Talk:I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell (film)

Maybe we should include this movie on our box office bombs page. 98.246.190.129 (talk) 11:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Speaking of which, does anyone know how much it cost to make -- whether it broke even or not, or looks like it's going to? 97.77.28.210 (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Rotten Tomatoes Community Rating edit

Latest comment: 14 years ago14 comments8 people in discussion

Rotten Tomatoes is clearly getting gamed by fans of Tucker Max (I'll admit I'm a hater, but it's hard not to be when he gets his sycophants to engage in tactics like this). Most of the positive reviews are from people who haven't reviewed any other movies on the site; it seems Tucker is getting people to join Rotten Tomatoes soley to vote up his movie. The Rotten Tomato rankings (from non-professional critics) are worthless, and shouldn't be cited for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.104.39.2 (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Do you have any sources to back up your claims, or is that just your opinion? Wikipedia is not taking sides here, we just report the stats from Rotten Tomatoes and readers can form their own opinions. Jpatokal (talk) 02:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Jpatokal. However, I think including the exact Rotten Tomatoes community ranking is pointless, at it requires constant updating and serves little purpose to the average reader who simply wants information about the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.41.68.140 (talk) 14:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

It serves the purpose of letting the reader know that the opinion of the general public (or at least RT's contributors) isn't as negative as the pros. And there's no requirement for constant updating, I've tagged the current snapshot with a date and people can update it whenever they get around to it. Jpatokal (talk) 02:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

The problem there is for that portion of the article to remain relevant to the average reader, someone needs to update it every few days. A ballpark estimate of the community rankings serves the same purpose that you suggest (highlighting the disparity between the professional opinion and that of the general population), without the constant threat of irrelevancy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.41.68.140 (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Virtually no other wiki movie pages talk about community reception in any other way than box office (which is very low for IHTSBIH). Also, the RottenTomatoes users aren't very representable for the 'viewers. IMDb would be a better choice (currently a 4.9)213.46.115.79 (talk) 06:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

That's a good point. The clearest example of community reception vs. critical reception would be a critically panned movie that turned out to be a blockbuster or cult classic. This movie has yet to develop into either one of these. 97.77.28.210 (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

i agree that the community reception is open to manipulation and is therefore not to be deemed encyclopedic. this appears to be the consensus here. Theserialcomma (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Uhh... no. There are 148 community reviews for the movie on RT, why would the positive reviews be any more manipulated than the negatives from Tucker's equally loud haters? Jpatokal (talk) 10:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

who says tucker's haters are equally as loud? do you have a source for that? whether you like tucker or hate him, the professional critics (not anonymous tucker fans/haters) universally hated this movie. the "community" on RT is clearly skewed by tucker and his fans. in fact, tucker even posted on his board that his fans should vote positively on the movie, but the board is down so i can't find the link. and like the IP above said "Virtually no other wiki movie pages talk about community reception in any other way than box office," so why are we making this precedent for this movie - is it just to make a terrible movie look better than it was? that's not very neutral. Theserialcomma (talk) 15:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Actually, just by looking at a few random other movies, it looks like Rotten Tomatoes is commonly cited. Just pull up a couple of your favorite movies or recent releases and Ctrl+F for "Rotten" and you'll find it pretty quick. It's not Wikipedia's place to police Rotten Tomatoes. Listing the rating here does not make this article say that it was a good movie, it only reports the bare fact that on RT it received such-and-such rating. It's up to the readers to make inferences from that. If there are controversies with RT, then that is something to include on the RT entry, not on this one unless there is a primary source documenting specific manipulation of IHTSBIH's RT rating. The rating may be biased or manipulated, but that does not make the rating irrelevant by Wikipedia standards.173.16.14.193 (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Rotten Tomatoes' amalgamation of critics' ratings is cited often in articles; what Theserialcomma said is that the community rating at Rotten Tomatoes is virtually never cited, which I believe is true. Whether to include the community rating (which comes from random users with no qualifications, and is inherently prone to rampant bias) is the topic of discussion here. Propaniac (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Once again: it's a sourced fact that the movie got terrible critical reviews, and it's a sourced fact that the movie got somewhat less terrible but still not very good user-contributed reviews, not just on RT but IMDB etc. You want to claim anything else, eg. that RT is "clealy skewed", then show me a WP:RS for it. Jpatokal (talk) 10:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

yes, it's a sourced fact that the movie got terrible reviews from professional critics. however, using we shouldnt use the community review, as it's prone to manipulation - and it's a primary source. if a RS says 'the movie got terrible reviews but the RT community liked it', then it's worthy including such a fact. however, there is no reason we should use a primary source to show a score that can be manipulated. most other articles don't show the community review, do they? if so, i will drop my argument. if most other articles only show the professional RT reviews, then this article should follow suit. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic