Talk:Star Trek: First Contact

I don't get it.

Under the Design section, the article says that "First Contact was one of the first Star Trek films to use purely computer-generated models, rather than physical miniatures." However it soon describes the fabrication of the Enterprise-E miniature in actuality rather than in a computer. I assume the lead paragraph means to say that some of the ships were entirely computer-generated. This should be clarified. Vranak (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's still technically correct in that some ships were purely designed conceived and executed on the computer rather than made via models, but I understand how confusion could easily arise. I'll take a look. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

That's hilarious, Vranak. I had come here to point out the exact same thing nearly word-for-word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.55.214.116 (talk • contribs)

I took a stab at rewriting the offending sentence. Powers ^T 19:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

additional source(s)

• John Eaves On Designing The Enterprise-E by John Eaves (2016-02-20) — fourthords | =Λ= | 01:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Box office statement

The final opening paragraph of this article states: "First Contact was the highest-grossing film on its opening weekend, taking $30.7 million." Certainly this is only true for the entire Star Trek film series and possibly only for the films wherein the original series cast appeared. In any case, for a featured article, this is a very ambiguous and potentially misleading sentence.Marcd30319 (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't mention the other films at all, it's talking about its opening weekend. This isn't misleading or confusing. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes 93%

Is there any reason why this excellent article does not include the Rotten Tomatoes score for STFC? 76.16.93.184 (talk) 04:12, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Film articles on Wikipedia generally do not use Rotten Tomatoes reviews for films that were released before RT actually started aggregating reviews. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

This is not true. Proof: See pretty much any article on any movie released before RT started. This article not including the RT score is very unusual. Dornwald (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure you meant well Dornwald, but you just replied to a thread from seven years ago... DonIago (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

And why shouldn't I? Just curious. Dornwald (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I just figure once a thread is sufficiently aged you're probably better off starting a new thread than trying to resurrect the old one, especially since there's a reasonable possibility that the original participants are no longer following the topic. DonIago (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I was just replying to a comment, not trying to resurrect anything. Dornwald (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

If you weren't trying to resurrect this thread then why did you say anything, especially when it was stale prior to your comment? I'm not trying to be adversarial here, but I'm genuinely confused...especially now that you have started a new thread. DonIago (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Let's just leave it as it is. Dornwald (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

That others steamroll RT scores in where they really shouldn't be used is a problem with those articles, not this one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

That said, if there's a real desire to add RT scores to a film released before RT started their work, it can be added but should be de-emphasized, per MOS:FILMCRITICS. DonIago (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I was referring to you saying that "Film articles on Wikipedia generally do not use Rotten Tomatoes reviews for films that were released before RT actually started aggregating reviews.". In fact, they generally do. Look at a random selection of movie articles, the highest grossing movies of the 1980s, for example. Dornwald (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Star Trek time travel episodes

It's not a crucial issue, but is there really a good reason for this article to be placed within "Category:Star Trek time travel episodes", given that it is about a film and not a TV episode? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Not particularly. There doesn't really need to be a separate cat for the films, though, so perhaps the best option is to rename the cat to be more inclusive? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Star Trek: First Contact. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/reviews/cl-movie961122-6%2C0%2C3974523.story
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080207072429/http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html to http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html

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) 20:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Star Trek: First Contact. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041104201441/http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/1999/10/29/trek/ to http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/1999/10/29/trek/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100716154329/http://www.br.vccs.edu/library/guides/wrath%20of%20ahab.pdf to http://www.br.vccs.edu/library/guides/wrath%20of%20ahab.pdf

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) 05:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Clarification: "highest-grossing film"

"First Contact was the highest-grossing film on its opening weekend". Was this of all films ever published, of the year or of all Star Trek films of the Roddenberry world? --jlam (talk) 19:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It was on opening weekend. I don't think it's that unclear, but we could say "was the highest-grossing film of its opening weekend". If that clarifies things to you. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Spacecraft ranking

