Talk:After Earth

File:Jaden-smith-after-earth.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Jaden-smith-after-earth.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Jaden-smith-after-earth.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Poster (again)

The poster that's been edit-warred into the page repeatedly is not legitimate. It was created by an enthusiast graphic designer and posted at http://www.behance.net/gallery/After-Earth-Teaser-Poster/3156122, from which it seems to have been copied to all the bad film sites on the internet. If you look at the user (Aaron Randall)'s gallery, you'll see other unofficial materials for other movies. I've started the process of deleting the image file, but it does not belong here in the interim. —Kerfuffler  scratch
sniff  11:14, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it got taken care of. 71.34.241.23 (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Plot Section

The plot section of this article is an exact copy of that appearing in IMDB, which is cited as being written by Columbia Pictures. Indeed, this is verifiable in Sony's press release (10th paragraph). Is this plagarism or a reference oversight?

To say that "Earth was left in its PRIME state, and continued to LIVE on its own" doesn't mean anything.203.184.41.226 (talk) 07:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Not enough detail

The article doesn't compare After Earth to any other sci-fi movies, so how is one to get a feel for how it works? There is no mention of the competing Tom Cruise movie, AE's advertising campaign isn't even mentioned, and certain important details such as when filming officially ended are completely missing. I know the official website isn't much help, but surely there are other sources this can use. 71.34.241.23 (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Then why don't you add the missing info? Anyone can edit! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Because I don't have any sources. I want certain points to be made like how there's another movie called Titan AE (After Earth), and things such as that. You know, a "See Also" section, but I'm afraid that my edits would get reverted, especially considering the fact that the producers are probably watching this page and have a lot invested in this movie, which isn't yet released. I'm not trying to kill it before it hits theaters, I'm just saying that people reading this article won't be getting a whole lot of information. These are edits that an experienced Wikipedian should make. 71.34.241.23 (talk) 07:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I added the missing Marketing section. 71.34.241.23 (talk) 08:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you are reading far too much into how much the producers care about the wiki page on their film.... MisterShiney ✉ 23:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Marketing section

Marketing was more tied in with Facebook than Google+. They even released a Facebook-themed trailer on their website. I think that a citation is needed for the Google+ reference. I also think it should be noted that as of March 2013, there have been no new trailers for the movie. There are only two so far, the main one and the "viral" Facebook-themed one. Somebody, please fix up the Marketing section a little bit, and add some more information. I would do this myself, but I don't have any sources. 63.155.145.138 (talk) 10:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Scientology

A section on controversy related to the film's possible connections to Scientology doctrine was deleted. Any idea why? 12.154.167.231 (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

This shows that the section's content was not backed by reliable sources. We need to cite reliable sources when making the connection, and we need to apply WP:NPOV in the process too. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The Los Angeles Times has an article about the film here that talks about Scientology. This is the kind of source that can be used. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Sock post removed per WP:Sock

What do you mean by link count? Film reviews can be referenced, but attribution is needed. For example, "John Doe of Film Review said the film had several similarities to Scientology." Something like that can be done with the Los Angeles Times reference. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Now there are more sources making the connection. This is one such example; Google shows a few more. I think we can expand coverage in the article. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a few more articles from reputable sites like After Earth Is Will Smith’s Love Letter to Scientology and A Former Scientologist Reviews 'After Earth' (Guest Column). It's worth noting as paragraph under Reception but need more coverage to earn its own heading I would think. — Hasdi Bravo • 05:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Based on the existing sources, I think we can establish a separate heading. It's enough for at least one full paragraph, and it would be easy for readers to locate that information (as opposed to the mentions buried in "Reception"). Erik (talk | contribs) 12:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Because the Scientology allegations surfaced at reception, I suggest tucking under Reception as heading level 3 at most. If we can go for two substantial paragraphs or so, we can go for heading level 2 after Reception. I am basing this on the casting controversies of The Last Airbender and similar Scientology allegations in Battlefield Earth (film). Any takers? I rather focus my time on Production and the 4K resolution topics. — Hasdi Bravo • 14:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Cinema Score

