Talk:Ray Fisher (actor)

This page should not be speedy deleted because...

This page should not be speedily deleted because it is a biography of an actor. It is properly sourced, and includes information one would want to know about the actor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lewis21841 (talk • contribs)

Make the page semi-protected

Can somebody make the page semi-protected? Pineapple4321 (talk) 01:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Could you edit Ray Fishers Wiki Only his filmography because I feel like that his film and television work of his filmography should be separated not put all together in one filmography one should have one as film separate and the other should have television as separate not mashed as together in one. 166.198.161.7 (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The abuse issue

Shouldn't Mr. Fisher's recent issues with WB be mentioned in some form? He's been pretty public with his accusations.★Trekker (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Should we add new section for the Justice League reshoots investigation

Should we add a new section for the Justice League reshoots investigation? Pineapple4321 (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Is it necessary to mention the reception of Zack Snyder's Justice League in this article?

My viewpoint is that this article should focus more on Fisher's performance rather than the film itself. The film's reception by critics can be found in the film's article. I am also a bit skeptical of using strong terminology such as "good" or "mixed". It will open a can of worms as editors battle over the prose, which is why I thought we should follow the film page's prose if we are to include anything about the film's reception here. Pinging Kyle Joan to continue our debate here. --WuTang94 (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Not sure how accurate the ZSJL article's reception section is when it contains photos of Fisher, Ben Affleck, and Ezra Miller and notes they garnered critical praise despite those names not being anywhere in the prose. It is standard for BLPs to briefly note critics' consensuses about subjects' films–see Bradley Cooper, Anne Hathaway, Christian Bale, Jennifer Lawrence, all featured articles. Would you remove statements saying their films received whatever reviews from their articles? Why be skeptical about saying the reception was mixed when that's what the LA Times, TotalFilm, Collider, The Mary Sue, Syfy Wire, Metacritic, CNET, and ComicBook.com all say? If anyone wants to challenge the prose, then they're free to demonstrate that another term aside from "mixed" is due. Speaking of which, I thought you had wanted to do this, but it seems the scope of the discussion has changed because you now oppose any general consensus. What changed?

If we were to apply your same viewpoint to the ZSJL article, then wouldn't you challenge the inclusion of Fisher, Affleck, and Miller's names and photos (and the caption saying they garnered critical praise) because readers could come to each person's article to find that information? In fact, shouldn't the names and photos be entirely removed because that material doesn't match what's on this article or Affleck's or Miller's?

It seems neither of us is changing our mind on this, so let me know if you'd like an RfC for more responses. Cheers! KyleJoan^talk 01:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Then again, it seems fair to include both critics' general perception and how the cut critically fared compared to the original. "Regarded by critics as an improvement over the theatrical version, the cut generated a mixed critical reception, with Tom Jorgensen of IGN highlighting Fisher's nuanced and colorful portrayal and Alex Abad-Santos of Vox praising the 'mix of rage and vulnerability' in his performance." How does this sound? It's more elaborate than what I believe is necessary, but I'm willing to make that concession if you are; there's still the RfC route if not. Either way, thanks for your openness in discussing this with me. KyleJoan^talk 15:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

... sure. I'm only here to contribute, not to argue, and will accept the results of whatever the general consensus is on this debate, though I stand by my convictions. --WuTang94 (talk) 05:45, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

How about something along the lines of "mixed reception, but better received than the theatrical cut"? The ZSJL page's sources seem to consistently say that. -WT94

Then let's establish that consensus in the RfC below. Feel free to chime in with a summary of your points there if you'd like. Cheers! KyleJoan^talk 06:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC about including the reception of Zack Snyder's Justice League

Which of the following statements (all verifiable and due) about the critical reception of Zack Snyder's Justice League should be included in the article? And should the consensus here establish a precedent for future discussions about which sentiment to include on the film's other starring actors' BLPs (e.g., Ben Affleck, Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, etc.)?