Regarding Starspotter added a mention of a Gizmodo ranking to the reception. My feeling is that this is far too specific and irrelevant to the subject of this article, the film itself, and should belong in the USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-E) article (where it already resides.) There’s no other significant discussion of the ship alone as a major part of the film's reception. As such I recommend striking it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Its ok to remove it, however at some point there should be more coverage of that prop here. Starspotter (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Why would more details about the prop belong here versus the article expressly about said ship and prop? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Wilhelm Scream

Can some one remind me where the the sound effect was heard in the movie? I don't remember hearing it. According to one of the websites , it says there was a Wilhelm Scream, but it was unknown where it was heard. NoahAlexanderJohnson101 (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Pathetic revert

Wow, make a contribution to a page & it gets deleted? Such pathetic snobbery! Gogoalie (talk) 22:08, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

You might want to review WP:NPA and perhap restate your concerns in a manner that makes it more clear what your actual objection is, and in a more WP:CIVIL manner. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 06:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Copwood additions

@X4n6: Local coverage or alumni newsletters are not high-quality, reliable sources. AllGreatQuotes is simply not a reliable source, period, and the ones you previous used didn't appear to be, either. As this is a featured article, higher sourcing standards are in play. All indications are that his role simply isn't that important if it's not coming up in major sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 23:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@David Fuchs: Not sure what you mean by "local coverage" in this context. Which sources are you referencing? Also, I used a current Star Trek convention link, which would seem definitive, but you didn't like it. I also used two separate RS university links - neither one of which was an "alumni newsletter," as you characterized them, and you objected again. In fact, I used multiple independent sources for both sentences. There were many more, but at some point, enough should be enough. But the fact that there are so many independent sources, should make the significance of the info clear. Perhaps you just aren't aware that the Borg character was the film's protagonist. Or that the line: "Resistance is futile" is so iconic that it has entered popular culture even beyond the Star Trek canon. The phrase even has its own disambig page. Just as, per multiple sources, Coopwood's work as the Borg voice was notable and memorable. But again, when is enough, enough David? As for WIAFA, it just seems that you're concerned about two sentences about the film's protagonist, while apparently being unconcerned about the next several paragraphs that reference all the Next Gen characters who are not in the film; or some extremely minor characters who were. Again, perhaps you're unfamiliar with the film, but neither Lt. Barkley, Nurse Ogawa, or the character of Lt. Hawke, (whom even that actor said only served the function of dying), are as important as the Borg. X4n6 (talk) 04:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

None of the sources demonstrate actual importance of the content. You're refbombing and giving clear undue weight to a small voice role. The fact other characters didn't appear is actually cited to newspapers and books, whereas Cooper's role is so minor that the only Gbooks hits for his name + Borg are scrapes of Wikipedia content. Insofar as anything should appear about Coopwood, it should be "Coopwood voices the Borg collective" and leave it at that. No source you brought up demonstrates how important it is to quote the Borg's spiel in total. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Your original complaint was that there weren't enough "better" sources. So I found them. Now your most recent complaint is that there are too many sources. So which is it? Just as you mischaracterized the sources I provided as "local" and/or "alumni newsletters," when they were neither; you've also alternately called the actor "Copwood" or "Cooper" or "Coopwood." I don't know how you researched this, if at all, but a simple Google search of "coopwood" & "borg" revealed 269,000 hits. Everything from film sites, to fan sites, to blogs, to online publications, to academic sites and more all came up. You also seem unaware that "Resistance is futile" is the actual tagline of the film. It was used on the film's posters and it's trailer. See here, here and here. It's also listed on Wikiquote, with both the tagline and Coopwood's role as the Borg voice being attributed. While a Google search of the Borg's "Resistance is futile" speech in its entirety, returned 12,3000 hits. So none of this sounds "minor" by any metric. In fact, you provided the best justification for inclusion of this material yourself, when you mentioned WIAFA. It states FA content should be "well written, comprehensive and well-researched." It also explains "comprehensive" as "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context." No article about Star Trek: First Contact could ever be considered comprehensive, if it omitted the tagline of the film; which was also the most memorable phrase in the film; and the character & actor who delivered it. Especially, when that phrase became part of the general culture, well beyond even the film itself. X4n6 (talk) 20:30, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

