Talk:The Ultimate Gift

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the Christian films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Religion Film and Christian Film Categories

I added these two category tags. First, this film is released by the Fox Faith film studio. Per their web site, "To be part of Fox Faith, a movie has to have overt Christian Content or be derived from the work of a Christian author." [1]

Secondly, the discussion guide states that the guide may be used in Sunday school and directs the reader to "additional Church Material" at the Fox Faith web site. The guide, utilizing scripture quotations liberally, uses the bible and God to describe the movie's themes and lessons. The guide may be downloaded in PDF from the 'The Ultimate Gift' official web site[2]. Click the Resources link.

I'm unsure why this would be controversial; these categories are at the same time broad enough to encompass this movie and are not a detriment to it. These categories do not require a film to be based on a bible story -- there is already a category for that. From Wikipedia's "Christian Films" category page: "These are films that are made to inspire or impact those who believe in Christianity." From Wikipedia's "Religion Films" category page: "This category consists of films in which religion is an important part of their subject matter." Therefore 10:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

It is interesting that the article cited The New York Times' criticism of the movie for self-righteousness and moral reprimand because, for all its pretensions to be journalism, the Times itself is drenched in leftist self-righteousness and morally reprimands everything and everybody who shows even a slight departure from that ideology. Also, the billionaire in the movie was a hard-driving capitalist who would naturally draw the ire of the quasi-socialists at the NY Times.

Hey -- I liked your rewrite of the section outlining the funding of the movie. But I disagree with deleting all the reviews. Can you explain why you did this? Maybe one or two that come from less than reliable sources could be deleted, but I left a few positive ones in there that came from these said sources. Maybe we should revert this last edit and we can take this to the talk page of the aricle? Therefore 18:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed in looking at other movies that only a couple of reviews are included if any at all, and they are usually used to summarize points. It seemed the review section under The Ulimate Gift was pretty much fighting back and forth before people quoting reviewers who either praised or total panned the movie. It was taking up a lot of space without really adding much except confusion. Leaving the summaries its easy for people viewing the page to see the trends: the reviewers generally didn't like it and the audience generally liked it a lot.

Just my thoughts. Bbagot 18:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I can see why you would think that this was a "war of reviews," as it were. In fact, I added in most of the reviews. At the time, there were only a couple of glowing reviews which didn't reflect the preponderance of negative reviews the movie received. If you don't object too strongly, I will return this part of the article and keep your notation about IMDB. Therefore 18:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could see why you would want to balance the reviews if the only reviews present made it sound like a movie loved by all, but I still feel having 10 different reviews, mostly very strong one way or the other, for a movie that took in 3M at the box office is certainly overkill. I won't put up interference if you wish to reinclude the removals, but I'd advise you to edit the section in a way that it's much more concise and seems to add useful information that flows instead of reading like an ideology war. When over half the article is reviews, we've somehow missed the point. Bbagot 18:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another note. Moviegoers gave the movie a 7.9 rating. IMDB gave the movie a 7.1 rating based upon their system which they won't share and where some votes count more than others. The 7.9 is the true mean average. Bbagot 18:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point about the reviews -- I will work on a rewrite incorporating your suggestions.

As to IMDB, this is not a proper gauge of the popularity of a movie. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Reception:

In the case of what the general public thought of the film, tend towards the expression "money talks" and provide a summary of the film's commercial success, consulting sites such as Box Office Mojo and Box Office Guru.

The section explicitly prohibits the use of IMDB reviews. I think I'll replace the IMDB reference with a discussion of the commercial stats. Thanks. Therefore 18:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are misreading that section. It says not to quote user comments from IMDB, not to exclude how movieviews rated a film. Also, I noticed an error with the Rotten Tomatoes summary. The number given is 35%, but the 18 out of 54 should be 33%. Not sure what side the error is on, but I thought I'd point this out. Bbagot 18:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, it does not explicitly prohibit user ratings from IMDB -- that is an inference I made from their statement about IMDB reviews. However, it clearly states that "money talks" is the gauge to be used about the popularity of a movie. IMDB is not a statistically accurate source -- as I'm sure you can appreciate. Therefore 18:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on the discrepancy on Rotten Tomatoes. I can't explain it except to guess there is a lag between the number of reviews and the calculations. 35% could mean 18 fresh out of 51 reviews. Therefore 19:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the problem wasn't with Rotten Tomatoes -- the 18 fresh reviews was out of 52 reviews and not 54. Therefore 23:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the criticism section and added in the user ratings. See what you think. Therefore 23:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you reverted the changes back to the laundry list of reviews. Your complain is that it is more balanced. But the problems are several-fold:

