Jump to content

Talk:A Nail Clipper Romance

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]

(
)
Created by Prince of Erebor (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 22 past nominations.

Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 06:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC). [reply]

Sources
  1. ^ 羅偉強 (16 April 2017). "【指甲刀人魔】彭浩翔關智耀專訪 拆解人魔由來". HK01 (in Chinese). Retrieved 24 October 2024. 《指甲刀人魔》雲集兩岸三地演員，而香港代表僅得鄭伊健一人。在戲中作為唯一香港演員，卻不融入一眾內地與台灣演員中一起說普通話，到底為什麼有這樣的安排呢？莫非導演想令《指甲刀人魔》保留多一點香港氣息？原來導演與監製別有心思。「我們想演員以他最熟悉的語言去演繹，會令他以最自然的狀態去完成演出。」關智耀這樣說。而一旁的彭浩翔則從夏威夷的角色出發，他說：「我們在夏威夷所見的，就是很多華人根本就是廣東話與普通話夾雜。他們有一部分人從香港來，亦有部分從內地台灣來。因此我們覺得鄭伊健說廣東話，而其他人說普通話是很夏威夷的一件事。」無論原因是何，作為香港人的大家在戲中聽著伊健講廣東話，都會有多一分親切感吧。 [The film A Nail Clipper Romance features a cast from China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, with only Ekin Cheng representing Hong Kong. As the sole actor from Hong Kong, he does not speak Mandarin alongside the Chinese and Taiwanese actors. Why is this arrangement in place? Could it be that the director wants to retain a bit of Hong Kong’s essence in A Nail Clipper Romance? It turns out the director and producer have their reasons. "We want the actors to perform in the language they are most comfortable with, as it allows them to present their most natural state", says director Jason Kwan. Meanwhile, Pang Ho-cheung reflects on the Hawaiian context, stating, "What we see in Hawaii is that many Chinese people mix Cantonese and Mandarin. Some come from Hong Kong, while others come from the mainland and Taiwan. Therefore, we felt that having Ekin Cheng speak Cantonese while the others speak Mandarin is very representative of Hawaii". Regardless of the reason, as Hong Kongers, hearing Ekin speak Cantonese in the film adds a sense of familiarity and warmth.]
  2. ^ Ku, Daniel (6 April 2017). "愛情奇幻喜劇《指甲刀人魔》，張孝全、周冬雨夏威夷浪漫談情". Vogue Taiwan (in Chinese). Retrieved 7 October 2024. 到2010年，彭導與網路大電影合作，拍了名為《4夜奇譚》的網路短片系列，其中一夜就是由曾國祥和尹志文執導的《指甲刀人魔》，女主角更是找來周迅。當時影片獲得極高評價，大家都想知道故事的後續發展，因此彭導便有延伸為長篇電影的計畫，只是沒想到計畫一擱就是七年。 [By 2010, director Pang [Ho-cheung] collaborated with an online production company to create a series of web shorts called 4+1 Project, one of which is A Nail Clipper Romance, directed by Derek Tsang and Jimmy Wan, starring Zhou Xun as the female lead. At the time, the film was positively received, and everyone wanted to know what happened next in the story. As a result, Pang decided to expand it into a feature film, although the project ended up being put on hold for seven years.]
  3. ^ "鄭伊健去夏威夷拍戲勁開心 周冬雨讚張孝全性格夠獨特". Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). 9 March 2017. Archived from the original on 12 March 2017. Retrieved 7 October 2024. 由於全片在夏威夷取景，周冬雨因此愛上衝浪，她更透露跟監製彭浩翔一起衝浪有無比的榮耀感，彭浩翔學了七八節課，但她學了兩節就追上了。 [Since the entire film is shot in Hawaii, Zhou Dongyu falls in love with surfing. She also reveals that she was proud to surf with producer Pang Ho-cheung, as Pang took seven or eight lessons, while she only took two lessons before catching up to him.]
  4. ^ 翁新涵 (25 November 2016). "尷尬了╱阮經天緋聞女友 來台喊許瑋甯「奶奶」". Nownews (in Chinese). Retrieved 21 October 2024. 根據周冬雨表示，她主演的新片《指甲刀人魔》，有邀請許瑋甯客串 [According to Zhou Dongyu, in her new film A Nail Clipper Romance, [she] did invite Tiffany Ann Hsu to make a cameo appearance.]
  5. ^ Wong, Silva (16 March 2017). "'Love Off The Cuff' director talks Hong Kong festival opener". Screen Daily. Retrieved 24 October 2024. Despite his busy schedule as a writer/director, Pang takes time out to produce for new filmmakers such as Wan, Luk and Jason Kwan, the DoP on both Love In A Puff and Love In The Buff. The latter's directorial debut A Nail Clipper Romance, starring Zhou Dongyu and Joseph Chang, opens on April 14.
