Talk:Fifty Shades of Grey (film)

Page protection

Anybody else feel a page protection for this page? Vandalism continues from users whom aren't fan of the series which in turn is hate speech. Callmemirela (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Why is there page protection on this page? The plot summary reads like it came straight of the back of the DVD box. I could fix that, if the page weren't protected...159.83.182.14 (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It is protected because there is persistent vandalism from people whom aren't fan of the series. Not liking it is one thing, but adding hate vandalism is another thing. If you want to edit, request an edit here on the talk page, and it should be reviewed as soon as users are available. Callmemirela (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm interested to know what "vandalism" you are talking about. I've been looking through the edit history and can't see any "vandalism". Please remember that the article is not meant to be a fan page, and that people whose edits who make the movie look bad are not necessarily engaged in what you call "hate speech". A majority of critics consider the film to be almost as poor as the books, and that should be reflected in the article.

Please pay attention to the date. This was in December. I requested a page protection back then, because there was vandalism. I don't know which category the vandalism falls into, but many editors were adding and changing the article into content that negatively impacts it. For example, changing the genre from romantic to porn. Here is what I am talking about:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]
5. [6]
6. [7]
7. [8]
8. [9]
9. [10] (on the left)

This is what I call hate vandalism. It is hate speech from users whom aren't fan of the series. Callmemirela (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, for a start, I removed several bits of vandalism on Feb 16 by the user Nessuna. There might have been more since, I don't know. Popcornduff (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Sequels

Is there any evidence Fifty Shades Darker and Fifty Shades Freed been made into films as well?--58.7.80.222 (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

No, which is why it has not been mentioned in the article. Callmemirela (talk) 01:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Well there is now.--106.68.23.249 (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2014

Rachel Skarsten is part of the cast as Andrea. Can you please include her in the cast list? thanks Tainteddd (talk) 08:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Done -From next, please provide reliable sources that support the changes you want to be made. It'd make things easier. Cheers! Anupmehra -Let's talk! 19:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Separate article for soundtrack?

Worth forking the soundtrack content to Fifty Shades of Grey (soundtrack)? Two singles have already been released and the album contains many notable artists and tracks. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

That is what I had thought about, but I wanted to wait until an official soundtrack photo was released. Callmemirela (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Crazy in Love

Boots is a featured artist on the 2014 version of Crazy in Love. Also, Shawn "Jay Z" Carter only wrote his verse in the original version, so he should be taken out as a writer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.153.112.134 (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Jay Z is billed as a songwriter on the original song, so any re-recordings of the song, regardless of whether they feature his rap or not, will credit him as a writer. It's also a matter of verifiability. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Rating

Should we include ratings from other countries or just leave it to USA and/or Canada? Callmemirela (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2015

On February 4, it is revealed that the film will not be shown in cinemas in Malaysia. The film was banned by the Film Censorship Board of Malaysia for being unfit for the Malaysian audience, calling the flick more like "pornography than a movie". "The board made a decision in view of the film containing scenes that are not of natural sexual content. The content is more sadistic, featuring scenes of a woman being tied to a bed and whipped," [chairman] Abdul Halim said.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 05:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Controversies

Before I start content dispute, I would like to know why the controversy section has its own section. Please view The Hunger Games (film). The controversy has its own subsection and it is based on the movie. Please clarify this before I make changes once more. Plus, someone edit what I had done, which to how I previously left it.Callmemirela (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Callmemirela edit reversions

I've been having some difficulty with Callmemirela, who has been engaging in blanket edit reversions on the basis that "some of your edits don't meet the grammar of the English language (sic)". Mr Callmemirela has invited me to start a discussion about his reversions. He is evidently not a native English speaker and is mistaken in his assertion that the edits are ungrammatical. It would be nice if Mr. Callmemirela would be more restrained with his reversions.