The list really did need to be rewritten with more prose, per the manual of style.

Several of the reviews are not proper -- they are blog reviews which are not allowed.

The section was rewritten with balance in mind. I'm sure you realize that equality of opinion is not the goal here. That would be a violation of WP:UNDUE and I quote:
We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.

I realize that you come with a POV that you want to say this movie has simply good and bad reviews but that is misleading. The fact is, the movie was critically panned. Only 17% of the "cream" of Rotten Tomatoes gave this movie a positive review. In my rewrite, I gave a list of the prominent reviews that included a non-typical one from Forbes, which is not from a film critic and, if we must debate, should be excluded also.

Please be specific about which reviews you would like to see included that I took out.

I would appreciate that all discussion be done here before any further changes are done. Thanks. Therefore 00:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize to date:

Bbagot deleted all reviews without discussion.

I opened a dialog.

I rewrote the review section per discussion, shortening, putting into prose, removing excess, writing with an eye to WP:UNDUE.

Bbaget deleted all rewrite, with no discussion and put back laundry list of reviews.

I invited discussion. Bbaget refused further discussion.

I put rewrite back in.

Note: Bbaget has a history of edit warring. Therefore 20:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I would appreciate that all discussion be done here before any further changes are done. Thanks. Therefore 00:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

I agree with what you say, therefore I will revert your decision to make changes before discussion took place. In the future, please follow your own standards. Thank you Bbagot 23:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I invited discuss. Bbaget refused."

I hate lying. Care to show me where I refused to have a discussion? This should be good. I'm not into chicken little "The sky is falling" type stuff. Follow truth, try to adhere to what is discussed, and stick to the topic. It's really simple. Thanks. Bbagot 23:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of discussion was implicit when you did not come and begin discussions when invited. I apologize for the use of the word "refuse." More appropriately said, "I asked for discussion, none was forthcoming."

So, I will await, again, for an answer to my statements above. If no discussion is again forthcoming, then I will be compelled to revert and report as you continually revert my work without discussion. Thanks. Therefore 23:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you looked at my account, you would have seen that I didn't have any wikipedia activity during that period. Not everyone is on 24/7. The previous section was in place for a month, so why you felt a great need to change it in less than 24 hours and claim I "refused" to discuss is rather curious.

What you did was a scope rewrite that didn't follow what we had discussed and agreed to in theory, but instead took small pieces so you could say the equivalent of "see, I put that in there too". As I've said, I believe in being upfront. Even though you had been very prompt in responding to me during our discussion, you chose to ignore telling me that you had done a rewrite or incorporated changes. You only chose to do so 5 minutes after I reverted. You'll find I will not respect that form of treatment. Bbagot 00:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the lecture and will modify my behavior accordingly. I will apologize a second time for the use of the term "refuse."

And now that we are back on track again, Bbagot, I invite you to respond to my remarks that I will cut and paste and put here again so we can begin anew:

I see that you reverted the changes back to the laundry list of reviews. Your complaint is that it is more balanced. But the problems are several-fold:

The list really did need to be rewritten with more prose, per the manual of style.

Several of the reviews are not proper -- they are blog reviews which are not allowed.

The section was rewritten with balance in mind. I'm sure you realize that equality of opinion is not the goal here. That would be a violation of WP:UNDUE and I quote:
We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.

I realize that you come with a POV that you want to say this movie has simply good and bad reviews but that is misleading. The fact is, the movie was critically panned. Only 17% of the "cream" of Rotten Tomatoes gave this movie a positive review. In my rewrite, I gave a list of the prominent reviews that included a non-typical one from Forbes, which is not from a film critic and, if we must debate, should be excluded also.