  • Comment: @Prince of Erebor: A few things stand out to me: the poor critical reception/box office performance? is played down in the lead section in a somewhat ingenious way, by emphasizing the positive reviews of the short film it is based upon. I think you should fix that as it presents a neutrality issue. In other words, summarize the reception in the lead, not the previous work. The other thing I noticed is that the article says the film took place in the state of Hawaii several times. While it’s fine to say that at least once, subsequent mention should specify it was filmed specifically on the island of Oahu in and around the city of Honolulu, if the sources can support that. There are also opportunities to link to specific articles about the Chinese population in Hawaii. Leaning towards ALT2 at the moment although I wonder if it can be made more interesting than it is with other details. More later. Viriditas (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Viriditas! Thanks a lot for taking up the review, but I beg to differ with both of your current suggestions. The "positive reviews" in the lead refer to the short film, which explains why a full-length feature was developed afterward, and this is supported by multiple sources. I do not find this description to be faulty. Meanwhile, I have not found any sources that comment on or summarize the critical reception and box office performance. From the current reviews listed, I do not believe it is conclusive that the film was poorly received, as some critics have given it 3.5/5 and expressed various positive opinions on the premise, themes, and performances. Regarding box office performance, it is also subjective to judge whether it is positive or negative, as arthouse films like this one typically gross less than blockbusters. I would summarize the box office performance as poor only if supported by multiple sources, like in Miss Shampoo or The Invincible Dragon. For your second suggestion, I have only mentioned the film being shot in Hawaii once in the filming section. The other mentions focus on different topics, like casting choices or creative decisions based on the demographics of Hawaiians. There are no specific references to the filming locations in Hawaii, so I cannot specify which part of Hawaii the film was shot in. I am also unsure if mentioning the specific location has any bearing on why the crew chose to film there or why Ekin Cheng was willing to join the project. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 18:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might have misunderstood me. By emphasizing the positive review of a different film in the lead, and ignoring the poor critical reception (3.5 is pretty mediocre, and there are other poor reviews and apparently bad box office results) that presents a neutrality issue. You will want to very briefly note the critical reception of this film in the lead, regardless of the positive reception of the other film. As for Hawaii, there are eight islands in the state. The film industry is in Oahu, but not all films are shot there. Given what we know so far, this entire film was shot on Oahu in and around Honolulu. This should be easy to source. I’m sorry we disagree. Viriditas (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Viriditas, I believe we are on the same page. My point is that the characterization of the film's box office performance and critical reception as "poor" is not supported by sources and is purely subjective. I see this as a form of OR. But I understand your concerns, and perhaps it would be better to remove the mention of positive reviews for the short film from the lead instead? Regarding the filming location, could you please provide me with the source that confirms the film was shot in Oahu? I conducted a research quite thoroughly while writing the article and do not recall seeing this mentioned in any English or Chinese RS. Please let me know if I am mistaken or have overlooked any sources. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 19:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take it one topic at a time; my old brain doesn't multitask as well as it should. First things first: can you briefly summarize the critical reception in the lead? Viriditas (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Viriditas, my answer is no, because I do not see a conclusive consensus among the reviews. Summarizing the box office performance and a handful of critics' opinions subjectively and labeling the film as "poorly received" is a form of WP:SYNTH in my opinion. But if you find the phrase "positive reviews" in the lead to be misleading, I am fine with removing the mention of the short film's reception. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 19:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I think we might be speaking past each other. Is there any reason you cannot summarize the critical reception section you've written in the body of the article and add it to the lead, to the best of your ability? Just in case you don't know, we summarize "mixed reviews" in the lead all the time. Maybe check out other articles with similar reception? Perhaps you aren't aware of this, which would explain the back and forth. There's several ways to do it, but the most common involve characterizing the type of review in the first part of the sentence ("The film received mixed reviews from critics"), and then in the second part, describing the box office results ("and became a box office bomb"). These are just examples. Viriditas (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Viriditas, I believe we are still on the same page. I am aware that mixed reviews exist, I have used this term in another recent article of mine (Get the Hell Out). In that case, the inclusion was based on a cited Rotten Tomatoes score of 5.9, so it does not involve original research. Many film articles lack a summary of critical reception exactly because of WP:SYNTH. An example that come to mind is Deadpool and Wolverine, where editors voted not to include a critical reception summary in the lead due to concerns about SYNTH. There are also no sources indicating that the film failed at the box office. While it may not have grossed enough to make the list of top grossing films in 2017, that does not equate to it being a box office bomb, and I still see the assertion as a form of OR. