliable sources by now can more than "summarize" this "mixed reception" per the aforementioned etiquette prescribed above, duh. And given the totality of sources and history here, that is more than "reasonable".

And for such a no-brainer issue this really isn't worth the waste of our time anyways, especially when it was started by an editor who is likely socking, and recently has come out of his SECOND ban for editwarring.

P.S. As I was involved in the editing here too, and I just so happened to be agreeing with the OP you were chatting with, I was just weighing in (i.e.hence my "2 cents" remark). So, no need to get so snippy. I don't have a quarrel with you, and you clearly do good work. Peace 2601:282:8980:C0F0:6CD5:BDBF:3219:719A (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

The prudent thing to do in your earlier comment would be to strike out the comments you made about editors who may disagree and what their motivations could be for doing so. Even if you were referring to editors who are not here in this discussion, they do nothing to help this discussion and could be misinterpreted. For future reference, it is preferred to focus on content, not the contributor in talk page discussions. Take behavioral matters to user talk pages, WP:ANI, and elsewhere as needed. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@GoneIn60: Roger that. i understand it more clearly now. I don't feel too strongly about this as others may, though from my experience dealing with the reception of the likes of The Marvels, Captain Marvel, and other contentious subjects prone to review-bombing (not saying that happened here), it didn't seem that the initial reverts were done adequately (especially when it appears it was performed by a potential sock). To me, "mixed" and "generally positive" almost convey the same thing for this article, after re-reading the reviews in the article and the consensus of both RT and MC. It seems to have mostly been positive with some negative, so I'm in favor of either one and leaning closer to "generally positive" here. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101 But MC is at odds with RT, which isn't that high to begin with score wise.

I dunno... the reliable sources at best seemed to think this was a "mixed reception" 'at best' film. And that appraisal has only grown stronger with time, as evident in recent reporting.

And MOS:FILM advocates for "a reasonable summary of the film's critical reception should avoid synthesis, meaning it should reflect an overall consensus explicitly summarized by one or more reliable sources" and ..."there is no community consensus about how to summarize Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores, and the use of prevalent summary styles or templates is not required...Caution should be exercised..."

So if not "mixed", then at least "lukewarm" (as was used before) or something along those lines if the word "mixed" is too divisive for some. Also, my 2 cents. But "positive" is misleading and not really supported here. 2601:282:8980:C0F0:6CD5:BDBF:3219:719A (talk) 17:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

What sources use "lukewarm" or any derivatives of it? We can't just add something without a source. Mixed means in-between negative and positive, and I have no issue with it. My main concern is saying something that isn't supported by sources. I can go with either "mixed" or "generally positive" as long as it is supported by multiple sources, see MOS:ACCLAIMED for more on this rationale. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101 This is the source for "lukewarm" I think they were using here. "Mixed" is more than supported, and best summarizes the history of this film overall, as the critical reception wasn't all that WP:NOTABLE to begin with, but nevertheless:

• https://screenrant.com/indiana-jones-dial-of-destiny-box-office-loss-report/ March2024
• https://www.cinemablend.com/movies/bethesda-indiana-jones-great-circle-game-trailer-looks-better-dial-of-destiny Jan2024
• https://screenrant.com/indiana-jones-5-mixed-reviews-director-response/
• https://www.todayonline.com/8days/indiana-jones-and-dial-destiny-launch-disney-dec-1-2296471
• https://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/ent/the-indiana-jones-buried.html
• https://variety.com/2023/film/box-office/indiana-jones-5-opening-day-dial-of-destiny-1235659612/

That I found after just a minute or two of browsing. But I listed the "Variety" source for instance, if the strength of said sources is questioned. So this isn't hard to support if that becomes absolutely necessary.

And, yes, having reviewed MOS:ACCLAIMED, this is one of those no-brainer situations (again) since calling a movie "positive" and even "acclaimed" requires a clear press-consensus which is lacking here for the obvious aforementioned reasons (and sources which says otherwise in near-unison). 2601:282:8980:C0F0:6CD5:BDBF:3219:719A (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Trailblazer101- I agree with you, about the "nuclear option" logic. As I see that often used to WP:GAME articles on popular-films mired in controversy-- i.e.where there is nothing but bad news for a film, so leaving out mention of "mixed" or "negative" reception in the lead on that basis, helps to improve the perception of a popular film loved by the fans.