Please be specific about which reviews you would like to see included that I took out. Thanks! Therefore 00:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize: I'm asking that you be specific. I don't know what you mean by a "scope rewrite" and I would prefer you not guessing at my intentions viz-a-viz "see? I included that." I, with good faith, put both viewpoints into the article, with a corresponding and real-life weight on the negative reviews. I included the Forbes article in good faith and I even included the IMDB user ratings, again, in good faith. What specifically are your concerns? Thanks. Therefore 00:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found that only one of the previous reviews came from a blog. If there are more, I am curious as to what I missed.

I'm glad you believe that small minority viewpoints should be viewed accordingly. With this in mind, please read the reviews on the critics sites and note that the quotes you use tend away from the concensus view of the film. As I stated earlier, the review section read too much like an ideology war. Your changes removed moderating views and left the inflammatory. In looking at other movie articles on wikipedia, this approach is unorthodox. And while 35% of the rottontomato critics recommend the film, the majority of those who don't have a tendency to hold middle of the road positions along the line of it's a nice film, but too sweet for my tastes, etc.

If you'd like I can throw together a critics review section that could capture more of this flow. It would probably include quotes from 1 thumbs up and 2 thumbs down reviews and capture the essence of thought rather than finding obtuse quotes on the fringes one way or the other. Bbagot 15:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see that we are now talking about the essence of the concerns after two days. I don't consider the New York Times nor Newsday "fringe" reviews -- only reviewers who articulate core concerns about the movie with whom you disagree with. Neither is the Washington Post, which I included as a middling review.

Actually, I articulated my concerns much earlier. There were 52 reviews and, as stated, most revolved around similar themes whether positive or negative. It was the sections you chose to highlight that were fringe, not the publications themselves.

You can not delete the New York Times nor the Newsday reviews except as a violation of WP:NPOV. These are notable, verifiable sources of criticism that only conflict with your POV. So, I certainly welcome your specific suggestions (in a timely manner) on which reviews you would like included as long as there is not undue weight given to positive reviews and are given by major reviewers. Again, quoting from Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Reception:

Expanding on the second paragraph of the lead section, you should analyse how the film was received by critics, meaning professional or well-known film reviewers....

This criteria excludes the Forbes review, filmcritic.com, Gerald Wright and the Beacon Times is not exactly "well-known." So, we can exclude all of these within the parameters of Wikipedia policy.

As stated, the sections you chose to highlight conflict with minority viewpoint, which you yourself has pointed out for importance on 2 different occasions. And as far as the idea that only a handfull of reviewers are allowed to be quoted, I believe that may be your interpretation more than wiki policy based on the valuation you give "well known".

Again, you may perceive an "ideology war" from your standpoint. This is, in fact, not the reality. What you are seeing is a "Wikipedia conflict" between those who have a particular POV in favor of the movie and those who want to see that a movie's critical reception reflects its reality.

I'm not sure what you are talking about. It doesn't seem to match anything that I've discussed.

So, may I summarize what I perceive to be your intent? 1) Delete the "fringe" reviews of the New York Times and Newsday. 2) Include middling reviews such as .....? I await your specific ideas. Regardless, the reviews that obviously are not appropriate such as the ones listed above should be excised very soon. Thanks. Therefore 16:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You perceive incorrectly. I have made alterations that handle the issues in question to reflect the concensus of critical reviewer thought. Bbagot 19:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC) bbagot[reply]

It is not true that the consensus of reviews was negative. There were many positive reviews, and some of the main ones are already listed in the article. It is much more accurate to say what was said originally on this page, that the reviews were "mixed."

I can't help but comment on the reviews that talk about how the Stevens family was overly obsessed with material possessions, and that this portrayal is "cartoonish." Really?? I would say instead that this is an accurate portrayal of rich people and their behavior in America today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eameece (talk • contribs) 02:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Difficulties

Please explain what areas you feel still have difficulties. This is the forum to discuss. In retrospect I believe that your attempt to push through changes into the article before we had reached common agreement here, or to at least allow the previous neutral version to stand, were counter productive. Bbagot 00:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The difficulties are as lised:

You desire to delete critiques of substance.
You desire to include disallowed IMDB statistics.