He didn't write the line, the writers did. And again, the sources you have found are bad. Quote farm websites are bad. IMDB is not evidence of notability. I don't think I'm wrong counting interviews of college alumni as "alumni newsletters". We can open an RfC or solicit additional opinions if you are dead-set on inclusion to get wider input. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 11:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Writers write words, but performers immortalize them. Good luck trying to convince anyone differently. The Borg voice scared the crap out of audiences with "Resistance is futile." That's not my opinion. It's supported by dozens of blogs and fansites. And they didn't seem to know or give a tinker's damn who the writer was. The sources I used were adequate to establish notability for material that is not now and never has been either controversial or in factual dispute. No dispute about the film's tagline. No dispute that Coopwood voiced the film's protagonist and its most memorable line. No dispute that tagline became part of popular culture. So what's the problem? On a side note, a university's official website notes the achievements, recognition, awards, published papers, performances, academic contributions, et al. of its faculty, administration, donors, alumni, students and staff. That does not make it an "alumni newsletter." That makes it a university website. Having established that, I'm unaware of any WP policy/guideline that claims university websites are not RS. But if you dislike any source for whatever arbitrary reason, you're certainly free to find others to your liking, as I've also already established there are certainly plenty to choose from. And for undisputed, non-controversial content, you only need one. To that point, I've also just added an unimpeachable source: CBS Entertainment. Per their site: "This site and its contents ® & © 2021 CBS Studios Inc. © 2021 CBS Television Distribution and CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. STAR TREK and related marks are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc." In other words, they're the final fact arbiter since they own the Star Trek franchise. I even excised some of the sources that seemed to vex you the most and threw in a couple published books and the original NYT review for good measure. So, reasonably, that should end this. But if you still feel the need to RFC it, of course, you can. Then I'll respond. X4n6 (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Alien invasions in films

The Borg are aliens from the other side of the galaxy. They invade Earth. Why would the "Alien invasions in films" category not apply? --58.105.78.220 (talk) 09:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The alien invasion is basically a line of on-screen dialogue and it's irrelevant to the main plot/time travel shenanigans. It's not really focused on an alien invasion as the main story. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The Borg's attempt to invade and assimilate Earth in 2063 is central to the plot. We briefly see an altered timeline where they succeeded. But even if an alien invasion is only a small part of the story, the fact is that it's still a film with an alien invasion in it. --58.105.78.220 (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

This is not primarily an alien invasion film, and as such, I oppose adding this category in accordance with WP:DEFCAT. DonIago (talk) 14:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Lily

There is a bit of a disagreement about Alfre Woodard's role in this movie in the respect of how her characters name is addressed. The article currently refers to her as "Sloane" as a surname when the film itself does not mention such a name. I have heard a bit of a rumor that the Script has this supposed surname which does not appear in the film even in the credits. The Argument is that "It makes no sense to refer to only a single character differently than the rest". In practice and all social fairness that is true, however this is an article about the film itself, and usually we do not put this unnecessary information down in other articles. That's why for instance (And I'm sorry for mixing franchises in this way) we don't credit Darth Vader as Anakin Skywalker in the Original Trilogy films, or use that "Sheev" name for the Emperor in films or series where he is not addressed with that name. Incidentally the name "Sloane" is also the name of a separate Star Trek character who appeared on Deep Space Nine, which could cause a bit of confusion to readers. P.S. She did not greet the Vulcans with Cochrane he did that alone! She was in the crowd bidding farewell to Picard. Maxcardun (talk) 11:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Didn't even realize the character had a last name. Always thought of her as Lily. SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The comparison to Palpatine makes no sense, because you're arguing a character's first name should not be used in one case, while here you're arguing the opposite. The idea someone would get confused by "Sloane" referring to the character is spurious, and this isn't a case of dubious canonicity: the name is given in the script and it's referenced in official content. Do you have an actual policy or guideline-based reason for changing this (also, if you're advocating changing content, the very least you can do is learn to actually spell the name correctly. I would have reverted your edits to a featured article for that reason alone.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