Newzild, first off I am a female. I am a native speaker of English, as I live in Canada. I consider this quite offensive. I participated in contributing on this article for a long time. Second of all, I had reverted your edits because they were written as they were for many reasons. It currently depicts the present, not the past. "As of [date], [...] has garnered over 55,000 signatures." I wrote this. That content should remain as it was. Why? Because it is currently talking about the present, not the past (action still going on). The film has not been released yet, and the plans of boycotting the film is still ongoing. That is one main reason for your reverts. It did not meet the subject verb agreement or type of verb for that matter. This goes on. Third of all, you are currently engaging in content dispute and have not taken the time to view WP:CONSENSUS, because you've created this section after your edits. I would not recommend you to do this again next time. You have not taken the time to use the talk page to reach consensus before editing the page again. Fourth of all, you've removed content that mattered in the section (Fandago advance tickets). And yet, you did not reach consensus with others. I will refer myself to the content dispute board if I have to, because you've made no efforts to reach consensus amongst other users before making edits without consent or approval from other users. It would be nice if you would limit your edits when consensus is being reached. (PS: Is this English enough for you?) Callmemirela (talk) 06:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Callmemirela: Thank you for your message which - while garbled, ungrammatical and replete with redundancies - does at least represent an effort at consultation rather than blanket revision. For that, I thank you. To respond to one of your allegations, I created this section because you specifically asked me to in a message. You state that I have made no efforts to reach consensus, but you have yourself reverted my edits without consultation. Can you be specific in your allegations, namely: 1) What is "offensive"? 2) In which specific instances do you wish to maintain instances of the article's un-encyclopedic usages of present / past continuous tenses? Which passages are you referring to with regards to subject/verb agreement? For the record, none of my edits have made substantive changes to the article but have, rather, been aimed at fixing poor grammar by a previous editor or editors. With regards to my editing qualifications, I am the former chief reporter of a daily newspaper, I have a Master's degree in Applied Linguistics, and am currently employed as a trainer of English teachers.

Newzild As any civilized user, I expected you, with someone over 800 edits I believe, to be aware of how Wikipedia works. Consensus must be final before returning to the same edits that were reverted. I reverted your edits only once or twice to avoid edit warring. As any other user would have done is the first revert. Then the second if necessary. I told you that it was written like that because it was meant to. I reviewed my own edits to make sure that it was English appropriate. I reverted them because there were reasons why it was written as it was. I would like for it to be back to normal where the grammar was fine. It had not caused any issues. 1) What I considered offensive was that you came out and said that I am not a native speaker of English whilst I am, and you've referred to me as a male when my user page says otherwise. As another user, I would expect some research to be done or refer to me as "they". Does Mirela sound like a man to you? It is my real name. 2) Please refer to my previous message (I've edited it since you posted your reply). For another use of examples, there was one edit about the cinema's name. The sources I provided included the exclamation point, and it will remain that way. Would you like another example? According to sources, it was the president of the cinemas that spoke. Not the cinema itself. I have a list of examples that proves what I've written is correct. I don't mean to cause any harm of any kind, but your occupation or degrees do not exactly matter in terms of editing Wikipedia. Callmemirela (talk) 07:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Callmemirela: I'm sorry if I got your gender wrong. Your user name gives no clue as to your gender. As for your command of the English language, I'm sorry to say that your grammar is rather poor. Nearly all of my edits to the article have been aimed at fixing poor grammar, removing redundancies and enhancing parsimony. I have not made any substantive edits to the article and I have not removed any important sections. There is no need for consultation on minor edits such as the ones I have made. Please endeavour to follow Wikipedia's style manual with your future edits.

With regards to English style on Wikipedia, I invite you to visit the Talk page on your article about Brett Dier, where I identify no less than seven problems with style and grammar within a single paragraph. I have not edited that article, as you appear to be emotionally attached to those articles in which you take an interest. But please do visit the Talk page there and try to understand my suggested edits.

With regards to "As of [date], [...] HAS garnered OVER 55,000 signatures.", that passage should be written "As of [date], [...] HAD garnered MORE THAN 55,000 signatures." I would refer you to the Wikipedia style manual for a fuller understanding of these two quite basic grammar points.

critical reception

"The film received mixed reviews from critics."

think it's fair to mention mostly negative. with a 4.2/10 rotten tomatoes and 47/100 metacritic, it's tough to say mix reviews with a straight face. mixed in the sense the reviews range from "it sucked" to "it didn't suck as much as i expected." for comparison sake, spooky doll movie Annabelle sucked less and article does not sugar coat that majority opinion holds it sucked. 63.197.119.253 (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

100% agree - ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.230.30.42 (talk) 10:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

NVM, looks like it's moving towards that based on recent updates. 63.197.119.253 (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. I've changed it. Popcornduff (talk) 11:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

This film has been universally panned by critics. 26% is lower than many of the heralded bombs like the Lone Ranger, yet the Critical Reception author spent far more time on the few positive critic's rreviews and a short paragraph barely mentioning the countless critics who denounced the film. Be objective, report the facts and the truth. This is not a press junkett for E.L.James or Universal pictures. If it's 74% negative reviews, you should have your content reflect that 3 to 1 - its not your job to sway arguments , its your job to present the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:1D82:4490:DD25:C4C3:CBAA:FD65 (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It hasn't been universally panned - the major UK critic Robbie Collins gave it a positive review, for example. Of the three reviews I personally added to the section, two were positive and one was negative; not representative of the RT score, but all three are from notable major critics and are worth reporting. (For your information, I haven't seen the film and have no interest in making it look good.) Popcornduff (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