I've allowed your additions, I now ask you officially to cease reverting my additions. I think over the past couple of days I've been very willing to discuss with little response. Therefore 00:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am following the standard that you made very clear your strongly adhere to as you quoted it twice:

"We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute."

You have chosen to quote views on the film that are held by 2 of the 52 reviews; that smacks of undue weight.

Perhaps if you feel IMDB statistics are not allowed then it would be prudent to show where this is presented instead of simply stating it and reverting.

My additions are next to useless if I'm striving for accurate portrayal of review concensus and you seek obtuse references with undue weight. Unless I were to put back the glowing reviews of the movie, it is quite unbalanced.

I think you will find I have written and tried to write extensively to reach a common understanding. I think you will also find that forcing your changes into the current article was a mistake until we had talked further. Without concensus, the previous neutral version should have been allowed to stand. This prevents exactly the type of difficulties we have been having. I am reverting to the neutral version that was in place for pretty much a month before our recent differences. This is the appropriate action for now and does not mean it will stay, but we need to have more common understanding before putting forth a finished product.

I also request again that as much as possible the talk section be used for discussion and if it is necessary to create new forms of the article, that the edit summary section only be used to describe the action taken, not make accusations.

Thank you Bbagot 01:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the 2nd time you have reverted my edit. I am officially, for the second time, asking you not to revert a 3rd time. You have had problems with the 3rr rule in the past, don't repeat it. Thanks. Therefore 01:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what do you think this has solved? Refusing to go back to the last neutral version, refusing to talk, and forcing the version that you want to see are hardly recipes for coming up with a version both people can agree to and support. Is this really what you prefer? Bbagot 01:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the last version that you agreed too (go ahead and add back in the IMDB, and I'll get arbitration on that issue) and added the more complete reviews of the two major reviewers. You have deleted these additions twice. I'm asking that you don't repeat it. Therefore 01:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we had a version we agreed to, we would not still be here in talk. Bbagot 06:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB User Ratings

Bbagot -- I have initiated a discussion about using IMDB User Ratings at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#IMDB User Ratings. Please come and read and participate. Consensus is that IMDB user ratings are inaccurate gauges of audience reception. Therefore 22:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that a bit like telling me that I'm involved in a trial, but, by the way, there's already a verdict? Bbagot 22:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be accurate if a) I hadn't mentioned above that that was my intent and b) if I hadn't informed you on April 13th on your talk page. Therefore 22:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here is the quote from your talk page:

Bbagot -- I have initiated a discussion about using IMDB User Ratings at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#IMDB User Ratings. Please come and read and participate. Consensus is that IMDB user ratings are inaccurate gauges of audience reception. Thanks.Therefore 22:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You are repeating what you said above, and it still doesn't answer the obvious. Why did you only tell me you started the discussion 2 1/2 hours after you opened the issue and only after you believed there was a concensus against me? Bbagot 22:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mischaracterize my intent and imply a lack of good faith -- please read up on assuming good faith. The discussion went on for 5 days and you had ample opportunity to discuss. I had asked that they respond here and they thought it better if I informed you. I did immediately. Consensus was quick because it is a natural corollary to the rule concerning IMDB reviews -- as one editor wrote, "what exactly is at issue here?" Anyhow, that's my last word on the matter. Therefore 22:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOVisation

There was lots of promotion of this absolutely terrible film in this article; I removed it, as well as the promotion of one of the actresses in the movie. Titanium Dragon 07:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cast: "the well-known actor..."

From the "Cast and crew" section - "James Garner, the well-known actor, plays the mysterious Red Stevens. In the leading male role is Drew Fuller, the well-known TV actor from WB's long-running series Charmed."
I think this section is not written well. I would prefer a simple actor-character format, each on a different line. Agreed? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agreed. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 06:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]