Talk:I Care a Lot

What is going on?

What is going on in the Reception section of this article? You are allowed to not like this movie, but attributing a positive critical response to a fear of the woke mob is just speculation, which does not seem Wikipedia-appropriate. It is possible to dislike movies for reasons other than the inclusion of gay characters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:184:4080:B500:89DA:80FA:89F3:6559 (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Reception

This is ridiculous, the movie completely flopped for general audiences 2.3 out of 5 on rotten tomatoes out of 1000+ reviews, 6.3/10 out of 26,250 reviews on IMDb, 1.9/5 out if 5068 ratings on google movie reviews, but we are supposed to act like this doesn't exist because they are not "professional" reviews? So when you read the reception section on Wikipedia the movie is loved and adored by everyone out of 130 reviews for rotten tomatoes that is ridiculous, I tried to nuance this "universally acclaimed" statement by showing the general audience reviews that are in the thousands and extremely negative but apparently we cannot show general reception. When I made these changes I got it reverted right away with no explanation by 71.120.223.40 (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) when I added more content the user 71.120.223.40 (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) reverted it again with no explanation then a brand new user Mrpauliewalnuts (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal) (account created just after the reverts) decided to revert my modification again with this explanation "reverting back to original. "Critical reception" signifies reviews by professional film critics." I do not want to engage in a edition war so I would like to hold a vote here to allow or not the modification of the page to include the general reception of the movie that does not correspond at all with the "professional critics" this would allow for a better diffusion of the knowledge of reality witch is the primary mission of Wikipedia.HyperSite (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I vote Agree

Vote For or Against including the general reception of the movie

To vote please use  Agree ,  Disagree or  Not sure. 

HyperSite (talk) 02:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC) Agree

This vote solicitation is absurd. This is a film article and as such must abide by MOS:FILM, which includes a "Critical response" section. Good, bad, or indifferent ... opinions from film critics appear in this section.
And if there's to be an "Audience response" section added, it states: "This content is not necessarily intended to be a standalone section, or a subsection, in a film article. Polls of the public carried out by a reliable source in an accredited manner, such as CinemaScore and PostTrak (include both if available), may be used and placed in the appropriate release or reception-based section, depending on the available context, but the content is not required to be in a "Critical response" section. Unless quoting an author from a reliable source citing public commentary, do not quote comments from members of the general public (e.g., user comments from Amazon.com, the Internet Movie Database or personal blogs), as they are self-published and their authors have no proven expertise or credibility in the field. Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database, Metacritic, or Rotten Tomatoes (including its "Audience Says" feature), as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew." Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 17:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Self-Censorship

Your contribution violates WP:NOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:184:4080:B500:1CC8:1A32:23F0:13E0 (talk) 05:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

What are you talking about?HyperSite (talk) 11:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Your section "Difference of rating between Professional critics and Large audiences," which you contributed 00:43, 24 February, violates WP:NOR. You baselessly speculate that the sexual orientation of the lead characters makes critical reviewers afraid to remove a bad movie poorly because they are afraid of being "cancelled." The "Harvard University in Cambridge" study you used as a source asks political scientists to self-identify their political leanings and opinion about if "cancel culture" has gotten better or worse. Maybe I skimmed it too quickly, but as far as I can tell, it makes no claims about self-censorship of movie reviews by professional critics.2601:184:4080:B500:1CC8:1A32:23F0:13E0 (talk) 14:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok that has nothing to do with what is being voted on, that section has been removed and is not being debated, we are voting on including large audience critics of the movie, the speculation on self-censorship has been removed and is not being debated now.HyperSite (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Audience response

Per MOS:FILM#Audience response, user ratings are not appropriate to include due to their susceptibility to vote stacking and demographic skew. This includes RT's "Audience Says" reporting, which is based on the aforementioned susceptibility. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The Rotten Tomatoes "Audience says" summary was added in an edit from February 24: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I_Care_a_Lot&diff=1008740685&oldid=1008738603

Project Film discussed the "Audience says" feature, and on February 12 and there was a consensus against including it in articles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_77#Audience_says%3F -- 109.76.144.223 (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

No mention of the anti-government theme

It strikes me as a primarily anti-government movie, yet there is no mention of this in the article. I guess it flopped, but surely there must be more reviews than the comedy/anti-corporate ones. Seems like some more research is required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbowler (talk • contribs) 02:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the bit about the nursing home guard being killed

I was unsure about that being clear from the movie - and it would have been at least a little bit of a plot point going forward if it had happened - so cutting it was a good idea. 209.166.108.199 (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Why a *lesbian* con woman?

First sentence describe Marla as "a lesbian con woman." yes, she is in a relationship with a woman, but how does that relate to the plot of the film? I'm guessing that it wouldn't describe her as a heterosexual con woman if she were one. 199.181.202.24 (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Real Life

This happened to me in a local hospital where they were going to commit me as a ward of the state as I sat in a psych ward against my will. I was alone and terrified they would succeed. I have not been able to get representation to help me stop them from doing this to people. It is a corrupt capitol crime and a secret money maker for everyone who condones it and participates. From public servants to politicians. I know I am not alone. I got out of the ward only by the grace of God. Help me stop them. 2601:586:8200:6F90:D5C6:9492:E803:8FA6 (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2023 (UTC)