Talk:King Arthur: Legend of the Sword

Film's poster

The movie's official poster has been released. It was released during SDCC and can be viewed Here! Needs to be added to this page.

Congratulations

Congratulations on making it to today's listing on the "Did You Know..." section of Wikipedia Main Page. The process of making it the listing takes a bit of effort and involves the quick cooperation of many editors. All involved deserve recognition, appreciation, thanks and applause.

Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  19:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Dragonheart template

How is Dragonheart related to this movie in any way? Beaumain (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Improving the Article: Why Did This Movie Flop?

I think the Article could be improved if it explained why the movie flopped. Improving the Article by explaining how the movie flopped would be a good thing. This Article would be greatly improved if it gave some explanation for why the movie flopped. One of the best-known characteristics of this movie is that it flopped, so I think the Article would be improved if it gave some explanation for why it flopped, because they spent 175 million dollars on it and only made 140 million back and everyone knows that the movie flopped by this article doesn't explain why it flopped, and if it did, then the quality of the Article would be improved.2001:978:3400:D:0:0:0:21E (talk) 03:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

We do not have independent reliable sources discussing this. As we do not include our own speculation, we have nothing to say. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Here's one of many articles I found from a google search of "Why did King Arthur flop?"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-19/king-arthur-and-an-autopsy-of-a-hollywood-flop/85401222001:978:3400:D:0:0:0:21E (talk) 03:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on King Arthur: Legend of the Sword. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150305164446/http://www.ssninsider.com/on-the-set-for-3215-matthew-mcconaughey-gugu-mbatha-raw-start-free-state-of-jonas-kickboxer-wraps-more/ to http://www.ssninsider.com/on-the-set-for-3215-matthew-mcconaughey-gugu-mbatha-raw-start-free-state-of-jonas-kickboxer-wraps-more/

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) 18:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The warning for "audience to stay away" in the lead isn't appropriate

The film scored 41 out of 100 based 45 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews", so the lead should say that. Moreover the quote in the deadline article isn't based on anything, he's not quoting a bunch of critics saying that, it's just his interpretation of the Rotten Tomatoes score. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.185.39 (talk) 12:14, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

We report the analysis of reliable sources whether or not we think their criticism is fair. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with the IP editor. I can't recall any other instance on Wikipedia where one particular quote is used in the article's lead to summarize a film's reception - on the other hand, almost every film article on Wikipedia includes a generalized statement about the film's reception being "mixed" or "generally positive" or "generally negative". If a quote were to be used, then it would make more sense to use the Rotten Tomatoes consensus, because that website is at least accepted as a review aggregator. But Wikipedia guidelines advise against using quotes and references in the lead section of an article when it can be avoided, so I don't see any reason why we shouldn't just say that the reviews were "mixed to negative" or something like that. --Jpcase (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

The argument the IP advances is that rather than using a reliable source's interpretation of a review aggregator's score, we should use the stock phrase generated by Metacritic's algorithm, which is not a reliable source. The quoted phrase is published in a reliable source, subject to editorial review. The algorithm spits out a stock phrase without oversight.

Do other articles do something different? I'm sure some do. Some of them might be great articles, some of them are horrible articles. Rather than imitating some of them and hoping they are right (thereby reinforcing whatever they are doing, whether its good, bad or indifferent), we have policies and guidelines, including WP:IRS. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia widely accepts Metacritic as a reliable source. That said, I'm not advocating that we simply quote Metacritic in the lead. We could say something similar to what Metacritic says, but we don't need to quote it directly. My point isn't that we should just copy what other articles are doing, but rather, that quoting one particular news article at random in the lead appears to be a violation of Wikipedia's policy on undue weight.