When it's a nobrainer like this-- as Indy 5 is not only in the top 10 of most expensive films ever made, but also noteworthy for being such a financial disaster, and for failing to close out the franchise for being so underwhelming, critically-speaking-- the press seemed to have no problem calling this as recently as March 2024 https://screenrant.com/indiana-jones-dial-of-destiny-box-office-loss-report/ and Jan 2024 for instance https://www.cinemablend.com/movies/bethesda-indiana-jones-great-circle-game-trailer-looks-better-dial-of-destiny But that's the rub, and stigma of wikipedia IMAO... that leave it to the masses to find a way to spin the unnecessary with rules & dogma as the excuse.

P.S. I am not referring to Gone60's reasonable contentions, but the overall quagmire of editwarring involving these populist-movies. I just liked the way YOU put it, and I encourage you to share this wisdom on the MOS:FILM project, as it is a nice cogent way to cut through the esoteric WP:POINTs often used to distract from honest, ethical editing on this film-art articles IMHO. 2601:282:8980:C0F0:6CD5:BDBF:3219:719A (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Source analysis

The sources from Variety are by far the strongest. Here are the ones we can toss from the stack...

• This one from the generally reliable Cinemablend isn't so reliable in this instance. It contains a weak, passing mention of the film's reception, calling it a "mixed bag of reactions", but doesn't expound in any way on how this conclusion was reached and who exactly we're referring to (e.g., audience, critics, or both). As a secondary concern, its author also seemingly lacks some qualifications you'd expect to see from a highly-reputable source on film reception, and I didn't see much in their article history to show for that either.
• The Giant Freakin Robot author hasn't written any commentary or performed any analysis in the past 12 months like he did in that article last year. It is an odd thing to say that Sound of Freedom's 76% on Rotten Tomatoes is "far better" than the "weak" 69% scored by Dial of Destiny (which is now 70%); 6 or 7 percentage points is not a wide margin of difference, and since this author doesn't appear to be known for this type of analysis, we can toss this source as well.
• The April 2024 Screen Rant source was borderline initially, but it gets tossed because a closer read reveals that its "mixed" assessment refers to the critical opinion that formed initially after the film's screening at the 2023 Cannes Film Festival, where it wasn't well received. A lot of sources do have a tendency to refer to that particular moment, which is what the June 25th Screen Rant source does as well.

Back to Variety...

The only issue with the July 1 Variety source is that it was too early in its assessment when the RT score was at 58%. That score quickly rose to 68%, and then 69% within the week. The July 2 Variety source, which quotes the critical response as "lukewarm", is the better one of the two. It was originally cited in the lead at one point, going as far back as 00:40, July 22, 2023 (UTC). The next best sources, in no particular order, are Rotten Tomatoes ("positive") and Metacritic ("mixed"), which are obviously split in their decision.

Personally, I would lean toward not having a summary statement, but if the preference is to have one, then I would support "lukewarm" citing the July 2nd Variety source. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree about Variety. Looking for sources after the release, Variety in November here wrote "middling reviews". Note on Metacritic, it breaks down the reviews as 35 mixed, 29 positive, and 1 negative. So it's in that in-between space. (EDIT: Out of curiosity, I checked the breakdown after Cannes and before the public release as seen here, and it was 16 mixed and 8 positive. Interesting!) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Erik. Seems "middling" and "lukewarm" are fairly synonymous. Either would be fine to me. The term lukewarm is a bit more specific than mixed, as it implies a range slightly above average and slightly below positive, but it definitely means unenthusiastic. I think it works fine if we have to have something. Appreciate the breakdown, BTW. That is interesting! -- GoneIn60 (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Trailblazer101, thoughts so far? Seems like "lukewarm" was one of the options you supported earlier, but wanted to make sure before we made any changes to the article. The other option still on the table is to nuke the summary statement altogether. I'm still fine with either. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Given what the sources state, I am comfortable with either the "middling" or "lukewarm" mentions for the summary. Thank you for all who worked in getting this squared away! Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Dark Horse Comics 'Spear of Destiny'

Title of and some of the story from 'Dial of Destiny' may have originated with the Dark Horse Comics 4-part series called 'Spear of Destiny.' 2600:1700:FC2:4000:256E:15E2:EAFA:762E (talk) 14:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Date of opening sequence.

Change 1944 to early May 1945.

evidence The battle of Berlin is reference with “Berlin in rubble”. That battle ended 2 May 1945, but the Nazis appear not to have surrendered, which was 8 May 1945. Thus the opening sequence likely is set between these dates. 68.93.182.139 (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

8 May 1945 is not the standard date all around the world. For example, it's 9 May in Russia.84.54.70.120 (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)