Talk:Doomed to Die (The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power)

Very questionable value of Rotten Tomatoes reviews (again)

I have noticed this in other Reviews of various TV shows: As a show progresses, the number of reviewers grows, and the rating goes up, usually to 100%. Now, what is even the point of mentioning that on a Wikipedia page? In this case, it is exactly 12 reviewers, and they all give the show a 100% rating. That is clearly broken.

Why are such dubious numbers treated as "reliable", where the audience scores are not? Timtas (talk) 02:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

100% on Rotten Tomatoes does not mean all the listed critics gave a score of 100%, it means all of the listed critics gave a positive review to some degree. The article clearly states that the average score is actually 8.4 out of 10, not 10 out of 10. Nothing dubious about that, especially for an episode that many critics thought was the best of the season if not the series. And this has no impact on the reliability of audience scores, WP:USERG still applies. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. One little remark, though: I think we're all aware of the fact that quite a number of these "many critics" hailing the show or this episode belong to the ever-growing group described in Wikipedia as "Access journalism". And as the Wikipedia page Access_journalism rightly mentions, the honesty of such players is questionable at best. But of course, this is not provably, why you might probably call this a conspiracy theory. I'm fine with that, but when I sometimes read some of those glaring reviews, it really makes me wonder if they're actually serious or not. Whatever. Timtas (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Request to remove quotes by actors or producers in the audience response section

It is extremely irritating for me that, like in other cases, any negative audience response content seems to automatically getting basically rebuffed by a quote either discrediting the audience (racist, review bombing etc), rejecting the source as unreliable, or having some "expert" explaining why the audience got that scene totally wrong and should have viewed it differently.

And I find this case to be most hilarious ever: Citing the actors playing in the negatively received scene, as there is probably no one else in the world that would defend it (apart from the writers, the director or the show-runner).

I therefore suggest this to be moved to the production section. It might be relevant information of how on earth such a scene actually was made, but actors are not to explain the audience how to receive a scene. It is the producer's jobs to make a scene understandable to the audience. And I mean, come on: "Clark suggested that kissing would not mean the same thing for Elves as humans would assume." There is absolutely nothing in any of Tolkien's writings to support such utter bullshit.

Timtas (talk) 16:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Audience responses are generally not included at all, as there is often no proof that they are genuine and/or noteworthy in relation to the large number of people that watch a series/film. The only reason we are even mentioning the fact that some viewers took issue with two characters kissing is because a bunch of reliable sources have reported on that response, and many of them have done so while asking Aramayo to explain it. So it is not unreasonable to include his explanation in the section, even if you personally think it is "utter bullshit". I am not against moving his comments to the production section as suggested, but I don't think there is any problem with leaving it as is for now. I intend to do some work expanding the production sections for these episode articles at some point and it could make sense to include the shift with that change, since the current production section has the bare minimum details while the reception section has been expanded to discuss the episode in more detail already. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, I actually only said that Clark's suggestion that passionate kissing does not mean the same to elves than to men is "utter bullshit". And it really is. Timtas (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I now carefully read the cited interview with Aramayo from nerdist.com and I agree, it is interesting, surely. I now have fixed that section in the audience response a bit, as the previous version translated "I was honestly against it for quite a while" with "hesitant about the kiss at first", and that clearly qualifies to downright lying. My solution now is that "Aramayo said he was against it for a long time", which is the correct wording. Being "hesitant" and being "against it" is definitely not the same thing, and translating "at first" with "for quite a while" also sounds like an attempt to diminish his resistance against doing the scene. I assume the now usually present intimacy coordinator had a day off, Poor Aramayo.Timtas (talk) 01:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring. When content is disputed and under discussion at the talk page you should not just go and change it without consensus. Please wait until the discussion is over. You have now completely changed your mind about wanting to remove it from the section and have not explained why, plus your edit removed half of what he said. Please explain your reasoning without editing the article again. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)