Talk:Independence Day: Resurgence

Premise - Rotton Tomatoes

So Rotton Tomatoes has a premise for the film. I believe this can be added to the page. As with Fantastic Four (2015) had its premise revealed on RT as well. Npamusic (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Independence Day 2 and ID Forever

The titles Independence Day 2 and ID Forever were never official or even previously known. Before the title was revealed to be "Independence Day: Resurgence", the film was merely referred to as the sequel to Independence Day 2. Stop adding the code names into the header, please. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 19:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

query

There's something I don't understand. Dr. Okun returning, I mean? Wasn't he killed by that alien that used him as a communicator in the original? Visokor (talk) 06:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Apprently when the Aliens do that, it does not kill the person. it only puts the person in a Coma. But this part of the story was never explained in the First movie twenty years ago. 206.192.35.125 (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

EU Referendum Date Is 23 June not 24 June

There was an ad for this film and at the end it said the release date is the 23rd of June, this is also the date of the EU Referendum for Great Britain not the 24th. I live in Ireland in case that helps. Is this date wrong in the article or is the North American release date the 24th? AlanS181824 (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a hazy issue. In The United States, films have an official release on Friday. But theaters are given the option to have an early limited release the day before. 206.192.35.125 (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Independence Day (franchise)

Proposal for a new article for Indepenence Day series Talk:Independence Day (book series)#Independence Day (franchise).--NeoBatfreak (talk) 02:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

As there is more than simply two movies, I support this. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 07:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Reception

TropicAces: Yes, Metacritic scores have dipped into negative territory, but as numerous discussions revealed in other articles, we can't actually say "negative" without a concrete, reliable source drawing that specific conclusion. Saying "not well-received" has been a common compromise in the past, especially for the lead. Also, there's nothing wrong with making a single statement summary in the lead that focuses on the main criticisms and praises. Further elaboration beyond a single statement should be reserved for the article's reception section. See Terminator Genisys and its talk page as a good example. I'm open to suggestions, but let's take precedence into account as well. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Reinstating this edit per discussion with TropicAces at User talk:GoneIn60#Independence Day reviews.

Mixed and unfavorable

This phrasing is being used to satisfy both sides of the debate, as there is no specific threshold on RT between mixed and negative. We need a source other than RT and MC that states otherwise. Until then, both should be kept in place. Discuss here if needed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

While reviews began mixed (53% and 47/100) they have become aggressively unfavorable (34% and 36/100), and I feel simply putting "generally negative" is now fair. I'm going to change it and cite with an EW review roundup, but feel free to edit/alter if you all feel that's unjust. TropicAces (talk) 12:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

TropicAces: Here's the problem. We need a source that actually calls the overall reception "negative". In the source you cited, it calls RT's score "dismal" and then proceeds to list an example of some of the negative reviews that are out there. It does not attempt to summarize the overall reception, which is what we need. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

In addition, we cannot look at the scores ourselves and determine what's positive, negative, and mixed. The previous phrasing said "not well-received", which includes both ranges of "mixed" and "negative". Until we have a source that specifically points to one over the other, I think we should leave "not well-received" in place. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Other than this 'one' editor, are there OTHER editors who object to including sources and content acknowledging the generally negative response by critics? Between the RT source, the MC score and the many sources in the press making the post-mortem on the negative critical reception for the movie, this appears to be a no-brainer. This source, one among many ((https://littlewordstudio.com/2016/06/24/independence-day-resurgence-invades-theaters-worldwide/) is calling this. I see ONE vote for, ONE vote against. I'm also for "generally negative", or some paraphrasing along those lines. You can clearly infer this conclusion from the littlewordstudio citation, for instance. Other sources are plenty confidence in this observation as well. We shouldn't need an exact word for word quote. We can safely infer from this source and others the 'meaning' and conclusions about the critical consensus. In terms of precedent, that burden has been acceptable for other film articles of the ilk and satisfies wikipedia's standards of ettiquette ... If other editors swoop in and care to object here, or revert my content, then I will let it be. Let's try this for now, and see how 'other editors' feel about it and not just this stubborn one. For now, with my voiced added, it is TWO votes for, ONE against. That is enough to support this change for now and vet this trial edit with the readers and community-at-large.174.29.191.40 (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The movie has received mostly negative reviews. The updated RT and other scores show that. Not sure why this is being debated as its clear from the updates the reviews and sites that aggregate them shows its overwhelming negative. ContentEditman (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed.I count now THREE votes for stronger language reflecting the negative consensus and ONE vote against. The consensus in the press is also settling on the perception that critics "panned" this. Are we also counting drive-by reverts on the page itself? I'm only going with what is on the talk so far. The RT score also continues to drop. It is clear this film is being panned by the majority of critics. This is not a polarizing film. It is not received mixed reviews, as in a divide between one camp "positive" and one camp "negative." The critics who liked this film are clearly the minority here.174.29.191.40 (talk) 01:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

