Talk:The Beekeeper (2024 film)

Requested move 7 July 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Clearly grounded policy-based consensus in favor of page movement. (closed by non-admin page mover) EggRoll97 ^(talk) 00:39, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

---

The Beekeeper (upcoming film) → The Beekeeper (2024 film) – The film now has a release date. 2607:FEA8:761F:4600:BCF2:2881:689D:4525 (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:CRYSTALBALL. What if COVID-24 hits and the movie gets delayed? 〜 Festucalex • talk 14:12, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

In that unlikely event, the article can easily be moved. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support: Per WP:UFILM: Once a release date has been confirmed by a reliable source, the page can then be moved to the correct year disambiguation. This has been standard practice for many years.

Mike Allen 14:33, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support WP:CRYSTAL regards unverifiable speculation and an officially confirmed release date is not.--65.93.194.183 (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NCF. BOVINEBOY2008 12:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support per WP:UFILM. DoubleCross (‡) 13:54, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support Rreagan007 (talk) 00:21, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Budget source

@MikeAllen for the budget i already add the source for it also im sorry for forgotting about the source thing Bres6yaga (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

The sites you keep adding are not a reliable sources. Please read WP:RS. Mike Allen 09:38, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

A proper budget source was added by TropicAces. Thank you Mike Allen 18:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Mixed Reviews? Nope it's fresh at 70%.

The film hasn't been called as "mixed." It's not "favorable"" at Metacritic but at Rotten Tomatoes it holds strong 70% "fresh" reviews from critics and 92% from audiences. Anant-morgan (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not acknowledge a single website's verdict by discarding all others'. Barbie is a recent example, as it reads "critical acclaim" despite not being so according to Metacritic. There are lots of movies that fit this narrative. In fact, a Metascore in the 50s generally coincides with postive reviews. Other examples: Mission: Impossible (1996 film), Aquaman (film), Thor (film), etc. NOTE: As long as the film is still running, calling anything remotely negative about it such as prematurely declaring it a flop (have a look at the box-office bomb discussion at The Marvels (film) talk page and such is potential damaging for the film. Do not jump the gun over 6% on Metacritic that would push it past "generally favorable reviews" or 5% that would make it "certified fresh" from already "fresh" on Rotten Tomatoes. Also, it clears up that "generally favorable reviews" doesn't directly means "generally positive reviews;" in fact, the latter can be achievable at a lower score too (as the case with The Beekeeper. Anant-morgan (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

PS a user has tried to bully me by referring to my rather fresh beginning at Wikipedia edits as an excuse for my logic being "a bunch of nonsense," (you can check out our talk at my page.)

First, Metacritic clearly says "mixed". Rotten Tomatoes gives it a score of 70% (note carefully anything below 60% is negative) and it is reasonable (not WP:OR) to paraphrase 70% as generally positive. (Audience scores are not counted, please read WP:UGC.) Summarizing, or striking a balance between Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes can often be challenging.

Second, if you want to argue that more WP:WEIGHT should be placed on Rotten Tomatoes than Metacritic because it lists more reviews you can make that argument, just be careful you don't take a "single website's verdict by discarding all others" in the opposite direction either and throwout Metacritic. Discussions at WP:MOSFILM have repeatedly looked at cases like this where Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes differ and argued that editors should try to find other reliable sources that do roundups of the reviews and see what they say. Finding sources like that would strongly support whatever argument you want to make. Some wikipedia editors would argue that when MC and RT don't agree you should instead try to summarize the critical response in other ways (e.g. dumb fun action movie).