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 19:53, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but it appears that you are still misreading me. Please summarize the critical reception to the best of your ability (as I described above) and place it in the lead section. The specific decision and rationale not to include a critical reception section in Deadpool and Wolverine does not apply here. Further, that film received mostly positive reviews, so the dispute in that particular instance isn't really relevant. We know D&W received a positive, critical reception. One of the problems here is how accurate or inaccurate Metacritic scores are in this regard, and that led to the perception that D&W received a less than positive reception. That's really getting into the weeds, and there's no similar problem here. However, you could ask, did this film receive mostly positive reviews, did it receive mixed reviews, or did it receive poor reviews? Whatever your answer is, please briefly mention it in the lead. By describing a different film as "positive" and ignoring the critical reception in the lead, you are giving readers a false impression of what the reception was actually like. This is a problem. Viriditas (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Viriditas, sorry but I believe you are also misreading me. I have already acknowledged your concern that the term "positive reviews" could mislead readers regarding the reception of this film, and I proposed removing the mention of the short film's reception. (But if you find the phrase "positive reviews" in the lead to be misleading, I am fine with removing the mention of the short film's reception.) This should have already addressed your concerns about neutrality or misleading information. The reason a summary was not included in the D&W article is the same rationale for why I am not adding one now. Adding a summary (positive, mixed, negative, whatever) you are suggesting is purely original research and a synthesis of the sources. If there are no sources or review aggregators to support the claim that the article is generally viewed as positive, divisive, or negative by critics, then adding my own assessment of their opinions would be considered SYNTH. I am also somewhat puzzled by this conversation, as identifying OR should be WP editing 101 and my concerns about WP:V should be quite clear. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 20:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason a summary was not included in the D&W article is the same rationale for why I am not adding one now. No, it's actually quite different. It is not OR to summarize or to state the critical reception for this film in the lead and there's literally no connection to the arguments made in the D&W article, which received overwhelmingly positive reviews. This is why ignoring the critical reception in the lead for D&W is the default, as it received mostly positive, not negative feedback. I can assure you, if D&W had received a negative reception, the default would have been to mention that. By not mentioning it in D&W, the reader is not given information about negative reception. Do you see how this works? The opposite is true here. You are free, of course, to do what you like, but priming the reader with mentioning a "positive" review of an altogether different film while ignoring the poor to mediocre, to mixed reviews (and box office performance) of this film is a neutrality issue. I'm once again sorry that we see this so differently. Perhaps you will find others to agree with your position. Viriditas (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Viriditas, I must respectfully disagree with you. The editors who participated in the survey for the D&W article specifically discussed issues related to synthesis. While the film may seem overwhelmingly positive to you, there are also negative reviews out there. In fact, all four wording options discussed in that survey addressed the non-positive, divisive reviews. By not mentioning it in D&W, the reader is not given information about negative reception. The current critical response section also included negative reviews from like San Francisco Chronicle, The Hollywood Reporter, and one-star review from The Irish Times. So no, that is not the case. It is because reviews from an opposite stance exist, a positive/mixed reception summary would not be appropriate. This echoes my point that adding a subjective summary suggesting that the film underperformed based on what you and I think, constitutes original research. I have also repeatedly acknowledged your concern that the positive reception of the short film in the lead is misleading and have offered to remove that line. (I have rephrased it just now and I hope this address your concerns.) So I do not really see a reason to continue adding a summary of the reception and box office performance. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 20:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's definitely an improvement, but I do want to say that I see zero relationship between the argument made in the D&W discussion, which defaults to the absence of negative critical commentary in the lead based on all of the available evidence, as well as an indication that the critical reception was first and foremost controversial, and this article, which did not receive a positive reception and where the critical reception was not controversial. There's literally no comparison. I get that you are making this comparison, but it doesn't exist, IMO. Now, if you think the critical reception of this film was controversial, I am happy to review the matter, and if true, that is indeed, a supporting argument for keeping it out of the lead. But as far as I can tell, the critics and the audiences didn't like this film and it performed poorly at the box office. By keeping this out of the lead, it gives the impression of a neutrality problem. Now, with all that said, the question becomes, does it need to be in the lead? Aside from obvious controversies where representing the critical reception is difficult or disputed (i.e. D&W), I would say yes, but with the additional caveat that local consensus, as we've seen with D&W, can override this, particularly in instances where the default position doesn't deviate from the overall reception. It might help to get clarification from the film project talk page on this. They are usually pretty active, even during the holidays. The NPOV noticeboard might even be a better place, I don't know. However, keeping it out of the lead does not appear neutral to me at all. More so, if the sources emphasize that the film was received poorly with critics and the box office. So we are still divided on this subtopic. I would prefer to work towards an agreement on this with you, but I don't think that's going to happen. One other thing: have you added critical reception to the lead before in your other film articles that notes a poor, mediocre, or mixed reception status? If so, what makes this article different than the others? If not, why not? Your careful reasoning and answer to those two questions could conceivably bring me over to your side, leading me to drop this. Viriditas (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Viriditas , sorry, but I still only see you asserting that critics and audiences didn't like this film and that it performed poorly at the box office. Based on what is currently in the article, there are at least some positive to mediocre reviews, and the total gross exceeds the film's budget. It is hardly accurate to describe it as having a negative reception or being a box office bomb. Labeling the film in this way is just your subjective judgement based on what you have seen about the film and it truly harms the article's neutrality. While if the reception is mixed and the box office performance is merely average, whether or not to mention these is unrelated to neutrality and I do not see the urge to add such phrases. I am generally open to adding or removing content from articles, like I would be happy to include the precise filming locations you mentioned if sources are available, but this just seems like original research to me. I also do not see the necessity to escalate this, as again, I think this is WP editing 101. But I would not object to seeking a third opinion.