26% - 4.2/10 average. How much worse do you want a film to be & how far do you have to reach to find a half-decent review for you to declare it 'Universal'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:6:1D82:4490:DD25:C4C3:CBAA:FD65 (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

This is what the section looked like before I put the negative and sort-of negative reviews together and moved them above the positive reviews. I agree with IP 2601:6:1D82:4490:DD25:C4C3:CBAA:FD65 that the section should mostly have negative reviews; this is per the WP:Due weight policy. That stated, the reviews don't need to state "The film is crap." and similar to get across the point that the film is not good. Flyer22 (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Lemaroto moved one piece to the "negative/sort of-negative" paragraph. Yes, when I first read the end of that text, I considered that the comment is more negative than positive. Flyer22 (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I felt like the mixed reviews were coming from the initial rating 4.6/10 not 26% of critics liking it. That's how Metacritic works. It bases itself by a specific score then calculating the film's average which gives the result of either being critical acclaim, average or mixed, or negative reviews. That's how I see it. 26% of critics approving the movie does not prove it to be negative at all. A movie could have, say, 75% of critics approving the movie with a score of 9.1/10, which to me is somewhat critical acclaim. I may be wrong. Callmemirela (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll point WP:Film to this discussion for wider input. Flyer22 (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Alerted. Flyer22 (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Metacritic shows that most reviews are mixed rather than positive or negative. Googling for "fifty shades of grey" "critics" shows that:

• Rotten Tomatoes says, The pundits say Fifty Shades of Grey works better on screen than it does on the page, but it lacks the requisite heat to register as a truly titillating treat."
• CNN says, "The verdict is in, and it seems that the critics have not been blown away by the eagerly awaited film."
• The Guardian says, "The first reviews of Sam Taylor-Johnson’s Fifty Shades of Grey are in and the verdict is that it’s, well, solidly mediocre."
• Los Angeles Times says, "According to reviews, the film is in many ways a smarter if tamer entertainment than James' original, but it's hardly enough to set pulses racing."
• Detroit Free Press says, "Film critics are split, but most are saying it was a bit better than they were expecting – but still ridiculous."
• Reuters says, "The general take is that the movie, to premiere at the Berlin International Film Festival, is not as flawed as the books, widely criticized for clumsy writing and awkward plotting."

All this shows that it's definitely not panned outright. It's just mediocre. Per MOS:FILM#Critical response, the aforementioned references should be used. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, Erik. You think that all of the above references should be used in the article? Rotten Tomatoes is, of course, already used in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 12:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, the references show that "mostly negative reviews" really isn't correct. Rotten Tomatoes can still be used, but not upfront, since its categorization is simplistic. All the references don't have to be used since some repeat, but it seems worth mentioning that the film was considered better than the book but that it still was not good. Also worth mentioning that it lacked sufficient passion. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Erik (last time pinging you to this discussion via WP:Echo because I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies), I don't think it's necessarily a problem having the Rotten Tomatoes text as the second sentence, like the article currently has it. I state that since it's standard practice on Wikipedia to include Rotten Tomatoes text that high in film articles, right before the Metacritic text; exceptions are usually articles for significantly older films, like the Conan the Barbarian (1982 film) and The Terminator articles (basically for reasons that MOS:FILM#Critical response notes). Because of that standard practice, someone would likely move it right back beside the Metacritic text. And keep in mind that what Rotten Tomatoes relays about Fifty Shades of Grey with its critical consensus statement is redundant to some of the quotes you listed above. That stated, I wouldn't mind much if the Rotten Tomatoes text is not the second sentence. How about moving it behind the Metacritic text? Once we reword the lead-in sentence to reflect a mixed score, the Metacritic text would flow better coming second. Flyer22 (talk) 13:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this edit by Popcornduff that changed TropicAces's wording of "mixed to negative"; the use of "mixed to negative" is generally discouraged by WP:Film. That stated, as noted in this recent discussion there about lead-in statements for reception sections, WP:Reliable sources have started using "mixed to negative" wording. Flyer22 (talk) 15:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Man, I didn't even know other editors hated "mixed to negative". I've been editing it out for ages, but thought I was just a loose cannon. Popcornduff (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

LOL!! No, you're perfectly normal in that regard. Flyer22 (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment With the aggregators we have to bear in mind that Rotten Tomatoes categorises anything that is not "positive" as "negative" i.e. it doesn't have an "average" rating. If you look at the critics rating though, the average mark is 4.2/10, which would translate to a bunch of 2-star reviews. Metacritic awards a score of 48/100, and it only classifies seven of the 41 reviews as "negative". The bulk of them are "mixed". The Guardian is probably closest to the mark in describing the response as "solidly mediocre". The aggregators clearly indicate that the critics regard the film as a slightly below average movie but not a terrible one, and certainly not one that has been "universally panned". Betty Logan (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