I don't think the facts support your argument as strongly as you think it does, but having said that this is a Jason Statham action movie, I don't think summarizing the reviews as generally positive is going to trick or mislead any readers into thinking it's Shakespeare. My preference in general is to just go with what Metacritic says, "mixed" is a very broad description and leaves a lot of positive and a lot of negative. For this film think I do believe mixed is a fair description, the Rotten Tomatoes overall score might be 70% it is not a really a "strong" positive, the average rating is 5.9, so reviewers lean positive but there is plenty of specific criticism if you look at the individual reviews. (I don't think much of Screenrant but in their review of the reviews they say "Critics have mixed opinions on The Beekeeper"[1]. Maybe you can find other sources summarizing the critical opinion.) I'm not too worried about the lead section anyway, improving the article body is more important, the Critical response section could do with more work. (That's quite a negative paraphrase of 2 reviews Rotten Tomatoes actually considers positive.) -- 109.76.130.9 (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

This prejudice is exactly what I'm talking about.

"This is a Jason Statham action movie, I don't think summarizing the reviews as positive is going to trick or mislead readers into thinking it'd Shakespeare."

This is personal biasness. Period. 70% critics gave it a postive review; we stop at here. How positive or "only 5.9/10" doesn't matter this point.

PS a 70+ RT and 50+ MC together form the basis for a postive film, ie, "most found it decent." Anant-morgan (talk) 04:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not going to go out of my way to change this, because as the IP says, this article has much larger concerns than its lead at the moment, but saying that the film received "generally positive reviews" is cherry-picking Rotten Tomatoes over Metacritic, no matter how you slice and dice it. Metacritic has a clear explanation of how the "weighted average" in their Metascore breaks down. A 59 ranks in the yellow, and spinning this number in any kind of way to say that it means "positive", "favorable" or "generally favorable" is applying your own personal interpretation. Someone could just as easily say that a score of 62, which would be in the green, could mean "mixed" from their point of view using the same logic. To avoid this, we state exactly what the sources state and leave our personal interpretations out of it.

The right move here would be to avoid taking sides and avoid summarizing overall critical reception in the lead. Either that, or find another highly-reputable source that has summarized it for us, and use that source instead of citing RT or MC. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

How can the lead summarize the reception with only one review? So I removed it. Also the OP has been blocked for being disruptive. Mike Allen 21:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I noticed the block after I posted the comment, but thanks for removing that. I agree with the removal. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I know how Metacritic works and it's crucial but it's not the only stuff that's crucial. It doesn't own movie industry. It's absurd and not logical.

What's logical is taking into account all of them: RT, Metacritic, Cinemascore, probably even IMDb. In terms of anything, 70% is comfortably on positive side.

Yes, I was blocked from editing. But how did they decide what was excessive to block me? Maths.

So, respect Wikipedia policies but don't be a conservative. Anant-morgan (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The point is that if RT and MC disagree, don't cherry-pick and choose one over the other, which is what you were doing. Instead, use neither and don't attempt to summarize critical reception without bringing in another strong secondary source.

It's also confusing that you mention CinemaScore, since they poll audiences not critics; it's not applicable. And finally, IMDB is not a reliable source on Wikipedia. It can be used in rare cases to support data that has been written/vetted by IMDB staff, and it can also exist as an external link, but these are generally the only exceptions (see WP:IMDB for more info). -- GoneIn60 (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

We cannot WP:SYNTHesize multiple sources to come up with one conclusion. Rotten Tomatoes's percents aren't directly translatable to prose about how critics received it, especially because RT only ever looks as reviews as positive or negative with no in-between. That's why RT is reported as mechanically as it is. We cannot take the percent ourselves and draw a prose-based conclusion. In contrast, we can see Metacritic categorize reviews, where there are 18 mixed reviews, 14 positive, and 5 negative. If I was working on the article, I'd report that breakdown as the most useful indication of how a film did. Mixed reviews are not a majority (since 14 positive + 5 negative is 19) but it is the most, closely followed by positive. We don't have that kind of breakdown from RT, just the average score. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:34, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Leans left?

User:2603:6011:80F0:9A00:571:1C0F:6DA:D6F8 has added "left-leaning" to the initial sentence of the article. Is there a source out there that supports this? I've removed it a couple of times, but I haven't seen the film, and I don't want to edit war. The addition is, however, currently unsourced. Joyous! Noise! 00:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

2 2600:1700:489C:D010:F08A:9196:F6B1:C814 (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)