Talk:Hercules (2014 film)

Hercules (2014 film)

The usage of Hercules (2014 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Hercules: The Thracian Wars -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:26, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Since there is another film about Hercules (titled The Legend of Hercules) being released in 2014, maybe a Template:Distinguish-sign saying "Not to be confused with..." could be useful? - FakirNL (talk) 12:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Box office and Critical reception sections

See here, here, here and here. We have an IP with a 123.201 IP range, as seen here, and Jackthomas321 (talk · contribs), who is clearly that IP, skewing the box office section by removing any mention that the film placed second at the box office, behind Lucy. The IP/Jackthomas321 is also attempting to skew the Critical reception section, as though the vast majority of reviews for the film have been positive. The IP also tampered with the Lucy (2014 film) article to skew it, as seen here, but was reverted by me; I later realized that the IP/Jackthomas321 was correct on one part (I'd misread "Johnson" as "Johansson"). Like I stated, WP:Reliable sources report that Hercules got mixed reviews from critics; I don't see any WP:Reliable sources simply stating "positive reviews" for the film; this Reuters source, for example, states that the film "got mixed reviews, though nearly two-thirds of critics on the site Rotten Tomatoes gave it a 'fresh' rating." And as everyone can see, now that critics have had a chance to see the film (it was originally unscreened), its Rotten Tomatoes score has dropped dramatically. The score was at 68% at one point, was at 63% a few days ago, and is now at 61%, while Metacritic explicitly calls reviews for the film mixed. At one point, the IP removed that Metacritic reports "mixed or average reviews" for the film.

In this edit, I "[a]dded back the important fact that film debuted at Number 2. Added that film did better than expected at the box office. Added a source indicating the mixed reviews; added back source and hidden note that STATicVapor added. Added two negative reviews." Then comes along the IP to skew things again, stating, "It appears Flyer22 is trying to add false statements'mixed crictical reviews'. Before release, it had low expectations from media and hence dissed the film. Upon release, the reviews were positive with critics praising it as a good film." As seen in that diff-link, I reverted the IP, replying, "Nothing false there, fanboy. Check the sources. How about you provide a source that explicitly states 'positive reviews.'" Then, soon after, the Jackthomas321 account showed up to skew matters, stating, "removed unnecessary addition in Boxoffice by flyer22 who is a frequent editor of (Lucy wiki) is trying to promote Lucy cashing on the popularity of Hercules page." I reverted, stating, "There is nothing unnecessary about it. Stating that film placed second is an important aspect of the film." Jackthomas321 reverted again, stating, "Provided sources for 'positive reviews' for wikiuser fangirl flyer22 who is trying defame this page with false information. Fact is, before release, it had low expectations for reasons described in forbes, but upon release it was praised. check sources." I reverted; I am not aware that the hollywoodlife.com source that he added counts as a WP:Reliable source, and I don't see where it simply states that the film received positive reviews, which is different than showing that it received positive reviews. Of course it received some positive reviews; so did Lucy. And regarding the Forbes source he added, it essentially states that the film is "not too terrible for critics," and echoes the "with general sentiment being that the film was a pleasant surprise to critics" text that I added. I'm also unsure of using Forbes as a source because of what has been stated about it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. It certainly is not standard practice to use Forbes for the critical reception section of film articles.

For the record, I am not fangirl...at least when it comes to Lucy; I have yet to even see the film. Unlike the IP/Jackthomas321, I simply follow what the WP:Reliable sources state. And I don't have the patience for the IP/Jackthomas321 being unable to face the fact that the film Lucy outperformed Hercules and that many sources are noting that fact, or that the reliable sources are reporting that both films received mixed reviews. I'm bringing WP:Film into this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22, I think the critical response section can be delivered a little better. I'm having trouble with the opening line: "with general sentiment being that the film was a pleasant surprise to critics" Firstly it's missing "the", but more importantly, only one of the three sources (The Wire) supports the statement. The Deadline reference only says that the box office did better than expected, and says nothing about critical response, and the Reuters reference seems to be talking about box office take as well. The remaining source, The Wire, cherrypicks six reviews, then further cherrypicks favorable statements as a tongue-in-cheek favor to Paramount (see asterisk). The Wire isn't a critical response aggregator, so we have to be careful how we present the information, and it may be best to present it as a direct quotation. "Esther Zuckerman of The Wire opined 'while [Hercules] could still crash and burn with audiences, critics are somewhat pleasantly surprised.'" Otherwise, I support your instincts and agree that incorporating Lucy's comparative success is helpful for conveying scope. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, Cyphoidbomb. Regarding the "with general sentiment being that the film was a pleasant surprise to critics" bit, it doesn't seem to me that the word the is needed before the word general, but I wouldn't mind it being added. As for only The Wire supporting the "pleasant surprise to critics" aspect, it seemed to me that the Deadline source also supports it somewhere in the long reference that it is. But if it doesn't, you are obviously correct that it's only The Wire that supports that bit...though I think it's clear that other sources, such as the aforementioned Forbes source, are of a similar mindset. I just Googled Hercules surprising critics, and I see critics calling the film surprising in one way or another, but I don't yet see another source summarizing critics as being pleasantly surprised by the film. You want to give the lead-in summary or lead paragraph a shot? I take it that you'll be leaving the "mixed" part in, though? I'm open to your Esther Zuckerman text, except for the "could still crash and burn with audiences" part, since that's dating the text. Maybe we will eventually come across a source that states that early reviews for the film were generally positive, and we can add that as well. Flyer22 (talk) 18:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

