Talk:Bad Boys: Ride or Die

Filming after the SAG-AFTRA strike

We now know that the 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike ended on November 9, 2023. However, there are no sources stating that filming resumed. Is there WP:NORUSH to state when filming would resume? The Media Expert (talk) 23:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Cast

We are missing reliable sources confirming most of the cast members for this film. I think there is WP:NORUSH to do this. The Media Expert (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Reception summary

TropicAces, regarding your edit here, there are a few issues. First, Rotten Tomatoes considers a 63% to be "fresh", which is defined as "positive". Metacritic clearly lists the consensus as "mixed or average". So it would appear that the two aggregators disagree, despite your edit summary saying otherwise. Also, this Collider source, published more recently than the Gold Derby source, has come to a different conclusion and calls the reviews on RT "positive".

I'm not familiar with Gold Derby as a source for film reception, and I couldn't find any past discussions at WP:RSN. Gold Derby is mentioned here, but it does not even have a standalone Wikipedia article. Do you know if this site has been discussed previously? I'd question whether it is reputable enough to support this type of claim on its own. Because the aggregators disagree, it may be best to avoid a summary statement altogether. Until this is settled, I've left the Gold Derby source in for now and moved the full citation down to the body (diff). --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

TropicAces, pinging you again in case you missed the first ping. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello.

To avoid this kind of confusion, Rotten Tomatoes itself has a page explaining how to assess their score. They explain “The Tomatometer score represents the percentage of professional critic reviews that are positive for a given film or television show.” And “When at least 60% of reviews for a movie or TV show are positive, a red tomato is displayed to indicate its Fresh status.”

This means rotten tomatoes itself considers that accumulating at least 60% of positive reviews is enough to demonstrate that a movie have a fresh status among critics.

Bad Boys 4 has currently 65% of positive reviews on rotten tomatoes, meaning it has a fresh status among the critics.

see here the link: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/about#:~:text=When%20at%20least%2060%25%20of%20users%20give%20a%20movie%20or,to%20indicate%20its%20Fresh%20status.&text=When%20less%20than%2060%25%20of%20users%20give%20a%20movie%20or,to%20indicate%20its%20Rotten%20status.

Of course, RT is not the only aggregator for critics reviews, but it’s important to note that it’s the biggest one. The second most important is Metacritic. Metacritic critics are also Rotten Tomatoes critics. The difference is that Rotten Tomatoes has hundreds more critics. Metacritic has less than 100 critics (for movies) while Rotten Tomatoes has more than 500 critics. So we’re not talking about two different groups of critics. Rotten Tomatoes simply has a bigger sample of reviews, a sample that encompasses those reviews that are on Metacritic plus many other ones. PepGuardi (talk) 05:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thank you PepGuardi. TropicAces is a veteran editor in the realm of film articles and knows this well, and quite frankly, the Gold Derby source is the first time I've ever seen this particular publication being cited for this kind of claim. I doubt it would override the Collider source I posted above, and regardless, we shouldn't be cherry-picking sources, neither Collider over Gold Derby, nor RT over MC. Instead, we should probably be avoiding the summary statement altogether (and the confusion it can cause) and not have one, especially in the lead section.

There is a level of caution given in MOS:FILMCRITICS about relying too heavily on film aggregators, and there is no policy or guideline that says one is more reliable than the other. When they disagree, we shouldn't be picking a winner. My 2¢ -- GoneIn60 (talk) 05:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

TropicAces, PepGuardi – Pinging you both to let you know that the summary statements (along with the weak Gold Derby source) have been removed in this edit per the above discussion. Tropic, that's three pings now. Plenty of opportunity to join the discussion if there's anything you want to weigh in with, but I'm not seeing any justification at this point to let it stay in the article without consensus through discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:02, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

hello.