As always, thank you for weighing in, Betty Logan. In my debates with Erik about Rotten Tomatoes, I've commented that I don't view it as simply rating a film as positive or negative, but I, of course, always understand what you, Erik or others mean on the "positive or negative" Rotten Tomatoes matter. I notice that you referred to its rating average score, like Callmemirela did above, and that is obviously a good way to further gauge the critics' views. Flyer22 (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

With this and this edit, I reversed the order of Metacritic...per what I stated in my "13:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)" comment above. Before I made those edits, there were more editors changing the Critical reception section to state that the film received generally negative reviews. Maybe the new order will help editors accept the "mixed" text. Flyer22 (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Judging by this edit by Iamthetruecreator (talk · contribs), I was wrong. This looks like it's a case where we should go with no lead-in summary. Flyer22 (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Section break

Comment - Regarding reception summary, it should only be added once all reviews are in; It appears as though the reception has settled, so, Rotten Tomatoes's average score is just below 5/10, and Metacritic indicates "mixed or average reviews". The majority of top critics gave it mixed reviews, so I would go with the Metacritic consensus, or mixed-to-negative, although I know some editors dislike using "mixed to". --Lapadite (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

"Mixed to negative" doesn't make sense really; it implies that the bulk of reviews are average/negative, and if that is the case we should just say that. That doesn't seem to be the case here though: Rotten Tomatoes says that 26% of the critics surveyed gave it a positive review, but it is an assumption on our part to say that the remaining 74% gave it a negative review. The aggregator simply doesn't state that; it just aggregates the percentage of positive reviews. If you compare it to Metacritic, only 22% of critics gave it a positive review, but only 17% gave it a negative review so in that case it is misleading to say that the bulk of reviews are average/negative, because it actually got more positive reviews than negative ones! I think even "mixed" is a misnomer in this case, because that implies a spread of positive, average and negative reviews. The critical reception on the whole is actually pretty consistent: Metacritic categorized the bulk of the reviews as "average" with only a smattering of positive and negative reviews; furthermore, it received a score of 47 on Metacritic and an average rating of 4.2 on Rotten Tomatoes, which indicates mediocrity. Personally I think we should state it like that i.e. the majority of critics found the film to be mediocre, and we can source it to The Guardian, followed up by the aggregator stats. Betty Logan (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Betty's suggestion on how to present the reception material in this case is good, Lapadite. And per above, I think we should either go with that or have no lead-in summary for the Critical reception section. This edit by Erik, and this edit by Iamthetruecreator (talk · contribs) despite being directed to this talk page via WP:Edit summary and pinged to this talk page via WP:Echo, make that clear to me. Flyer22 (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Betty Logan and Flyer22:, I agree that mixed or average reviews summarizes it best. It is the Metacritic consensus. Rotten Tomatoes' avg ratings (the percentage alone is essentially useless for determining critical consensus), for all and top critics, is 4.2 and 4.8 respectively, which is somewhat equivalent to Metacritic's score (47). Metacritic shows 25 reviews mixed, 9 positive, 7 negative, so the majority were mixed. The current presentation is fine by me. I think a lead-in summary is important and helpful for readers. Lapadite (talk) 05:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Lapadite (last time pinging you to this discussion via WP:Echo because I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies), but the lead-in summary is showing itself as not being helpful to readers, since they keep seeing it as inaccurate when it states "mixed." This edit by Israeldmo (talk · contribs) and this latest edit further show that.

On a side note: There is no need to ping me to this talk page via WP:Echo since it's on my WP:Watchlist. Flyer22 (talk) 00:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, yeah I temporarily added it to watch list. Currently, I don't see discord on whether or not there should be a lead-in; the content of the lead-in is the controversy. You should try to get an official consensus here then, on one of these: Mixed, average, mostly mixed, or no lead-in. Anything else isn't supported by Metacritic, RT's avg rating, and apparently The Guardian. --Lapadite (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

There is clearly discord; it does not have to be current, as in exactly right now, for that to be the case. The fact is that people keep going back and forth on that lead-in summary because, on average, people cannot accept the "mixed" wording. There is already WP:Consensus above to relay a mixed reception; as seen by Betty's proposal above, that can obviously be done without using the word mixed. And that is what I intend to do. Flyer22 (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not aware of past discord or consensus on this. I'm not sure if there is a 'consensus' here now, but it appears most editors above agreed there is a mixed or average reception. I don't know why 'mixed' is the subject of controversy since it is evident on Metacritic and RT. Betty's proposal above sounds fine. Lapadite (talk) 06:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