A major publication, Variety, is now making a postmortem on this: acknowledging the film's failure to catch on with audiences AND critics. http://variety.com/2016/film/news/independence-day-resurgence-box-office-bombs-liam-hemsworth-will-smith-1201804315/ Again, like I said, this is a no-brainer.174.29.191.40 (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, to address the editor on this page regarding a statement he made in the edit summary, I had originally removed the attempt to synthesize the source, since it wasn't really discussed here. Also, if the minority opinion is that this will was praised for this or that, why does it belong in the article? Isn't that what the critical section is for, to elaborate? I see the TOP for the place to briefly summary the bare-talking points about this. In other words, the top is where we briefly summarize the subject, hitting all the right notes and mention what was notable and newsworthy about the subject. It is notable to mention that this film didn't do well with critics. The minority opinion held by some critics that this film was good was not notable about this film. I will leave it for now since it doesn't do any harm leaving it there. However, if the film continues to tank with critics and the tastes of the public, then maybe we should remove it since it comes of as spin or WP:SYNTH. Also, I saw that you left the change about the film's "generally negative reception," reflecting the reality and consensus about this film. Thank you for that.174.29.191.40 (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The lead section is a summary of an article. The act of summarizing what appears in the article is not a violation of WP:SYNTH. The statement you attempted to move was already in the correct place and does not violate either guideline. As for the change to "negative", I didn't think the first source you posted above was reliable, but "The Wrap" source that ended up in the article was better and more supportive of the claim. I cleaned up your reference by adding more information per WP:CITEHOW. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

there is no good reason to summary the minority position of a handful of critics who liked a film that was "panned" by critics and is bombing in the box office. that belongs in the critic section. in the lead it reads like sugar-coating. I would invited other editors to weigh in on this and respect the consensus at that point. for now it is a draw, with me and the editor in disagreement on that. for now, I will leave it.174.29.191.40 (talk) 06:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It's debatable as to whether or not the positive side of reviews should be mentioned, but at the very least, the negative side should remain. It's important to realize that the statement focuses on the negative and specifically says "some" in reference to the positive. This assigns the appropriate weight that is reflected in the "Critical response" section. I'm not completely against removing it, but a good argument needs to show why the weight being assigned isn't appropriate. Other films such as Terminator Genisys and Resident Evil: Retribution, which received generally negative reviews, include similar statements in their leads, and at Genisys, it was the result of an extensive discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Every article is its own animal. Comparing any article to another is comparing apples to oranges and doomed to failure. In the very unique case of the ID4 sequel, it is such a late sequel to a once popular blockbuster movie that hasn't aged well. The sequel came with incredibly low expectations when Will Smith refused to return. Thus far is has "bombed at the box office" and never really caught on with the critics. I'm not against a summary of the positive reactions of this film. it simply makes no sense to include it in the lead as it isn't notable in the slightest. Maybe if it becomes a cult film someday then we should include it. For now the movie is D.O.A. When a movie fails this badly in the box office, with critics, and the public, then who is this information meant for? Certainly not the reader who came here for information about the film, not a used car sales pitch for a lemon. It's harmless for the moment. I won't alter it until it is compelling enough to do so with the passage and presage of time. Who knows. In the upcoming weeks maybe it will be better received by audiences overseas.174.29.191.40 (talk) 08:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The point was to show precedence. Every article is independent and should stand on its own, I agree, but seeing how consensus forms in other articles can have a meaningful impact in future discussions. Also, the statement in question does not deny that the film was negatively received. I think you're overlooking the significance of the term "some", which means "few", and the fact that this is a very brief statement. It is an accurate reflection of what is discussed in the Critical response section, and therefore, it adheres to the guidelines WP:DUE and WP:LEAD. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You are rationalizing. One article doesn't have precedence over another. Every major movie is an animal in and of itself. When a movie is doing this badly on all fronts it feels forced and jejune to include this window dressing you are stubbornly defending. Not every child needs a medal in a school competition. Not every wikipedia article needs to accentuate the positive in every instance. Sometimes things are what they are, warts and all.174.29.191.40 (talk) 09:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Update: There was no need to accuse me of being "disruptive" in your edit summary (in your revert). I didn't delete your passage, I thought your only beef was over its inclusion. For such a new article it is reasonable to expect it to change over time. This wasn't some long held passage. There was no way for me to know it would tick you off. Your pettiness is borderline offensive. There is not really a consensus in place on the talk to support your passage strictly as it is one way or another. You have yet to offer me a good rationale as to why I would need to run minor changes of the ilk by you. If nothing else the implied consensus at the moment suggests they wouldn't support your strict language, but I will not assume that until others chime in. The emotional tone of your popping off in the edit summary implies the violation of something more rigid in place here that really isn't at the present moment. I'm chill with your revert which is why I am not pushing to change it back since it is so precious to you. It would be helpful if you chilled out as well. You could've done all that without the false accusation in the summary. I find your lack of good faith disturbing.174.29.191.40 (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Since we are on different sides of the issue, it would be best not to mess with that passage at all. You are clearly stoking tensions with your edits. With so much work needed in the article, there's no need to focus all your time and attention on this small part. Most of your response above, by the way, is a regurgitation of your viewpoint and brings nothing new to the table. If someone else wants to chime in and introduce a 3rd-party opinion, we can revisit the issue, but we both know we aren't going to convince each other. Time to agree to disagree, move on, and quit wasting time in this thread. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Maybe because you are too busy being condescending, you are missing the point. So let me be direct and spell it out for you nice and simple. You shouldn't accuse people willy nilly of being disruptive without a proper rationale, as you did here [1] To do so is to assume bad faith. You did so again when you said "you are clearly stoking tensions with your edits." I clearly am not doing this but you can get away with the accusation as long as you insist on assuming bad faith. The key component of bad faith is the deliberate attempt to be unconstructive. There was nothing "unconstructive" about the change(s) you reverted, let alone "deliberate." The same goes for my words here. I am entitled to my response. If you so desperately need the last word on this or other matters elsewhere, go right ahead. I have nothing further to say on this subject or any other. "Moving on" is a fantastic idea. Lets. Rather than persist with false accusations as your signature way of communicating your dislike of other people's contributions, I recommend (for the sake of peace with everyone involved) taking a deep breath next time and try assuming good faith instead.174.29.191.40 (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, seems like a misunderstanding. See Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You are the one that needs to read it. Yours edits and false accusations are beyond any realm of decorum. You need to review what you have said and accused and fully apologize. You have no consensus and keep trying to find any way to get around it. Just stop as the consensus is this is a negatively reviewed movie. ContentEditman (talk) 19:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Looks like you missed this post and this edit, in which it has been clearly stated that "negative" is now accepted by both sides. This is no longer being discussed. I suggest you "catch up" to where the discussion is if you'd like to participate. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the score and the way a majority of the reviews are worded, I'd say it's definitely "generally negative". Parsley Man (talk) 03:07, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

