Talk:Monster Hunter (film)

On the "december" release date due to the trailer...

I do note that the official site also now says December as well, but I have yet to see anything that otherwise looks like a result of a press release to affirm a new date, so I agree keeping this to April until we have that type of confirmation is right. (I suspect they may have swooped in on Bond's delay ... ) --Masem (t) 13:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Stunt double fiasco

Would it be out of place to add a section detailing what happened to Olivia Jackson while producing the film? For the uninitiated, she was a stunt double for Mila Jovavich who lost her arm, suffered numerous other injuries, and had her face "degloved" while shooting a chase scene because Paul W.S. Anderson had a driver move faster than everyone else thought he was going to. Anderson and his production team did everything they could to not take responsibility but Jackson did eventually win in court. It was a significant talking point and news article at numerous points as the story developed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.103.245.61 (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

A stunt person being injured is a production detail that would normally be worth mentioning. Unfortunately the anonymous editor did not mention any sources. A lawsuit would usually be something worth mentioning, again sources would be needed.

I found an article about Olivia Jackson in the LA Times[1]. It explains that she lost her arm while filming one of the Resident Evil films, specifically Resident Evil: The Final Chapter. The source makes it clear that this does not having anything to do with Monster Hunter (film) and it would be entirely inappropriate to add it to this article. It seems to have already been added to the article for the relevant film. -- 109.76.203.24 (talk) 06:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Genre

somebody gotta do sumn bout these genres man :/ make up ya mind guys just because u can cite a source for it doesnt always mean u should throw in an extra genre into the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c51:7c7e:f5d3:f985:775b:8d57:9421 (talk • contribs) 22:17, January 27, 2021 (UTC)

WP:FILMLEAD can be reviewed for guidance. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Note "mixed to negative reviews" in lead?

Don't want to trigger an edit war, so I'll get right to the point. Should we note/add in the lead that the film's critical response was "mixed to negative"? I give my SUPPORT and here's why: Indian Express reported a "mixed" critical response (1), and GameRant reported a "negative" response, (2). Therefore, it's logical to note that the critical response was "mixed to negative". This wouldn't be WP:SYN since Screen Rant outright refers to the critical response as "mixed to negative", (3). Thoughts? @Nyxaros: you're the biggest opposer of adding the critical response to the lead, care to throw in your two cents? Armegon (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

"Mixed to negative reviews" is bad phrasing (this has been discussed in the past at the WP Film project, even if Screen Rant uses it. Either the reviews are mixed (a combination of positive and negative) or they are negative, they can't be both. Given that we are talking a film, none of those sources are good to be using to summarize and we should try to use either Rotten Tomatoes or MetaCritic's summary statement instead. --Masem (t) 04:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand. If a verified source, like Screen Rant, verifies it then why shouldn't it be cited? We would simply be directly citing the source, not engaging in synthesis or WP:OR. WP:FILMLEAD supports covering "reception of the film by critics and audiences". It doesn't prohibit adding/citing a critical response like "mixed to negative". Armegon (talk) 04:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Screen Rant is considered on WP a marginally reliable source [2] so we need to be careful with its language, and given that both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic show that the average aggregate score is simply average (because there are positive reviews in addition to negative reviews), the statement is not really accurate. We can state without original research that the film got mixed reviews, that precisely describes the mix of reviews based on Rotten Tomatoes. What the lede should try to describe then is what we generally listed as positive aspects and what was generally taken as negative as to why it has that overall mixed score. --Masem (t) 05:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd support for adding/noting "earned mixed reviews" in the lead. Armegon (talk) 02:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Masem: So do we proceed to add "the film received mixed reviews" in the lead? It's been a week and no one else has thrown in their two cents or opposed the decision. Armegon (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that would be fair to add. --Masem (t) 21:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

on inaccuracies

just need to make sure it wouldn't be an unambiguously really ungood idea so i don't ramble like a maniac for nothing

correcting mistakes the movie makes (such as referring to the meowscular chef as just "palico", which is like referring to pikachu as "the pokémon" in the context of pokémon) if sources getting them right can be provided. yay or nay? if yay, should footnotes be included to clarify the mistake?

also if yay, i already have at least one source properly identifying the "diablos" as a black diablos and one identifying "the" "palico" as the meowscular chef, though their usability will be debated later cogsan _{(nag me) (stalk me)} 21:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)