That "most editors above agreed there is a mixed or average reception," with solid arguments to back up those claims, is what makes WP:Consensus. Flyer22 (talk) 06:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The score has now dropped to 24% on rotten tomatoes so that needs to be changed, and that score means it is universally negative. Also 90% of the other negative reviews are left out of the critical reception article. I can provide many sources to prove this, the film should not have 'mixed' but generally negative. The reception on this page is not objective at all, it's like editors are trying theur best to put the film in a more positive light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamthetruecreator (talk • contribs) 02:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

"it's like editors are trying theur best to put the film in a more positive light." This comment is rather ignorant. We based the overall critical reception based on the score 46 and 4.6. That is mixed reviews. The reviews said that the movie was not the best, but better than the book. It was mediocre. Please review what we've written first. Read the reviews of the movies as well. They all say the same thing. 24% of the critics giving a score of 60-70 is not negative. Callmemirela (talk) 02:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

As is clearly explained above, a score of only 24% does not mean the film has been reviewed negatively. If all critics rated the film 2 stars out of 4, or 2.5 stars out of 5, or 5/10 then the RT score would be 0%, despite all the reviews being "average". The average rating is 4.2/10 on Rotten Tomatoes and 46/100 on Metacritic which does not suggest the film has been panned. The problem is not so much editors trying to put the film in a "positive light" but rather editors who are trying to put a spin on the stats. Betty Logan (talk) 02:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

After this revert, I went to look for WP:Reliable sources that report a generally negative review of the film and a "mixed to negative" review of the film; I found the following:

The "generally negative" reports

This "'Fifty Shades of Grey' moving cultural needle despite film's pans" source from Los Angeles Times states, "Reviews for 'Fifty Shades' have been mostly negative. While many film critics acknowledge the film is superior in quality to its source material, they suggest it's a low bar to clear."

This "Madonna Reviews Fifty Shades of Grey Book and Talks Sex—Find Out What She Said! (Shade Alert!)" source from E! states, "The film has received mostly negative reviews among top critics."

This "Review - 'Fifty Shades Of Grey' Is Abusive Gender Roles Disguised As Faux-Feminism" source from Forbes, states, "But an R-rated movie about bondage and kinky sex that’s getting bad reviews and opposition from many women’s organizations faces a lot of obstacles if it wants to climb beyond those numbers."

This "Fifty Shades of Grey review: is 'Cinderella porn' film any good?" source from The Week states, "But while movie critics have been mostly negative, scathing reviews didn't stop the Fifty Shades books from being runaway best-sellers, and producers will be hoping for more of the same over the film's Valentine's weekend opening."

This "Will the success of 'Fifty Shades of Grey' lead to more raunchy flicks?" source from Fox News states, "With a full fifth of its running time made up of sex scenes, 'Fifty Shades' proved to be a huge hit even in spite of generally negative reviews from film critics. According to film review aggregation site Rotten Tomatoes, 'Fifty Shades of Grey' scored a mere 26 percent – and was hammered with negative responses such as 'it plays like a long, boring business meeting,' 'such silliness' and 'a monochromatic misfire featuring only one shade: blushing pink." Flyer22 (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The "mixed to negative" reports

This "Box Office: 'Fifty Shades of Grey' smacks moviegoers with $30.2 million Friday" source from HitFix, states, "The Sam Taylor-Johnson drama has received mixed to negative reviews earning just a 47 on Metacritic and a paltry 27% approval on Rotten Tomatoes. That being said, 'Fifty' is still expected to pull in $80-85 million over the four-day holiday weekend. With a reported $40 million production budget, 'Fifty' is already a big winner for Universal."

On average, other summary reviews categorized the film as mixed; so it would seem that "mixed" is the consensus among WP:Reliable sources in this case. But the "mixed" wording is still not working out, and it may be that most sources will have reported that the film received generally negative reviews once the dust around this film settles. Flyer22 (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I definitely can't agree with Betty Logan that Rottentomatoes qualifies positive reviews as "fresh" and all 'not positive, be they negative or mixed or neutral' as rotten. Let's compare the values of Pearl Harbor and Fifty Shades of Grey on Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and in our judgment:

Criterion	Pearl Harbor	Fifty Shades of Grey
RT "fresh" percentage	25%	25%
RT rating	4.6	4.2
RT audience score	67%	49%
RT consensus	"...a tedious romance filled with laughably bad dialogue... the action sequence is spectacular though."	"While creatively better endowed than [the book] ... a less than satisfying experience on the screen."
MC Metascore	44%	46%
MC Critic Reviews positive:negative	9:6	9:8
MC User Reviews positive:negative	39:28	48:46
MC User Score	5.8	4.0
Wikipedia concludes: Reviews were...	"mostly negative", "very negative"	"mixed"