For anyone else that may stumble across this thread, we are all in agreement about the use of "generally negative". The problem initially was a lack of a good source. We have one now. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The lead can do without the window dressing about consulted plot and playful delivery. Mentioning the critics and box office is enough. Too much filler and fat. In need of trimming.Stale content.Ianmalcolmclone (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. However, before you make this change I would strongly recommending letting the other editors chime in. They were involved in the initial dispute about the language used in the 'TOP', about the film's negative reception, and they may disagree or express indifference about the rest of the passage. There is also a formal dispute about 'OTHER' issues resolving itself elsewhere. I don't feel comfortable weighing in on this debate again until that process works itself. The outcome could affect this debate. NOTE: For now, I count now 'TWO' votes for removing the disputed language in the 'TOP' and simplifying the passage.184.96.160.15 (talk) 22:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Careful with the use of the term "voting". When determining consensus, we don't simply count the "yes" and "no" votes. The strength of the argument presented by both sides is taken into account, and those citing policies and guidelines carry the most weight. I suggest you review WP:CON, WP:NOTVOTE, and WP:WIKINOTVOTE for more information on Wikipedia's position in the matter. As for Ianmalcolmclone, this account was just created on July 5 and the only edit from this account is to give an opinion in this discussion. That is highly suspect and shouldn't be taken seriously. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Drop the condescending lecture. In all fairness I am operating on two tracks of thought regarding the account-holder and their opinion. Having previously noticed the singular driveby comment I went out of my way above to issue the 'polite' warning to Ianmalcolmclone about 'not' getting involved. You conveniently ignored it in favor of your agenda. Having carefully reviewed the account's edit history, I didn't see any actual edits by Ianmalcolmclone on the ID4-sequel article itself. It is harmless and perfectly fine to give someone the benefit of the doubt and listen to what they have to say as long as they weren't being disruptive on the page itself. Maybe we don't need to give the account-holder himself too much weight but we can separate them from the argument and focus only on it. Funny enough, this is exactly what your spiel is about!***face palm***