Why are we presenting cinema score "B" as high? That's extremely low for cinema score, in-fact if you look at the website 'After Earth' it's one the lowest scoring movie in cinemas! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.71.100 (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Read CinemaScore. The general audience choose among A, B, C, D and F so they are respectively "good", "satisfactory", "average", "bad" and "fail". B is certainly not "extremely low" or the "one of lowest scoring movie in cinemas". It's relevant here because film critics averages to an F while general audience averages to a B, which is not aligned. See also limitations of WP:ROTTEN. — Hasdi Bravo • 14:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not see "B" being presented as high, but it is certainly better than how critics received it. However, I think the CinemaScore mention in the lead section needs to be explained. Not everybody knows what CinemaScore is. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I tried editing it as "well received" but some editors considered that too generous. How about "...panned by most film critics but satisfactory from audience surveys." — Hasdi Bravo • 14:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the best thing to do is to have separate sentences. Say how critics received it. Then say how audiences received it. I think part of the issue comes with connecting the two unnecessarily. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done — Hasdi Bravo • 14:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand how the grades work, but surely that's all irrelvant if most stuff on Cinema Score gets A+-B+. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.71.10 (talk) 01:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

It's mathematically impossible for "most stuff" on CinemaScore to get A+-B+. If critics and general audience are aligned, I would deem CinemaScore as unnecessary. I found more reviews now citing the B CinemaScore. I am also seeing criticisms on the critics themselves like this one. Not sure what to do with that. :-/ — Hasdi Bravo • 05:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

way too many reviews

Critical response[edit] After Earth has received negative reviews from most film critics. It is currently certified "rotten" with a rating of 12% on Rotten Tomatoes based on 130 reviews with the consensus: "After Earth is dull, ploddingly paced exercise in sentimental sci-fi -- and the latest setback for director M. Night Shyamalan's once-promising career." It holds a score of 32 on Metacritic based on 35 reviews, which indicates "generally unfavorable reviews". However, the film still earned a B grade CinemaScore surveyed from the general audience on opening day.[39] Under CinemaScore, a C grade is the equivalent of a failing grade, and a B grade signals general satisfaction.[40]

Joe Morgenstern, film critic for The Wall Street Journal, opened his review by asking: "Is After Earth the worst movie ever made?" His answer was "Maybe not; there's always Battlefield Earth to remind us how low the bar can go."[41] Like Morgenstern, Manohla Dargis of The New York Times noted the film's use of central themes in Scientology before concluding the film was nothing more than a "big-screen vanity project."[42] Peter Travers of Rolling Stone similarly compared the film to Scientology-related flop Battlefield Earth in describing the film as "an unholy mess of platitudes and posturing" that wastes the talents and charm of Will Smith.[43] Los Angeles Times reviewer Betsy Sharkey questioned how the elder Smith could go from the charismatic performance in the serious film The Pursuit of Happyness, also co-starring his son, to the performance in After Earth. She also saw compounding problems in the creative process leading to a lack of subtlety and nuance: "The script has no nuance, none. And when Shyamalan moves into the director's chair, the script problems are magnified."[44] Both Dustin Putman and Scott Foundas of Variety opined that the film was further proof that Shyamalan had become a "director-for-hire", with "his disinterest palpable from first frame to last".[45][46]

There was heavy criticism for Jaden Smith's role in the film, with Christopher Orr of The Atlantic stating, "He is entirely lacking in the big-screen charisma that made his father one of Hollywood's major stars".[47] Gory Wolcott commented that "the 15-year old Jaden doesn't appear to demonstrate much talent and has zero charisma".[48] Teddy Durgin of Screenit.com added that "The problem is that Jaden Smith is a truly, deeply limited actor."[49] Several reviewers saw nepotism as the explanation for the casting decisions,[50][51] with Colin Covert of the Star Tribune calling it: "a peculiar brand of make-believe where influential Hollywood parents present their offspring as stars in their own right, without the heavy burden of developing talent or public appeal"; he concluded the film is "mind-alteringly awful" due to a variety of reasons: "The acting is wooden, the dialogue inane, and M. Night Shyamalan's directing choices are a lesson in sci-fi cliché."[52]

However, Matt Zoller Seitz of RogerEbert.com awarded the film 3.5 stars out of 4 and commented that the movie is "a moral tale disguised as a sci-fi blockbuster. It's no classic, but it's a special movie: spectacular and wise."[53] Jim Vejvoda of IGN awarded the film a 6.7 out of 10 and commented, "M. Night Shyamalan isn't quite back in top form here, but After Earth is certainly the best movie he's made in years."[54] Charlie Jane Anders of Io9 commented that "Having suffered through Last Airbender, I can attest that this film is no Last Airbender... After Earth stays grounded, and manages to tell a pretty decent story."[55] John Hayward of Breitbart.com said the movie is not nearly as bad as its box-office thud and scathing reviews would suggest, Shyamalan does a "solid job in the director's chair", and Jaden Smith is "really a decent actor."[56]