This is clearly extremely inconsistent. Even "mixed to negative" appears flattering in comparison, however <corr>not</corr> mentioning the term "negative" should be out of question. --KnightMove (talk) 10:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

In reference to this this comment: "I definitely can't agree with Betty Logan that Rottentomatoes qualifies positive reviews as "fresh" and all 'not positive, be they negative or mixed or neutral' as rotten." This isn't my opinon of what Rotten Tomatoes does, it is what Rotten Tomatoes states it does: "The Tomatometer rating...represents the percentage of professional critic reviews that are positive". If you compare the Top Critic scores on RT to those on Metacritic for reviews they have in common, of the 12 "rottens" Metacritic rates 9 as average/mixed and 3 as negative. Basically the "rottens" comprise the reviews that Metacritic considers average or negative. Betty Logan (talk) 10:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That's correct for some part, but inaccurate, as the critics awarding exactly 60 points are rated "mixed or average" on Metacritic, but "fresh" on Rottentomatoes (there are three both sites have in common, and probably a dozen overall). And then, the evaluation of the critics' scores is quite subjective. Is a review with 45/100 to be rated "average" or "bad", as the average score for films will be much higher than that? Metacritic chose to have a "medium" range between "good" and "bad", Rottentomatoes does not, but this doesn't mean they take their rotten tomatoes as "medium or bad" - they take them as "bad". The fact remains that Rottentomatoes gives the film a highly negative rating and consensus, and we ignore this when when attributing the film "mixed" reviews. --KnightMove (talk) 13:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

You are imposing your own interpretation on the statistics. Unlike the "fresh" rating which Rotten Tomatoes (RT) explicitly defines as "positive" they do not define what "rotten" means. All we can deduce from it is that the review is "not positive". It is rather telling that 25% of the reviews on RT are positive, while Metacritic (MC) only count 20% of them as positive: following that logic we can say that RT counts 75% of the reviews as "not positive" while MC concludes that 80% of the reviews are "not positive". However, Metacritic does not equate that with being negative overall, while Rotten Tomatoes does not equate it with anything. Betty Logan (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

KnightMove, where you stated "however mentioning the term 'negative' should be out of question.", I take it that you meant to include "not," as in "however not mentioning the term 'negative' should be out of [the] question."? Flyer22 (talk) 00:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

You're right, thanks. Shame on my English. --KnightMove (talk) 09:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

KnightMove, per everything stated above in this section, and per this discussion at WP:Film, I removed the lead-in summary. Any lead-in summary that is added back in this case, should obviously not use "mixed," unless quoting from a source that states "mixed to negative." Flyer22 (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2015‎ (UTC)

Flyer22, I saw someone mentioned the film got mixed reviews from the lead, and you removed it. I guess your rationale is that having no lead-in summary in the critical reception section means we don't mention it in the article lead either? I have no real opinion on the stuff discussed here and don't really care, but it worries me that we can't at least put something about the critical reception in the lead - it seems like an important point. Popcornduff (talk) 09:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2015

The article states that the movie opened in North America simultaneously, and then it lists the opening dates in countries outside North America. The page incorrectly list Mexico as one of the countries outside North America. Please note that Mexico is part of North America, and errors like this one are very misleading to students (I am a geography teacher). You may write U.S. and Canada as opposed to using North America is these cases. Thank you 76.185.56.74 (talk) 17:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Done Tony Tan⁹⁸ · talk 19:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Plot summary?

• Why isn't there one? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 06:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure, but I could add a partial summary in the near future. RocioNadat 10:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia editors are overwhelmingly male and none of us editing this article have likely seen the damn film. Popcornduff (talk) 13:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Dates - Opposition campaign

The "Opposition campaign" section starts : "On January 28, 2014, a campaign in the United States ... ". However, based on the reference, the real date is "January 28, 2015". 190.248.157.242 (talk) 18:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Done Callmemirela (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2015

68.192.51.118 (talk) 23:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC) Anastasia "Ana" Steele is a 21-year-old college senior attending Washington State University in Vancouver, Washington with her best friend Katherine "Kate" Kavanagh, who writes for the student newspaper. Due to an illness, Kate persuades Ana to take her place and interview 27-year-old Christian Grey, an incredibly successful and wealthy young entrepreneur in Seattle. Ana is instantly attracted to Christian, but also finds him intimidating. As a result, she stumbles through the interview asking questions about his personal life and relationships and leaves Christian's office believing that it went badly. Ana tries to console herself thinking the two of them will probably never meet again. However, she is surprised when Christian appears at Clayton's, the largest independent hardware store in the Portland area, where she works. While he purchases various items including cable ties, masking tape and rope, Ana informs Christian that Kate would like some photographs to go along with her article about him. Christian leaves Ana with his phone number. Later that day, Kate urges Ana to call Christian and arrange a photo shoot with their photographer friend, José Rodriguez.