No you're missing the point, I am not advocating first names or last names, I am advocating against the use of names that are not heard in a film that people try to elaborate and exaggerate from when they read a book or unused script and include it where it was not applied. You are the one advocating some sort of social statement to a character who will not care or thank you for it. They don't use the name Sheev in the STAR WARS movies so we don't record it on an article that is talking about the films. We can talk about it on a character article in the proper context, but if someone who has not seen the movie but spoiled it by reading this article goes to actually watch the film and expect to hear someone say Sloane and not hear it, that reduces the credibility of Wikipedia. As for my spelling, I STARTED THIS SECTION!!!! So I guess I learn, do you?

Maxcardun (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

So your argument is someone reading the plot summary on Wikipedia and then watching the film will be confused? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 13:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:PRIMARY: A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. If her surname isn't mentioned in the film, then it needs to be sourced to a reliable secondary source. DonQuixote (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Very good point. The film itself is a primary source. I the end credits the character is simply listed as 'Lily'. Her last name is never mentioned. Most don't have access to the script but might to other Star Trek sources which use the last name. What would probably be best is to continue to list the character's full name in the "Cast" section of the article. But in the "Plot" section use the First and/or Full name. Just using the character's last name in that section would be too confusing. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

So far also I can't find an article outside Memory Alpha and Memory Beta that use that name, and I hate to contradict you mister SonOfTHornhill, but the name should be taken out of the film article completely. If she has a mention in a character page then sure, keep the Sloane name there, especially if they use it in another film or series. As for mister Fuchs with the double accounts, sure there is a certain inequality about it, Star Trek was full of a lot of inequality in the early years. To remove an element from history like that would be like pretending it never happened, which is in itself not looking back at how much things have changed between then and now. As for your redundant question on people watching the film getting confused, I have only this to say. Despite the way we feel about the whole franchise, we must face the facts that not everyone watches Star Trek. Maxcardun (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Here is the plot article for the movie on startrek.com: https://www.startrek.com/database_article/star-trek-first-contact It mentions the character's full name only the first time she is mentioned. Thereafter, she is mentioned by the name 'Lily' only. That seems like a fair compromise to me. SonOfThornhill (talk) 13:08, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

You make a good argument. Maxcardun (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Should the 93% Rotten Tomatoes score be included in the article?

I think it should and it's very unusual that it isn't. Dornwald (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm neutral on the subject. Given the current well-developed state of the Reception section, I'm not sure what's gained by adding a mere aggregator score. On the other hand, as long as it's placed within its proper context, and essentially at the bottom of the section as the least important piece of information, I'm not sure I care that much either. DonIago (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Personally I'm always very interested in the RT score. Dornwald (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

It might be more persuasive if you articulated why you feel it should be included, beyond your personal interest in it. Wikipedia's goal isn't to be interesting. DonIago (talk) 04:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Because... It tells you what "the critics" think about a movie. I really don't know what to say beyond that. Dornwald (talk) 07:06, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

That's an argument that I'm not sure is persuasive in this instance, as the Reception section cites multiple critics already, but I'm content to see what consensus might develop. DonIago (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

It sums up multiple reviews, often hundreds into a single score. The advantage of which is that you don't have to read lots and lots of reviews to see how much critics liked the movie. Dornwald (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be covered by the first two sentences of the Reception section? DonIago (talk) 15:14, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

They give you a score? Dornwald (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I think you're placing too much importance on a relatively arbitrary number. DonIago (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Please elaborate. Dornwald (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The first two sentences of the Reception section feature a sourced statement that the film received positive reviews and a statement on what audiences thought of the film. Much of the rest of the section discusses in depth what many critics thought about the film overall or about given aspects of it. At that point, why does it matter whether the film got a 70% or an 80% or a 90% at RT? All that would indicate is that many critics regarded the film well, which is already clear from the first sentence and the quotes from critics that are already provided. DonIago (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

"why does it matter whether the film got a 70% or an 80% or a 90% at RT?"