American astronaut Buzz Aldrin said the movie is "quite action packed" and a "touching father/son story",[57] but is not realistic because "in space, you don't get that much noise."[58] Aldrin was impressed by the set design stating that "The scenes of the cities were really remarkable," but differed significantly from his experience on the moon, which he described as "'magnificent desolation' in contrast to the magnificent experience that humanity could move itself ahead to get to the moon." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.71.10 (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

What are you suggesting? You think the review needs a page in itself? We still haven't covered allegations of nepotism and Scientology. Then there is a slew of international reviews, mostly favorable. We also have criticism on the critics themselves and criticism on Sony for removing of M.Night's name from Marketing.[1] @_@ — Hasdi Bravo • 17:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

In relation to the Scientology points, this joke website has caused a significant stir

cheerupwillsmith.com I am not advertising the site, but it has been reported on by various sources such as MSN and other news sites. This is of cause in relation to the films perceived Scientology connections. Should it be noted somewhere in the article? Perhaps in the reception section or the external links??? Colliric (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

We need to have a section on Scientology first, which I support but we just haven't got around it yet. See an earlier section for some links. I also found an interview with David S. Touretzky who debunk the Scientology allegations over HERE, which should provide WP:NPOV. With that section in place, yeah, we can mention under reception with proper cites. An external link might be overkill tho, but we'll see. — Hasdi Bravo • 03:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Buzz Aldrin review

I think he's too tangentially related to the subject. If the movie was about the Apollo 11 moon landings, then his thoughts would be relevant. But it's just another sci-fi film. He's also not a recognized mainstream film reviewer. For these reasons I've removed his review. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, his review is in there because his comments on the movie being "unrealistic" is highly cited in the news (about 428,000 results on google for 'buzz aldrin "after earth"'). Also, Life of Pi movie also cited reviews of notable persons like Barack Obama and Anne Hathaway, which is as tangentially as Buzz Aldrin. Not worth his own subsection but still deserve his own paragraph. Please discuss first before you remove it. TQ. — Hasdi Bravo • 18:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

But there's no controversy over the film being "realistic" or not. It's just another sci-fi blockbuster. They're all unrealistic. It could apply to any film (An astronaut saying Star Wars is unrealistic for instance). The Reception section is a bit big already, so I think some of the extra stuff that isn't that important should be trimmed, and we should start with Buzz's thoughts. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll also cite WP:other stuff. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you citing WP:other stuff on keep or delete? In any case, Buzz Aldrin is notable person whose review of After Earth is also notable (by Associated Press no less) and highly cited, hence satisfy WP:NOTE. If I were to say the same thing as he said, it would not warrant its inclusion in Wikipedia because nobody cares about I what say. :( If Paris Hilton said After Earth is hot, there will be a media firestorm, and we should probably include that too. @_@ — Hasdi Bravo • 02:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Criticism Section

So, two things:

1) This section is far, far too long. A cross-section of positive and negative reviews is plenty. Breaking it down to give each point of criticism its own section is excessive and atypical of other movie pages. It should be quite simple to highlight a few critics, a few common points of criticism, and then highlight positive reviews.

2) If it MUST stay, I took a paragraph out of the nepotism section because it was misleading. First of all, the Newsone.com link was an angry editorial pushing a personal agenda - it was not a review of the film and it made unsourced accusations that other critics of the film were simply racists. Presenting this as a "review" is misleading. Second, the other source in the article was merely an article about movies which included multiple members of a family in the same movie. It was not a piece judging the quality, positive or negative, of After Earth. The paragraph attempted to present this piece as a "refutation", when in fact whoever added it as a reference was clearly doing so themselves.

So, people have constantly reverted my edits to the misleading paragraph without even attempting to read the sources to ensure they are what the paragraph claims them to be. Without discussion. Seriously? Rebochan (talk) 00:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

In regard to critical reception, such a section needs to be balanced in its sampling of reviews. In addition to positive and negative reviews, there are also "mixed" reviews. Metacritic shows 20 negative reviews, 17 mixed reviews, and 4 positive reviews. If we scale down, it seems like we could have 5 positive reviews, 4 mixed, and 1 negative. I would encourage quoting passages that reflect why a film is bad. For example, the current Wall Street Journal sampling tells us nothing about why the critic thought it was bad. It's just flavorful language, and we should seek out encyclopedic value.