The next day José, Kate, and Ana arrive for the photo shoot at the Heathman Hotel where Christian is staying and Christian asks Ana out for coffee. The two talk over coffee and Christian asks Ana if she's dating anyone, specifically José. When Ana replies that she isn't dating anyone, Christian begins to ask her about her family. During the conversation, Ana learns that Christian is also single, but is not "a hearts and flowers kind of guy". This "warning" intrigues Ana, especially after he pulls her out of the path of an oncoming cyclist. However, Ana believes that she is not attractive enough for Christian, much to the chagrin of Kate. After finishing her exams, Ana receives a package from Christian containing first edition copies of Tess of the d'Urbervilles, which stuns her. Later that night, Ana goes out drinking with her friends and ends up drunk dialing Christian, who informs her that he will be coming to pick her up because of her inebriated state. Ana goes outside to get some fresh air, and José attempts to kiss her, but he is stopped by Christian's arrival. Ana leaves with Christian, but not before she discovers that Kate has been flirting with Christian's brother, Elliot. Later, Ana wakes to find herself in Christian's hotel room, where he scolds her for not taking proper care of herself. Christian then reveals that he would like to have sex with her. He initially says that Ana will first have to fill out paperwork, but later goes back on this statement after making out with her in the elevator.

Ana goes on a date with Christian where he takes her in his helicopter, Charlie Tango, to his apartment. Once there, Christian insists that she sign a non-disclosure agreement forbidding her to discuss anything that they do together, which Ana agrees to sign. He also mentions other paperwork, but first takes her to his playroom full of BDSM toys and gear. There Christian informs her that the second contract will be one of dominance and submission and that there will be no romantic relationship, only a sexual one. The contract even forbids Ana from touching Christian or making eye contact with him. At this point, Christian realizes that Ana is a virgin and agrees to take her virginity without making her sign the contract. The two then have sex. The following morning, Ana and Christian once again have sex. His mother then arrives moments after their sexual encounter, and is surprised by the meeting, having previously thought Christian was homosexual because he was never seen with a woman. Christian later takes Ana out to eat, and he reveals to her that he lost his virginity at fifteen to one of his mother's friends, Elena Lincoln, and that his previous dominant/submissive relationships (Christian reveals that in his first dominant/submissive relationship he was the submissive) failed due to incompatibility. They plan to meet up again and Christian takes Ana home, where she discovers several job offers and admits to Kate that she and Christian had sex.

Over the next few days, Ana receives several packages from Christian. These include a laptop to enable her to perform research on the BDSM lifestyle in consideration of the contract as well as for the two of them to communicate, since she has never previously owned a computer, and a more detailed version of the dominant/submissive contract. She and Christian email each other, with Ana teasing him and refusing to honor parts of the contract, such as only eating foods from a specific list. Ana later meets up with Christian to discuss the contract, only to grow overwhelmed by the potential BDSM arrangement and the potential of having a sexual relationship with Christian that is not romantic in nature. Because of these feelings, Ana runs away from Christian and does not see him again until her college graduation, where he is a guest speaker. During this time, Ana agrees to sign the dominant/submissive contract. Ana and Christian once again meet up to further discuss the contract, and they go over Ana's hard and soft limits. Ana is spanked for the first time by Christian; the experience leaves her both enticed and slightly confused. This confusion is exacerbated by Christian's lavish gifts, and the fact that he brings her to meet his family. The two continue with the arrangement without Ana having yet signed the contract. After successfully landing a job with Seattle Independent Publishing (SIP), Ana further bristles under the restrictions of the non-disclosure agreement and the complex relationship with Christian. The tension between Ana and Christian eventually comes to a head after Ana asks Christian to punish her in order to show her how extreme a BDSM relationship with him could be. Christian fulfills Ana's request, beating her with a belt, only for Ana to realize that the two of them are incompatible. Devastated, Ana leaves Christian and returns to the apartment she shares with Kate.

 Done Thank you. This plot summary has been added to the article. (It should be shorter, but now we have a starting point, and it's better than nothing!) Popcornduff (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

REVIEWED and denied: Undone: This request has been undone. This plot is a copy-paste from Fifty Shades of Grey. Callmemirela (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Whoops. I wasn't smart enough to think of checking that. Popcornduff (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2015

The film became the record-holder for highest-grossing opening weekend ever in Hungary with 244.4 million Ft (admission: 182,165) taking over from Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (229,4 million / 244,440).

