Talk:Super Troopers 2

Super Troopers 2 Officially begins filming. (September 2016)

Here is the source Npamusic (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Npamusic (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Someones personal opinion

Does not belong in the description. Seems like it was placed by someone who has a vendetta against the movie. There is argument to be made that it could go in the Critical response but I don't think it should. The wiki page was locked after multiple people rightfully removed this line of text - "It received generally negative reviews from critics, who criticized the rehashed and lazy jokes and called it "a long-awaited disappointment."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenfrogreid (talk • contribs) 21:01, April 24, 2018 (UTC)

That "personal opinion" is an aggregation of critics' opinions from Rotten Tomatoes, a reliable source. Additionally, it seems to be a reasonable summation of the material at Super_Troopers_2#Critical_response. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:15, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I still have yet to see a review mention the word 'lazy', so does someone want to add a citation for that claim? Strangerpete (talk) 12:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Agreed with the guy above

Yeah, it's gotten bad reviews from some critics but audiences generally love it, and there are plenty of statistics out there that are positive. It's unfair and unbalanced to have the only sentence in the introduction be about negative reviews, and make it seem like everyone hates it. That couldn't be further from the truth, some Mountie must've put it there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.202.129 (talk • contribs) 00:45, April 26, 2018 (UTC)

If there are "plenty of statistics out there", please present them here. Keep in mind, however, that site users' ratings (such as those found on IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, etc.) are not acceptable here as they are self-selected and easily manipulated.

Currently, we list the CinemaScore rating of B+.

We aren't here to bash or build up the film. We are here to report the facts. One of those facts is that most reviewers -- 64% of them on Rotten Tomatoes -- gave negative reviews. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

"could be a real possibility"

Something that "could be" is a "possibility". A possibility that could be is redundant.

A "real possibility"? Is that as opposed to a fictional one?

On July 5, 2018, on Talk:Super Troopers 2, I explained this, then signed it. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Audience and fans

For openers: WP:BRD.

The text in question, "the film was well-received overall by audiences and fans." citing [1] Edit summary "Cited source is Wikipedia preferred CinemaScore, and the movie got a B+ from the audience, which is majority positive. Since this is a valid statement and source, please discuss in talk prior to further rollback. Current statement is non-neutral, and hostile on its own."

The statement prior to this is a separate issue. If you feel it is not well sourced, that can be discussed.

The statement in question is that the film was "well-received overall by audiences and fans". The source does not say that. It says the CinemaScore overall is B+. It does not say "well-received". That is a broad (and far too kind) interpretation. CinemaScores come from first night audiences. It's easy to imagine that the first night audience for the sequel to a 17 year old comedy will be the biggest fans you could possibly find. B+ is NOT "majority positive": "A’s generally are good, B’s generally are shaky, and C’s are terrible. D’s and F’s, they shouldn’t have made the movie".

"Audiences and fans"? No, the source says nothing of the sort. We know how CinemaScore works, so we know they surveyed opening night audiences in large cities.

The film received a CinemaScore of B+. That is factual, neutral and supported by the source. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

All in all, points taken. As for the prior statement being a separate issue, I don't see how - to only reference negative critics, without mentioning balancing opinions...the two are directly related.

I was unaware that B's are considered 'shaky', as CinemaScore doesn't actually have a scale for their ratings, so any rating is up for interpretation, including from the Founder who's opinion is that its shaky. Ask 500 people in a room what B+ means when they circle it on a card, I seriously doubt anyone will say 'shaky', or anything less than 'half-decent', thats just not how the A-F system has worked, ever - its a fairly standardized method and has explicit connotations for anyone filling out that score card in the US.

Ok, so to be semantic, "Audiences gave the movie a CinemaScore of B+" -- I think thats an acceptable compromise statement? Strangerpete (talk) 12:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

A B+ is "saky" because the scale slants high. An opening night audience is going to be the film's easiest critics: fans of the genre/franchise/actors/director. Star Wars fans generally love Star Wars movies and the superfans are there opening night. An A- for Solo was a ho-hum "good, not great".[2]

As for "balancing opinions", it's an issue of WP:WEIGHT. For almost any mainstream film, there is someone, somewhere who loved it, even if everyone else felt it was a hot mess. The quotes we present should not provide an artificial balance. - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Republic of Indian Stream

Is there a point to mention Republic of Indian Stream? Sounds like the plot was based on this historical dispute. 141.226.11.48 (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

We would need a reliable source making the comparison. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)