As for coverage related to nepotism, we need to follow WP:NPOV. We need to determine the scope of coverage about nepotism. Commentary does not have to come from actual film reviews, but we need to determine the prominence of such viewpoints. For example, we would cite Time in mentioning nepotism as a reason for its box office performance. I do not think NewsOne is prominent enough to satisfy WP:BALANCE; I am not seeing any response to it or similar commentary about other films. It is possible that the racism of such claims are evaluated elsewhere or will be, but we would need better sourcing. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

NewsOne.com is owned by Radio One (company) that owns and operates 69 radio stations in 22 American cities and its target listeners are African Americans in urban areas. Since their target audience are minorities, understandably they are not as prominent as news sites that target white audience. In any case, we shouldn't neglect their opinions just because we don't agree with them. My objection with Rebochan edit is that the entire second paragraph was taken out, even from reputable cites not from NewsOne.com, so the paragraph that is left is blatantly POV in itself. Seriously, it is like someone wants to take cheap shots at Jaden Smith and any criticism of nepotism allegations whitewashed. As for the Reception becoming large and cumbersome, I am thinking of reorganizing the sections as done similarly with The Last Airbender and Battlefield Earth (film), though no removal of content. Later. — Hasdi Bravo • 02:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you blatantly did not read my reasoning for taking the paragraph out - the sources were both being misrepresented as counters to the nepotism criticism, when one was simply an editorial that provided no counter to the claim but to accuse all critics of the film of being racists without evidence (seriously, did you read it?). The other source, again, is simply a list of other films which also featured family members without actually commenting on the film or judgment on the casting of Jaden Smith. The person who wrote that paragraph clearly intended to editorialize and present a viewpoint that is not supported by their sources. "Balance" doesn't mean simply including an equal number of sources on a specific point. Including bad sources for "balance" isn't how this works. Of course, I think the entire section should go because frankly, I doubt this film is going to be notable enough to have so much written about its critical reception to such an extent. Rebochan (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

You don't like the movie and that's fine, and you probably resent that this movie that you find 'unnotable' has a more edits on its Critical Reception than more 'successful' movies like The Purge and Now You See Me (film). I can see your point on that, but I refer you to WP:other stuff. Otherwise, we should have trimmed the reception section on The Last Airbender and Battlefield Earth (film) years ago. Like or not, this movie is getting blasted in the media and discussed a lot more than it deserved, even from people who hate it and/or did not watch it.

The controversies created on Scientology and nepotism allegations are REAL hence satisfy WP:NOTE, so there is no sense to whitewash it just because you or I don't care for it. Both were tucked under "Critical response" because most of the allegations originated (gasp!) from the film critics. Prior to the opening week, I haven't heard anyone in the media alleging anything that serious on the movie, so this is all news to me. I moved them to under a new H2 section "Controversies" because both allegations are ongoing and discussed in the news, so I suggest we sort out which reviews belong in the "Critical reception" and/or which reviews should be cited under "Scientology and Nepotism allegations". Savvy? — Hasdi Bravo • 21:59, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

So, first things first, I haven't seen the movie, so I can't really judge the movie's quality. And the personal attacks can just stop right now, since you've done nothing but hurl them at me from the moment I pointed out the lack of good sources for a claim in this article. You've never addressed them - you just go back to insulting me. I just think a reception and controversy section this insanely long isn't really needed. Also, pointing out that two other articles also have this problem doesn't mean it's okay here - it probably means all three films have excessively long controversy or reception sections. "This article does it too!" is never a valid defense. Rebochan (talk) 02:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Rebochan, I think it is best if we agree what is a "personal attack" and what is an "editorial". I am glad we agree that "This article does it too!" is never valid defense, which is essentially what WP:other stuff is about. I raised that guideline because you said "Breaking it down to give each point of criticism its own section is excessive and atypical of other movie pages," which is not aligned with that guideline. You cannot judge the movie's quality, yet have learned enough to "doubt this film is going to be notable enough to have so much written about its critical reception to such an extent." I am attacking your argument, not whatever issues you have with the movie you have not seen or its cast and crew.