There's this Rotten Tomatoes review, by Tim Ryan, speaking of the critics' consensus; he states "The pundits say Hercules isn't particularly deep, but it never takes itself too seriously, either, and the result is a surprisingly hearty sword-and-sandal popcorn movie." So it also notes critics being pleasantly surprised by the film. Flyer22 (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I support the mention of it finishing behind Lucy because it adds some perspective to the figures, and there are plenty of sources aside from the aggregators describing the reviews as "mixed". My only issue is with "general sentiment being that the film was a pleasant surprise to critics" which seems a bit POV. The main problem is that it assumes a position on what critics were anticipating before they watched it, and I don't think that has really been established. Betty Logan (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, Betty. I had looked for more sources describing the the film as mixed, but I only came across a couple or a few. I think that The Wire source and the Tim Ryan source above show that many critics were pleasantly surprised by the film; not only is that clear from those two sources, and the aforementioned Forbes source, summarizing critical reaction to the film, it's clear from some sources speaking of their own reaction to the film...as found by clicking on the "Hercules surprising critics" link I provided above. So that is why I think that we should have type of summary, not necessarily mine, stating that critics were pleasantly surprised by the film; the addition could also be aided by explaining why one or more of them were pleasantly surprised by it. Going back to the "general sentiment" wording, I can see why Cyphoidbomb feels that the word the should be in front of the word general; but there are other general sentiments about the film, so I see the general sentiment aspect that I added as one of the general sentiments, rather than the general sentiment. Flyer22 (talk) 23:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I yield on the "the". I'm probably wrong. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Do either of you think we can validly use comicbookmovie.com, specifically this source from that site, to state that early reviews for Hercules were generally positive? I know that comicbookmovie.com is a fansite, but, typing it into the Wikipedia search bar, I see that it's used for various Wikipedia film articles or other matters regarding fiction. Flyer22 (talk) 02:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

More silliness from an IP, as seen here and here. If I have to get this article WP:Semi-protected because of fanboys acting ridiculously at it, I will. I'm also certain that this new IP is Jackthomas321. If Jackthomas321 keeps using his different IPs to WP:Disrupt this article, I will start a WP:Sockpuppet investigation regarding the matter. While a WP:CheckUser usually will not publicly tie an IP to a registered account, the WP:CheckUser will block on WP:Duck behavior. Cut out the silliness! Flyer22 (talk) 13:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The new IP has admitted to being Jackthomas321. And, Jackthomas321, as for your insults in that edit summary, Wikipedia handles that as well; do refer to the WP:Personal attacks policy. Calling me an idiot, phoney and a loser? I've been called far worse than that on Wikipedia. But thanks for giving me further ammo to counter your edits with. It's laughable that you'd call someone a loser, considering the type of editing you've been engaging in at the Hercules (2014 film) article, but thank you. Flyer22 (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