Including direct quotes in an article's lead is sometimes acceptable, but Wikipedia's guidelines on citing sources explicitly states "Citations are often omitted from the lead section of an article, insofar as the lead summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article". So using a generalized, unsourced summary of the film's reception in the lead would be in keeping with policy. --Jpcase (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

After reading the discussion, I do have to write that I agree that the undue weight-argument seems most appropriate and the sentence should be changed to the usual style of "mixed" reviews as is usual on wikipedia. The sentence would not pose an issue if it would fulfill the role of an actually condensed summary, but it does violate that role in two major ways. For one, the summary is not accurate as the film received not only negative reviews, but quite a couple lukewarm and positive ones as well, some of which are featured in the wikipedia-article, as is appropriate. The generalized sentence that critics "warned away" is thus not only presenting a more negative slant than is what the actual critics were saying, it also hurts the internal consistency of this page (it´s very awakward to read the faux-summary-sentence only to be greeted immediately by more than one positive review in the reception-section). Secondly, it violates being an actual summary by (the reason mention before and) using the term "warning away" which is a misrepresentation of even negative reviews. Not counting positive reviews and the argument alone that these should keep such a sentence from appearing as a summary, a negative review is not a warning. It can be interpreted as such, yes, but the review alone is just a rating/score/number/text that takes the object in question and rates it according to its internal rating-scale. While a one-star-review can be interpreted as a "stay way", factually, it very much isn´t such a statement. Even if there were reviews that acutally said "stay away", as some critics differ in writing-guidelines from others, the sentence is still a misrepresentation of what the nature of a review as it does not only omit the positve reviews to uphold the narrative, it also does so by generalizing reviews themselves and interpreting them as strictly warning- or approval-signs to be melded into an assumed consensus. This is the major problem with the source; it is a singular interpretation by a website and is thus already filtered through a subjective filter and interpreting the critical reception in a way it sees fit, only to be then again reused as a faux-consensus on wikipedia in the summary-section. But wikipedia does not interpret, it tries to state facts as clear as possible. This sentence does not generalize the reception as is fit for wikipedia, it generalizes it with an assumption it seemingly deems appropriate or representative, something which should not appear in a summary-section as it does put undue weight on a singular interpretation. Autorefiller (talk) 01:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

This is analysis from a reliable source. Reporting this is how Wikipedia works, and it's not undue weight. Your "mixed reviews" is original research. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not say reviewers warned audiences away. Wikipedia should not say reviews were positive/mixed-to-positive/mixed/mixed-to-negative/negative/soul-shatteringly-bad/ego-inflatingly-universally-positive/etc.

Wikipedia says what an independent reliable source said: critics "warn(ed) audiences to stay away". - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm still struggling to understand why we would use this quote in the lead. It comes from a random website, that while recognized as a reliable source, hardly seems to be recognized as a leading authority in film criticism, and it hardly illustrates the full range of opinions that critics hold for this film. As noted before, I believe that including in the lead any individual quote about the film's reception is a violation of Wikipedia's guidelines on citing sources, but more than that, the way in which the quote is presented seems to violate Wikipedia's policy requiring that in-text attribution be provided for any quote that express an opinion.

This article should not say, "critics 'warn[ed] audiences to stay away'", because that's not a statement of fact, it's a statement of Deadline Hollywood's opinion. Autorefiller is correct that a negative review of a film is not objectively equivalent to a warning for audiences to stay away from that film, and so if this article is going to quote Deadline Hollywood at all, then the article needs to state, "According to Deadline Hollywood, critics "warn[ed] audiences to stay away". We can't take one journalist's opinion and present it as fact. --Jpcase (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

This article cites the "random website" because it was judged to be an independent reliable source to summarize what critics were saying about the film. If you feel it is not a reliable source, you'll need to explain how you feel the source fails the criteria.

The quote was included based on the common desire to summarize critical response and the need to not synthesize one.

If you are disputing that Deadline Hollywood's summary is an accurate representation of what critics were saying, then yes, in-line attribution is a reasonable solution to that issue (Yes, virtually everything between extremes is an opinion. Is my comment long or short? Was it cold or wet today? Whatever. If you disagree with their summation, attribute it and it becomes a fact.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I never said that Deadline Hollywood isn't a reliable source. I explicitly said that it is a reliable source. My point about it being random is that it's a random source to single out for use in the lead. To quote this source in the article's reception section would be perfectly appropriate, but to quote it in the lead is to randomly single out Deadline Hollywood for extra attention, as it offers one, limited, subjective view of this film's critical reception.