Because it tells you how much critics liked the film. 90 is a higher number than 80 or 70. Dornwald (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

This attitude is exactly why I prefer not including Rotten Tomatoes, especially for older films. Reviews aren't fungible, they don't precisely map to each other. 90 is a higher number than 80 but it doesn't actually tell you reliably if critics liked something more than another film, especially separated by years or decades and when incorporating reviews written after decades of release. Trying to boil down reception into a number is pretty folly. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

"90 is a higher number than 80 but it doesn't actually tell you reliably if critics liked something more than another film"

Why?

"especially separated by years or decades and when incorporating reviews written after decades of release."

What does the time of release have to do with this?

What's wrong with saying "85% of critics liked it, based on 121 reviews, with an average rating of 8.6/10"? Why is this any more problematic than saying "It generally got good reviews"? Dornwald (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

An aggregator is just a rough attempt to quantify something that cannot be expressed in numbers, put it this way, what are we gaining from giving a bunch of numbers instead of just saying it got a good reception? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

"An aggregator is just a rough attempt to quantify something that cannot be expressed in numbers"

Roger Ebert expressed it in numbers. "3 out of 4 stars". So do many many other critics.

"what are we gaining from giving a bunch of numbers instead of just saying it got a good reception?"

We gain more precise information about how much critics liked the film. When Roger Ebert rated a movie "3/4" - that's a bunch of numbers. It tells you more than just saying "I liked the film". Despite it being numbers. Dornwald (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Notice that the article doesn't give Ebert using 3/4 stars in film reviews (unless the article is badly written) because again, the opinions are the point not the numbers. At this point we're going in circles. Ultimately, there's no requirement or recommendation to use Rotten Tomatoes. If you feel so strongly about it, you can start an RfC or can try and change the Film MOS to mandate it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:00, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

"Notice that the article doesn't give Ebert using 3/4 stars in film reviews (unless the article is badly written) because again, the opinions are the point not the numbers."

In your opinion.

"If you feel so strongly about it, you can start an RfC or can try and change the Film MOS to mandate it."

No one is talking about mandating anything. Dornwald (talk) 17:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

MOS:FILM says, "...data from these aggregators is potentially less accurate for films released before the websites existed, so care should be exercised before deciding to cite them." We have to remember that at the end of the day, Rotten Tomatoes is just a commercial website that takes a simplistic approach to grading a film, basically if critics liked it or not, individually then by aggregate. No further degree of loving it or hating it or feeling lukewarm about it. Not to mention that contemporary and retrospective reviews are mixed together, most especially for films that predate Rotten Tomatoes, and muddling how it was received now and then. In a perfect world, we would have film historians studying all of a film's contemporary reviews and highlighting its trends and summarizing it for us, and we wouldn't need to cite any individual critic (which we really just do for flavor). Maybe natural language processing and AI will get us there someday. But essentially, RT scores by themselves are specialist knowledge, and not all readers are movie buffs like us, and the scores are especially weak with older films. It's far better and encyclopedically long-lived to be able to say "Critics liked this film" than to say "Rotten Tomatoes gave it a 70% score based on critics". I don't know about you, but 70% is barely-passing in school. People who follow RT closely know that's not the equivalent of barely-passing, same with IMDb fans knowing how to interpret IMDb scores for quality. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

From the articles I've read, whenever there has been a critical reassessment, the RT score reflects that and is given as an example of that. See "Heaven's Gate" as a dramatic example, or "Highlander".

"No further degree of loving it or hating it or feeling lukewarm about it."

It doesn't claim to give you that. It just says "X% of critics gave it a positive review".

"In a perfect world, we would have film historians studying all of a film's contemporary reviews and highlighting its trends and summarizing it for us"

I'm sure RT isn't perfect. But I think it is useful (for the reasons I gave, despite not being perfect).

Edit: Actually RT does give you nuance, it is often cited as giving an average rating, say "7.4/10". I don't know where to find that on the RT site itself though. ... Oh you just have to click on the score. Dornwald (talk) 14:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)