  • Regarding your final question, yes, I certainly do. Examples include positive reviews for Mongrel (2024 film), mixed reviews for Get the Hell Out, and negative reviews for The Invincible Dragon. My rationale for adding a summary is based on the existence of a conclusive consensus among critics' opinions. For these articles, there are Rotten Tomatoes scores, which aggregate all critical reviews and can be interpreted as the consensus of the majority of critics. There are exceptions, like 18×2 Beyond Youthful Days, where multiple reputable sources describe the film as both a box office and critical success. But in this case, there is neither a consensus summarized by review aggregators nor multiple reliable sources. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 21:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was this film a box office success or a box office bomb? In other words, did it break even by a large amount? When you look at the budget and compare it to the raw, unadjusted revenue, it looks like the film made US $34,000 dollars. Perhaps I'm reading this wrong? Also, your own source says it did poorly at the box office and implies it lost money because in that market romantic films do poorly. We're still not on the same page. I have not fully analyzed the critical reviews just yet so I'm keeping that separate until later. But it appears that in terms of the box office, the sources say it did not do well. Viriditas (talk) 22:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Viriditas: Yes, you have read things wrong. The film had a budget of USD$386,000 (HKD$3 million) excluding government funding, and grossed approximately USD$620,000 (RMB$4.49 million). I would not classify it as a box office success, and I am not well-versed in the film industry and cannot determine how much profit or loss the production company made based on these figures. However, it is common sense that a gross greater than the budget would not typically qualify as a box office bomb. Regarding the translated source, it refers to Zhou Dongyu's other film The Breaking Ice (燃冬), not this one (A Nail Clipper Romance; 指甲刀人魔). I am the one who added that source so of course I know what was written there... I have found no sources indicating that this film was a "box office failure". Please share any you might find. To be honest, I am starting to find this discussion somewhat pointless, as neither of us seems able to convince the other. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 22:31, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4.9 million including government funding, 3 million excluding. Do you really think I do not know what I typed in the article??