If we're going to quote Deadline Hollywood in the lead, then we probably ought to quote other sources in the lead as well, so as to offer a more thorough overview of how critics responded to this film. For example, we could rewrite the lead to state:

"According to Deadline Hollywood, critics 'warn[ed] audiences to stay away',(1) although The Guardian noted that 'some critics were more generous.' "(2)

Something along those lines would, I think, mark a significant improvement over what's currently stated in the article, as it would alleviate some of the POV and undue weight problems. I still feel that the best way to go though, would be to use a simple, completely non-subjective statement in the lead, such as, "the film's critical reception was generally negative."

We're all in agreement that we should summarize the film's critical response in the lead. But that doesn't mean we have to use a quote. I'm familiar with Wikipedia's policy against synthesis and agree that it's an important policy to follow - I just don't see how it raises any concerns in this situation. WP:SYNTH states, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." I don't see how what I've been suggesting would be in violation of that policy.

The critical reception section of this article cites Rotten Tomatoes, a reliable source, to show that 31% of professional film critics gave King Arthur: Legend of the Sword a positive review, which objectively means that this film's critical reception was "generally negative". I don't see any other way to interpret that information, and the 31% score isn't a subjective opinion belonging to Rotten Tomatoes, it's an objective illustration of how many professional film critics gave this film a positive review. So we don't need to "combine material from multiple sources" in order to show that this particular film received generally negative reviews, nor do we need to "combine different parts of one source" to reach this conclusion. All of the information we need is right there in that 31% figure. --Jpcase (talk) 14:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, RT is a reliable source for what critics surveyed by RT said. Yes, their algorithm spit out "generally negative" based on the numerical score (without editorial review).

Yes, 31% of RT's critics gave it a favorable review. It is not "completely non-subjective" to say that is "generally negative" or that RT's selection of critics is "critical reception" in general. At what point would RT's score slip from a non-subjective "generally negative" to "polarized", "mixed", "mixed-to-negative", "mostly negative", "negative" or some other non-subjective phrase? 40%? 35%? 45%? Where -- non-subjectively -- did that cutoff come from?

Why are we using the phrase from RT's algorithm rather than Metacritic's algorithm's "Mixed or average reviews"?

I am not saying Deadline's summary is objective truth. I am saying it is verifiable material from a reliable source. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "without editorial review"? What kind of editorial review would you like to see for a Rotten Tomatoes score?

I suppose that Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic may not collectively include every single professionally published review of this film - but they at least include a very thorough sampling. Why would it be better to summarize this film's critical reception with the opinion of a single journalist, when we could use algorithms that have taken into account the opinions of numerous journalists?

I shouldn't have called the term "generally negative" completely non-subjective - fair enough. My mistake. There are certainly different ways of assessing a film's critical reception. Because the methods used by Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic differ from each other, those methods will admittedly result in different scores.

So perhaps there isn't any way to be 100% objective when describing a film's critical reception - but we should aim to be as objective as possible. A Rotten Tomatoes score may be subjective in so much as that Rotten Tomatoes subjectively chose how to set up its algorithm. But once that algorithm spits out a number, we can objectively state whether a majority of the reviews collected by Rotten Tomatoes for any given film have been deemed positive or negative. In this case, because 69% of the reviews collected by Rotten Tomatoes are negative, there's nothing subjective at all in saying that most reviews of this film have been deemed negative by Rotten Tomatoes. As for Metacritic, that website explicitly states that a 41 out of 100 indicates "mixed or average reviews". So there's nothing subjective in saying that, based on Metacritic's method of analyzing reviews, this film's critical reception has been "mixed or average".

Subjectivity will always be involved to some extent when summarizing a film's critical reception, because we have to subjectively choose which sources to base that summary on. But we can choose to use the sources with the least subjectivity. Because Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic take into account the opinions of numerous journalists, it seems to me that their assessments would be far less subjective than the assessment of Deadline Hollywood, which only takes into account the opinion of a single journalist.

So I'll revise my earlier suggestion. Instead of describing this film's critical reception as "generally negative", I would recommend that the article's lead state, "Critical reception of the film has ranged from mixed to negative". The Metacritic score for this film explicitly calls the film's critical reception "mixed". The Rotten Tomatoes score for this film explicitly deems negative a majority of the film's reviews. Both scores are discussed in this article's Critical reception section. It shouldn't be a violation of any policies on Wikipedia to base a summary of this film's critical reception on those scores, and doing so would be far less subjective than quoting Deadline Hollywood. --Jpcase (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)