More ridiculous WP:Personal attacks by the IP here and here. I have warned the IP at his registered account. Warning Jackthomas321 at any of his IP pages is fruitless since he has a dynamic IP address. Flyer22 (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The incivility was way out of line, and says more about him than it does about you. Negative reviews should absolutely be included, and I'm unsure of what the user's objection was to the review, so I don't even think a compromise is worth entertaining. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, as seen in the second diff-link of my "13:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)" post, he rejected the compromise. And I restored the original wording after your commentary about how he wants the Critical reception section. Thanks for getting the article semi-protected. He had stopped reverting by then, but perhaps would have continued to act disruptively. Flyer22 (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, minutes ago, I just finished reading the long post by Jackthomas321 that was removed; I'm noting that post here on this talk page for further evidence of his personal attacks, and to show his general mindset. I would have finished reading it sooner, but as noted, it's long, and I was simultaneously busy with other matters on Wikipedia. I perhaps should not have called him a fanboy, but his editing at the Hercules (2014 film) article seems like fanboy editing. As for me being a fangirl of the film Lucy, I have finally seen the film and I'm still not a fangirl of it. Furthermore, I was just as consistent regarding critical reception to Lucy being described as mixed as I was regarding critical reception to Hercules being described as mixed. Yes, I'm more interested in working on the Lucy (2014 film) article than the Hercules (2014 film) article, but that's mainly due to the Lucy film being a meatier topic than the Hercules film. And, Jackthomas321, Hercules, being Greek mythology and all, is a fictional character as well. Also keep in mind that, per WP:Not a forum, Wikipedia talk pages should not be used as forums. Flyer22 (talk) 01:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22 , Will you stop talking to me like a person with no brain. I've mentioned multiple times that Hercules portrayed by "the Rock" is real. He is a mortal in this movie. He has no mythological aspect in this movie at all. Moreover, the movie does not believe in any powers, it is explained at various stages of the movie. The Rock said "We removed the mythological aspect & portrayed only "Hercules" as a human hero. This is one of all greats in this movie. This movie is different from all other Hercules movies. Jack Thomas 05:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

And yet you're still confusing "real" with "fictional". If you have an issue to discuss that pertains to how to improve the article, please feel free to do so, but rambling about issues that don't pertain to the quality of the article, will be removed per the talk page guidelines. Wikipedia isn't a forum for your beliefs or opinions. That's what blogs and podcasts are for. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not completely happy with the article being fully protected either. As can be seen above, apart from a single reservation over half a sentence, Flyer's version had the support of two other editors i.e. a sock editor is pushing a POV against the version that had consensus (and personally abusing a fellow editor at the same time too), so I think semi-protection would have been sufficient here. Articles shouldn't be held to ransom by a single editor who is displaying such a disregard for policy and fellow editors. Betty Logan (talk) 04:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I requested semi-protection. I'm not sure what Jack's personal agenda is (aside from delivering rambling misogynistic diatribes, and thank you Betty for reverting that) but it struck me as odd that he was attempting to suppress negative criticism just in time for the weekend. That, plus his offensive attacks on Flyer was justification for protecting the article. I'm happy to request the lock be downgraded, though. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

You requested semi-protection to protect it from a sock which is entirely appropriate; full-protection however implies there are other parties at fault here which isn't the case. Betty Logan (talk) 04:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I've requested the protection be taken down a notch. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 August 2014

The film's total box office collection uptill now ( 4th August, 2014 ) has exceeded 150 million US dollars. Kindly update this information. Link: www.boxoffice.com/statistics/movies/hercules-2014-2014

175.110.71.190 (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• BoxOfficeMojo is the goto site for this info, but even your reference doesn't state a $150 million worldwide box office gross. BOM indicates $108.8 million, which would need to be reflected in the infobox as well as article prose if an admin has a chance to update. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Both sites give roughly the same figure (BOM: 108.8 and Boxoffice.com: 108.6). I think the IP is adding the worldwide and "domestic" figures together, but the worldwide figure includes domestic. Given the slight disparity between the two sources I suggest rounding up to $109 million. Betty Logan (talk) 08:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Partly done: I've updated the infobox gross, but I couldn't see a specific place in the body to put the 109 million figure. Feel free to reactivate the request if I've just missed it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 20:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Hm, I think I confused this article with another. Thanks, Mr. Stradivarius Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hercules (2014 film). 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/20131113150054/http://au.tv.yahoo.com/home-and-away/news/article/-/17086011/steve-peacocke-bound-for-hollywood-then-home-to-summer-bay/ to http://au.tv.yahoo.com/home-and-away/news/article/-/17086011/steve-peacocke-bound-for-hollywood-then-home-to-summer-bay/

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) 21:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Film title

Oddly, when shown on TBS ('through' COX cable on January 27, 2020), the "INFO" caption and the program grid gave the title as "Hercules: The Thrachian Wars."

Was this a TBS thing or has the Thrachian title appeared before or been referenced elsewhere?

Just curious. 2600:8800:784:8F00:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 09:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)