Talk:Reagan (2024 film)

The Film, Reagan, Is Not An Hagiography; It Is A Cinematic Homage To A Good Man.

The film, "Reagan", is not an hagiography as mostly indicated in the Critical Response portion of the Wikipedia article. The film was a very lovingly well-made cinematic homage to a truly great and good man and leader who, truth be told, had very few flaws. He ended the Cold War which few thought would ever happen. He brought the top income tax rate down from 70 percent (!!) to 28 percent and lowered inflation from 12 percent to four percent. He ended the energy crisis. He made Americans proud of their nation once again. His policies greatly accelerated the Computer Revolution (i.e., lower taxes, free trade, the defense build-up, a new federal circuit court for IP law, IRA accounts, etc.). In sum, this picturesque film, which beautifully portrays and firmly focuses upon the wonderful anti-communist epic saga of Ronald Reagan's entire life, contains little critical of Mr. Reagan because there is so very little to criticize. 38.99.114.101 (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you expect -- of course the left is going to get its panties in a bunch over this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.96.180 (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take it up with Bilge Ebiri from Vulture. They wrote it. Mike Allen 00:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Audience scores/response

Per WP:FILMAUDIENCE: Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database, Metacritic, or Rotten Tomatoes (including the Metacritic "User Score" and the Rotten Tomatoes "Audience Says" blurbs and "Popcornmeter" scores), as these are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew. But we can add in actual prose, along with high quality sources, the differences in responses. We can't just write "audiences gave significantly more positive responses" in the lead without context (adding a CinemaScore score in the lead is WP:UNDUE). Why did audiences like it more? Was a particular political party more fond of it? This is an encyclopedia, so we have to write like it is. Mike Allen 13:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia guidelines say that we can cite CinemaScore. Noting the movie’s CinemaScore in the article is therefore permissible and acceptable . That’s all there is to it. if you don’t want CinemaScore cited in a movie’s wiki, then take that issue up with Wikipedia guidelines … If you believe that the CinemaScore for Reagan is the result of a response from a certain groups (eg Republicans), then that’s on you to find a source indicating that only Republicans gave the movie an A. What makes you demand that we must find a source indicating that Republicans or conservatives are the ones who gave the movie a high audience score? What gives you the idea that Republicans or conservatives are the ones behind the high audience score? If you can find a source indicating that Republicans or conservatives are behind the audience score, then you’re free add that info. But you need to stop deleting the article’s references to the audience score just because you don’t like this movie or it’s subject personally 69.203.2.160 (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines do say that, but all film articles include the CinemaScore under the critical reception section, not in the lead. There are many sources about the reception being divisive between audiences and policital parties: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] All I did was simply google "reagan audience response vs critics" since IPs keep adding it, so I thought there must be something to it. I don't care about US politics. I care about keeping Wikipedia FILM artiles as neutral as possible.

But you're missing the point. We do not write that the audience reception was better than critics in the LEAD, without any context within the rest of the article, which is what you are doing. MOS:LEAD: Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. Mike Allen 20:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree, the reception section in this article is clearly biased against the film and giving more detail about it would be the honest thing to do. 2A01:E11:1402:5EC0:AC8C:436F:8C68:9FEA (talk) 13:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary

I have seen that someone added a lengthy plot summary tag. Truth be told, I wrote the first draft of the film summary, and I'm thankful for the other contributions that gave further clarification. I'll vent by stating this: of course, the film summary will be long. The filmmakers unwisely tried to dramatize Reagan's entire life into one film. There are too many details in the film to leave out.

The word count is currently 696, which is suitable as it's less than 700, according to by Wikipedia's standards. PrinceArchelaus (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]