To be honest, it’s the first time I saw a movie with more than 60% on rotten tomatoes and 7 on IMDb, 8 by IGN, 3.3 on Letterbox being described as having a mixed reception. Then I thought it was some mistake and corrected it to positive reviews. Then an editor who is not logged in reverted it. I corrected it once again explaining that it’s not subjective RT itself explains what is a positive score. The the same person who is not logged in reverted again it. Then I came to the talk page to discuss the I found out the three of us agree that it’s a positive reception. However, what could we do with the guy who’s not logged in and keeps reverting it without given a single reason to it? I mean he doesn’t seem someone acting in good faith tbh… see here *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2603:800C:1E03:5A00:4569:B090:7DC9:13C4 and here *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2603:800C:1E03:5A00:84F4:5BB8:F815:4148

it seems to be the same person. --PepGuardi (talk) 06:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually, TropicAces doesn't agree. In the very first post above, I link to their edit where they originally added "mixed reviews" to the article citing that Gold Derby source. Now it's been removed, since clearly there's no consensus in the sources or here on the talk page. But yes, for a moment, there was also a disruptive IP editor changing it back to "mixed". Removing it altogether seems to have stopped the disruption for now, which is probably the best move until some other form of agreement is reached through discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I don’t really have a dog in the fight here. Gold Derby is an established and oft-cited site in the film community for awards season, which is why I used it originally, but the consensus for the critical reception of the fourth Bad Boys film isn’t one worth me finding additional sources to support one claim or another is all haha TropicAces (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

So I guess it’s ok for you that we put “positive reviews” and add as source the Rotten Tomatoes page where they explain how their score system works, right? PepGuardi (talk) 22:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

PepGuardi, think you're misunderstanding. Tropic thinks we should say "mixed". You think we should say "positive". I think we shouldn't say anything. Just let the sources speak for themselves down in the "Critical response" section like it's currently written. There's no agreement among the sources, so there's no reason for us to cherry-pick and choose one source over another. I suggest you re-read the points I made above. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 02:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

"Gold Derby is an established and oft-cited site in the film community for awards season"

@Tropic: Sources can be reliable for some claims, but not reliable for others. Here, it wasn't being cited for an "award", and I wasn't able to find any past discussions about Gold Derby on Wikipedia. As far as I'm concerned, it was a weak source for what it was being cited for, and I've moved on from it. If there's any desire to use it again, feel free to take it to WP:RSN. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree, I’d just add that since Rotten Tomatoes is the biggest aggregator for movies reviews, it gives us a broader overview on the critical reception of a movie, at least it is the biggest one to do it. Then using their own criteria to classify a movie as well received would make this more objective. So the question “has the movie been well received?” could have a more less subjective answer. PepGuardi (talk) 03:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

So you agree that we shouldn't cherry-pick? Good, because I do too. Metacritic, unlike Rotten Tomatoes, is more selective on which critic reviews it allows into the fold, assigning more weight to those that are more reputable. It is less about quantity and more about quality. Both approaches have their pros and cons, and it is not for us to decide which approach is superior or more "objective". Instead, we list both in every article and let readers decide. In terms of a summary statement, there are 3 possible outcomes:

1. Both RT and MC agree: We have the option of adding a summary statement (e.g. The film received generally positive reviews from critics).
2. Both RT and MC disagree, Option 1: We cannot pick a winner and should avoid the summary statement. Simply list the aggregator scores in the "Critical response" section.
3. Both RT and MC disagree, Option 2: We cannot pick a winner, but if other highly-reputable sources are found (e.g., NY Times, LA Times, etc.) that have summarized the reception as well, we can still add a summary statement as long as it is cited to those sources. Mediocre sources will be challenged and tossed out, and if multiple high-quality sources disagree, then avoid the summary statement.

This is generally how it's done at other film articles, in my experience. Hope that helps, because this is probably the last time I will go into depth on this. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Mixed to positive? HiGuys69420 (talk) 23:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

No, we don't use phrases like "mixed-to-negative" or "mixed-to-positive" either, because that would be a form of WP:SYNTH. You are taking two sources, Rotten Tomatoes (positive) and Metacritic (mixed), and combining them to form a conclusion that neither source states individually. Synthesis of sources is not allowed. Also, those phrases have been discussed many times over the years at WT:FILM, and using made up ranges like that has been overwhelmingly disapproved, but if you'd like to try your hand and discuss it there again to see if opinions have changed, feel free. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 05:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

AMMO

The article uses "AMMO" as if the reader is supposed to know what it means. Can someone who does add a link please? --2003:EA:E72B:B04C:95A6:2F8E:5DBF:F28C (talk) 02:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Armando @ Reggie ( future Badboys)

Have a 5th installment, showcasing the talents of the son and the son-in- law. 107.1.244.158 (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)