A film review is a form of editorial, and some critics used that platform to accuse the Smiths of nepotism. That is beyond dispute. The argument in short is "Jaden can't act so he is unfairly given the leading role." A serious and widespread allegation like that is bound to get some kind of response and the allegation is not unanimously held by critics. Time magazine responded "In Hollywood, such nepotism is no sin; in fact, it's often a selling point" and cited some examples.[2] NewsOne may be playing the race card; I don't agree with that but THAT is their response. We can summarize it as "thinly-veiled racism and double standards against black people". To dismiss their response because you say that it is "angry editorial pushing a personal agenda" sounds like a personal attack against NewsOne, which is a site owned by a fairly large news organization targeting black audience so I wouldn't dismiss it outright as ranting from a fringe blog.

For better WP:BALANCE, I just added an article from a senior editor of Variety saying that "The reviews have also swiped at the Smith-Pinkett clan’s nepotism. Putting family members into projects is hardly new, yet it rarely inspires such vituperation. Judd Apatow puts wife Leslie Mann in his pictures, for example, and nobody seems to mind."[3] A common theme with criticisms against the allegations is the double standard. If you take out the second paragraph, it would seem that nepotism allegations are unanimously held by the critics and went unanswered, which fails WP:POV. — Hasdi Bravo • 14:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes a film is so bad and an acting performance so terrible that no POV charge is relevant; and this film is just that. Worst big budget ever made? Quite possibly. Jaden Smith? I'm sure he can find something worthwhile to do with his life. Acting ain't it. 109.103.81.34 (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)Vaino

Reader feedback: This page should have a sect...

76.233.160.104 posted this comment on 22 June 2013 (view all feedback).

This page should have a section about the book, which covers a lot that is not in the movie.

Any thoughts?

JohnRatz (talk) 12:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The story is not based on a book?

Interesting. As far as I am aware this isn't based on a book. Perhaps the IP is referring to the novelization of the movie? -- MisterShiney ✉ 12:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Budget was $185million

http://www.boxoffice.com/statistics/movies/1000-ae-2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.76.235 (talk) 06:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. That's probably combined production and marketing. Judging from the movie, there is way no in hell the production budget is anywhere near $185 million. — Hasdi Bravo • 14:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not our place to judge that sort of thing; expensive films can look as cheap as chips if it's put together incorrectly. I suggest collecting other notable sources and finding the most common value.  drewmunn  talk  15:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The phrase on boxoffice.com is "Total Budget: $185,000,000". NYT claims that is took $135 million to produce and roughly $100 million to market worldwide.[4] The most common value is $130 million for production only. — Hasdi Bravo • 17:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Then that's what we stick with!  drewmunn  talk  18:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Soundtrack

Fuck!!! Where the hell is soundtrack section.

I would have added it myself but I am not familiar with American film scores and soundtrack's and all. Which are the reputed sources for reviews?

Regards

---$oHaM ❊  আড্ডা  05:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Scientology section strongly needs improvement

The article devotes a lot of space to talking about similarities between the film and Scientology, yet it neglects to give any clear description of what these are.--86.130.116.161 (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

What does this mean?

From the entry: "Meanwhile, Cypher's son Kitai blames himself for the death of his older sister Senshi at the hands of an Ursa attack some years ago when he was a young child. The two have an estranged relationship with Cypher being away on missions."

This seems to read: the sister is dead but the two have an estranged relationship....? Risssa (talk) 04:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Plot section

...needs cut down by about 80%.

The wiki is, overall, an overblown, sycophantic mess. I've tried to make some cuts but the plot section is overwhelming.--82.41.251.96 (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Plot holes?

The header paragraph talks about problems with the film being self-contradiction and plot-holes, but doesn’t go on to express these; as I don’t know what they are, but also can’t say they are not there, I have nothing to contribute, so feel that the remarks in the paragraph should either be removed, or expanded upon in the main body text. Jock123 (talk) 12:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Zoë Kravitz and nepotism

Regarding this,

As the film also stars Zoë Kravitz, Alex Pappademas of Grantland called After Earth a "parade-float tribute to nepotism."

"Crash Landing on Planet Nepotism". grantland.com. Grantland. May 30, 2013. Retrieved May 1, 2016.

How does Zoë Kravitz presence indicate nepotism? I find no mention of her family in this article, in the cited source, or anywhere else in relation to this film. -- Pemilligan (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC) r:InternetArchiveBot|InternetArchiveBot]] (Report bug) 19:32, 27 June 2017 (UTC)