• A "The cut generated a mixed critical reception."
• B "Most critics considered it an improvement over the theatrical cut."
• C "Regarded by critics as an improvement over the theatrical version, the cut generated a mixed critical reception."
• D "The cut generated a mixed reception, but better received than the theatrical cut."
• E None of the above

KyleJoan^talk 06:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Either none, or minimal. My sampling of a few actor bios matched what I expected - it is fairly uncommon to mention movie-reception in actor articles unless there is some identifiable reason that it has more-than-routine informative relevance for the biography. I also find reviews on the re-cut movie somewhat redundant-ish with original movie. If we do characterize the re-cut reception, my brief look seems to indicate "mixed" as an appropriate characterization. Alsee (talk) 14:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
• With Alsee's comments and after looking at the pages for Affleck, Cavill, Adams, etc., I'm going to vote None of the above as well, especially the other actors' pages don't necessarily mention how their films were received as a whole aside from the actors' specific performances in said films. My main concern was that mentioning the ZSJL's reception as a whole may spark edit wars regarding the language, especially if it's redundant for Fisher's article and already included on the film's main page. --WuTang94 (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• The succinct and straightforward A, with C as a second option, per my responses above. Affleck's and Adams' bios respectively contain critical consensuses about five and seven of their films, so any suggestion of the contrary isn't accurate; Cavill's has none. Affleck and Adams are featured articles, Cavill is C-class. A consensus here would require any future edit warriors to obtain a different one, so no reason to worry about that. KyleJoan^talk 04:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• None, and not a precedent. My feeling is this is a bit OFFTOPIC, that a biographical article should be about that person, not about a film. If a film had a noted impact in that person’s life, then mentioning the impact to them would be appropriate. If the film depended solely on this actor, then their impact to the film would be appropriate. But the relative reception or the merit of theatrical cut just is not something they did or was a life-changing event. And while this might be similar to how I would feel elsewhere, I would not try to make it a guideline - the other groups may come up feeling differently about their page. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
• E: None - There's no real reason to discuss the critical reception of the Snyder cut in the article about Ray Fisher. If we have to include something (we don't) I'd say that "C" is the best written prose of those options, but I think it's simply out of scope for this article. Now, if the Snyder Cut had a significant impact on his career, that would be a different story... and as such, I would say not to make this a precedent, but to allow each article to judge whether or not the Snyder cut (or any other movie) had a significant enough impact on their career and notability to be worth discussing with this level of detail. Fieari (talk) 04:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Directed here by KyleJoan. E: All of the options are directly contradictory to the linked page, which doesn't report the consensus as mixed. Moreover, it is irrelevant as most everyone else has said. As an aside, please maintain Wikipedia:CIVILITY with regards to the edit message Transfo47 (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Which is it? Is it contradictory or irrelevant? And how is it contradictory? KyleJoan^talk 01:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
    • I'm unsure how you came to the notion that it contradicting the main article and being irrelevant to this page is exclusive. Transfo47 (talk) 00:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
      • That wasn't the point of my question. You wrote here that we shouldn't include the claims yet kept the one in the article and changed it to fit your own hypothesis. It seemed like you supported including a claim but found any conclusion irrelevant upon learning the proposed claims aren't compatible with your conclusion. That aside, I must ask again how the claims are contradictory to those in the ZSJL article. KyleJoan^talk 01:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
        • "It seemed like" I encourage you to look over Wikipedia:FAITH for guidance on whether prescriptive accusative statements on purported intentions are germane discussion here. Your further comments are irrelevant to the discussion, and my original message will stand unchanged. A consensus of five to one has also emerged among the messages here, and should be observed. Transfo47 (talk) 08:46, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
• Is this intended to be about the movies receptions or his characters portrayal? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
  • The former. The latter is in the article, and no user has disputed including that material. KyleJoan^talk 02:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• E for everyone unless their role in the updated cut made a cited difference in perception between the two. I can't tell in the previous discussions on this talk page that this happened. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn’t they be separated

Shouldn’t Ray Fishers Filmography be separated into film and television alone instead of mashing his film and television all together into one filmography one should just have his films separate from his television work don’t put them all together. 166.198.161.7 (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)