  • Okay Viriditas, let me be clear. I believe your request to add a subjective summary labeling the film as poorly received and a box office failure constitutes blatant original research and violates WP:V. Your concerns about WP:NPOV have already been addressed with the removal of the short film's reception (which was actually sourced) from the lead. Even if a summary were included, it would only reflect "mixed reviews" and "average box office performance", which does not relate to your concerns about misleading or sugarcoating the film's actual reception. Since not adding a summary would no longer have anything to do with WP:NPOV, but adding one could impact both verifiability and neutrality imo, I refuse to include these policy-violating claims in the article. So we can either continue the review and set this issue aside, as your concerns have been adequately addressed, or you may choose to seek a third opinion, though I believe that is totally unnecessary. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 22:55, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know why you think summarizing the critical reception in the lead is a policy violation. That is an extremely unusual idea. Last comment to address the previous ones I ignored: "If a film released in theatres fails to break even by a large amount, it is considered a box-office bomb." List of biggest box-office bombs lists dozens of films that made more than their budget. That is neither here nor there. To address your previous point, you said I was citing material about a different film, but looking at it again after your criticism, it appears to be referring to this film. Here’s the material I was referring to: 和关智斌、张孝全等人主演的《指甲刀人魔》票房449.9万元。事实证明，演员能不能扛票房真的不好说，有运气和选剧本的能力左右，比如吴京主演的《巨齿鲨2》票房不如第一部，还有沈腾演出的《超能一家人》票房才3亿多，所以没有演员敢拍着胸膛说自己主演的电影票房一定大卖。当然周冬雨主演票房很低的电影，其实制作成本可能也不是很高，但绝对都亏损。周冬雨很少演出商业大片，所以她的票房都不怎么样，爱情片的票房本身就不是很高，特别偏文艺片的电影。If that means something else, let me know. My reading of this (当然周冬雨主演票房很低的电影，其实制作成本可能也不是很高，但绝对都亏损。周冬雨很少演出商业大片，所以她的票房都不怎么样，爱情片的票房本身就不是很高，特别偏文艺片的电影) is that it is referring to both films. Also, throughout this discussion you have insisted that I have wanted to add a qualitative statement to the lead, but you ignored the original question mark in my initial comment, identifying that I don’t know what that statement should actually be. I’ve tried to explain this to you, but you keep repeating the same thing for some odd reason. The questions remain: "how did critics receive this film and how well did it do at the box office?" As the reader, I wanted to know the answer. When I read the lead, I expected to find out, only to discover than an altogether different film received a positive reception, not this one. That is my last and final comment on this matter. Viriditas (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Viriditas, yes, I have already mentioned that the source did not address this. The source lists the box office grosses of Zhou Dongyu's entire filmography, ranging from A Fangirl's Romance at USD 329,000 to Embrace Again at USD 129 million. Even if you are viewing it through Google Translate, you can still see the listings and it is separated into different paragraphs. So the statements you quoted obviously do not refer to A Nail Clipper Romance, otherwise the $129 million gross would also become a box office failure. And no, I did not ignore your statements. I have repeatedly mentioned that mixed reviews fall under SYNTH as well, but you have repeatedly focused on the poor reception you perceive in your replies, which is why I feel the need to address it more often than the other potential stances. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 23:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said I wasn't going to revisit the above, so I won't. The problem of synth in regards to critical reception in lead sections was a specific, local consensus problem for D&W, not for other film articles. This was because of the unique set of circumstances regarding the sources. This was made clear in the responses by the participants. You are extrapolating the result of an article content page RFC out to all film leads. That's not how an article-specific RFC works at all. See WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. It may be wise to get some input from the larger film community over at their project page. Viriditas (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Viriditas, this will be my final response on this issue as well, as I do not find this conversation progressing in a meaningful way. The reason I mentioned D&W is that you brought up "other articles". Just in case you don't know, we summarize "mixed reviews" in the lead all the time. Maybe check out other articles with similar reception? Therefore, I raised another article that also has a divisive reception and involved thorough discussions among editors regarding the decision to omit the reception summary, that aligns with the rationale I am proposing here. My intention was to provide a noteworthy example, one that is more high-traffic and has a relatively large number of participants in the RFC, to ensure we are on the same page and that the summary is not left out for other reasons or merely reflecting the consensus of a handful of random editors. Of course, I understand if you view the concerns raised by the editors in that RFC as specific to that article and reflective of a mere local consensus, as context always matters. I only hope this gives you a clearer picture of my and at least some editors' perspectives about the potential SYNTHiness in the lead reception summary. D&W is just an example, synthesis is my main point, and I have explained my rationale on adding these summaries as well. Perhaps we have different interpretations of the definition of OR, which is perfectly fine, as editors often have varying views on WP guidelines. I have already offered to remove the potentially NPOV-violating weasel words that has disturbed you multiple times (since my second reply), in hopes of truly addressing the issues. However, you have ignored this and instead continue to push for the addition of a summary that you deem necessary, without fully addressing why you believe SYNTH does not apply to the reception summary in this case, convincing me that the poor reception is supported by RS rather than personal opinions, or providing a new rationale after the NPOV concerns have been addressed. Therefore, as I said, while I would not object to seeking a third opinion to move this review forward, I still find it unnecessary because, to me, this is a clear case of SYNTH, and I do not find it beneficial to continue wasting time on it.
  • Regarding the source, Sino-Cinema.com appeared to be a WP:RSPWORDPRESS blog to me. But upon checking the author, I would not object that Derek Elley may be considered a SME due to his career at Variety, and the filming locations are not controversial claims that would require the best, reputable sources, so I will treat this as a SPS. It is a nice addition, as it even details the filming period as late 2014, while the Screen Daily source only vaguely suggested the timeframe. I have added it to the article. Thanks for your finding!! —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 04:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion requested. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:28, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Nail_Clipper_Romance&oldid=1253070603"