Actually take the time to re-read above. I didn't "simply count the "yes" and "no" votes." Rather, I made sure that only "the strength of the argument presented by both sides was taken into account." I did as much given that the editor did more than simply agree or disagree. I also took into account 'your concerns' and recommended sensitivity to them in the warning above until they are resolved by the dispute process elsewhere. Suspicious or not, whether you like it or not, the editor Ianmalcolmclone did in fact articulate an opinion on this. I acknowledged as much and I would have said and done the same for someone who 'disagreed' with me. I said as much in my warning above and asked that editor to please wait "until the 'other editors' chime in" so we can record their votes and listen to what they have to say in the event they "disagreed" with him. I more than went out of my way to encourage fairness on all sides to all sides. You also conveniently ignored that. Interesting.184.96.160.15 (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Note: I saw that someone out-of-the-blue mysteriously popped-up on your talk page to pay you a ridiculous compliment about your conduct in this debate here while sneaking in more false accusations about other users connected to this article and your 'suspicions' about some of us. Rather than report your suspicions about 'their' driveby comments, you laughably entertained them. I'm afraid it is too strange a coincidence to ignore that you did this failed to report suspicious behavior with someone who favored your position. Also "interesting."184.96.160.15 (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Glad to see you're following my talk page. Yes, the editor's comments on my talk page are suspicious, but they failed to provide any evidence to support their claims. I simply asked for that evidence, and I wouldn't be surprised if they never reply. Most likely, it's a fake show of support. I'm not sure I follow your implied sarcasm about how I'm treating this IP editor differently than others. As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing to report. If you disagree, feel free to submit a report of your own.

As for the "condescending lecture", that was not my intent. You've gone out of your way to provide updates on the number of votes, so letting you know that voting is not how consensus works was called for. If you were already aware, no harm done; if you weren't already aware, then it would help you moving forward. It was for your benefit.

Knowing that you like to get the last word in, please realize that my responses here will be limited moving forward. If you or another editor adds something new to the conversation that warrants a response, I'll chime back in. Don't expect a response otherwise. This needs to remain focused on improving the article, and we're beginning to stray off topic. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Ending sentence of plot section

Considering me, NeoBatfreak, and User:174.29.191.40 are involved in this, I would like to create this discussion to give some sort of clarity to the situation and hopefully sort it out.

The original sentence was this:

"Okun reveals the sphere has asked them to lead the resistance, and offered them new technology in preparation to take the fight to the harvesters' home world."

The IP user's edit was this:

"Okun reveals the sphere has asked them to lead the resistance to the harvester's homeworld, offering them new technology in preparation to take the fight to the aliens'."

Which one's supposed to be preferable? Because the IP user seems pretty insistent in his/her edit. Parsley Man (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, I think the IP's sentence is too wordy, not to mention the film now including other extraterrestrial races and thus should not continuously call the harvesters "aliens". I think it should be like :"Okun reveals the sphere has asked them to lead the resistance, and offered them new technology in preparation to take the fight to their enemy's home world."--NeoBatfreak (talk) 19:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The IP User's edit is wrong. You don't lead a resistance to a homeworld. That is an attack. A resistance is after an invasion and given that the good Doctor says quite clearly that they want us to lead their resistance. He says nothing about taking the fight to the alien's homeworld. Actually, I suppose that was conjecture on reflection, they just talk about interstellar travel and taking the fight to them... MisterShiney ✉ 23:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

How about this change? "Okun reveals the sphere has offered them new technology for interstellar travel in preparation for the resistance to take the fight to the aliens'." It is a compromise that takes the best of everything. It is concise and the least verbose. I have already made this change since consensus is in doubt. Before someone here reverts it for personal reasons, let's see how the readers and the rest of the community receives it and go from there.184.96.160.15 (talk) 22:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

All this over an apostrophe

Ok, so it seems silly go back and forth. Say something if you disagree. The Alien race is called the Harvesters, just like we are Humans. Therefore: Singular - Harvester Plural - Harvesters Ownership - Harvester's Per WP:BRD, let's discuss. MisterShiney ✉ 22:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

$50 million each or separate?

In October 2011, however, discussions for Will Smith returning were halted, due to Fox's refusal to provide the $50 million salary demanded by Smith for the two sequels.

This needs to be clearer for the reader. 68.101.77.142 (talk) 10:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I think it's abundantly clear. It says clearly that he wanted $50 million for the two sequels... MisterShiney ✉ 21:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I think they should have given him the money, on condition that the movie was a success. It would have been worth it if the movie ended up making $1 billion or more.2605:E000:AA1F:E400:EC6D:704C:ACEB:4BC (talk)