Varga Dénes (February 16, 2015). "Rekordott döntött a magyar mozikban A szürke ötven árnyalata". ORIGO.

145.90.66.110 (talk) 14:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Callmemirela (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2015

He states" I fuck hard I don't make love" They fuck in various places throughout the movie. She catches feelings. He almost falls in love. He kicks her out of bed to sleep by herself cause he ain't with that cuddle shit. He too eventually starts catching feelings not before he catches himself and tells Ana " i dont't romance." He confesses he was spanked by his dominant and now he wants to be "the punisher" and states"his time as come." Anastasia all curious say"lets..."

They proceed to the play room, no xbox, and he spanks the shit out of her 6 times. Then she realizes that this asshole is a psychopath to which she runs away from but not before she says "christian" in the elevator - random sequence.

 Not done Unfortunately, this would spank the shit out of the article's credibility. Popcornduff (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: This is not an edit request. Callmemirela (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2015

Idfwu101 (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC) When Anastasia Steele, a literature student, goes to interview the wealthy Christian Grey, as a favor to her roommate Kate Kavanagh, she encounters a beautiful, brilliant and intimidating man. The innocent and naive Ana started to realize she wants him, despite his enigmatic reserve and advice, she finds herself desperate to get close to him. Not able to resist Ana's beauty and independent spirit, Christian Grey admits he wants her too, but in his own terms. Ana hesitates as she discovers the singular tastes of Christian Grey - despite the embellishments of success, his multinational businesses, his vast wealth, his loving family - Grey is consumed by the need to control everything.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. This is a copy-paste from various sites, including IMDB. Callmemirela (talk) 23:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

New version of plot summary

This is an intentionally toned down version of the plot to at least provide a short synopsis of the narrative of the film without embellishment. Please try to follow this toned down version for at least a week or two while reaction to the film becomes more graded and circumspect. For the next week or two try to maintain the tone to this low-key version until the press reviews suggest working options for the future of maintaining this plot section.

Ana Steele is a college undergraduate attending college near Seattle and shares an apartment with her roommate Kate. Ana is assigned to interview a young corporate executive, Christian Grey, at his company in Seattle for the college newspaper. When Ana meets him for the interview, Christian appears to show an interest in her and, soon after the interview ends he arrives by "accident" at the hardware store where Ana is working part-time. After some ensuing small-talk, Christian agrees to participate in a photo-shoot which Ana requests to accompany her college newspaper interview which she had just completed.

The photo-shoot later takes place and Christian continues to show an interest in Ana. He invites her to stop at a coffee shop together. After talking some more to her, Christian is sufficiently impressed by Ana that he arranges to have a first edition of a Thomas Hardy novel sent to her home after learning of her interest in literature earlier that day. On that same day, Ana goes out on the town drinking with her friends, and calls Christian spontaneously after having too much to drink. Christian senses she is drunk, asks her where she is, and decides to go personally and ask her to leave the bar. Ana ends up passing out and wakes up in his apartment in the morning not having had any intimate relations with Christian whatsoever.

Not overly worried about this awkward start, Ana and Christian begin dating soon thereafter and Christian asks Ana to sign a non-disclosure agreement regarding their relationship during dating. Christian expresses an interest in exploring a subculture relationship with Ana involving controlled bondage. Ana appears to agree though she admits to be sexually naïve and that she is still sexually unenlightened and uninitiated. Ana and Christian soon engage in a sexual relationship along with some of the sexual experimentation which Christian had earlier indicated he wanted with her.

During the next few days, Christian begins to shower Ana with unexpected gifts and favors. Christian continues to express an interest in further sexual experimentation to which Ana initially consents and participates in willingly. Christian, however, continues to wish to keep Ana at a distance emotionally, which is upsetting to Ana. Ana then asks Christian to show her what he really wants. They have an ensuing sexual encounter where Christian shows an excessive desire to use his own variety of rough sex. Ana senses this as disturbing and not within the bounds of her more romantic expectations of Christian. Ana becomes resolved the Christian is wrong for her and that she believes that Christian's experimentation borders on being deviant and excessive. At her insistence, the two part company in the hallway outside his apartment making full eye contact as she departs alone in the elevator as the film ends.

This is deliberately a low key summary of the plot, and changes to reflect details of plot should be discussed on the Talk page for at least the next week or two until more press reviews and press summaries become available. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I find this plot rather something you could find a fansite or wikia. If you compare this plot summary to other plots from movies, there are differences. Am I the only one? Callmemirela (talk) 23:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Full RPP or pending changes request?

This section regards all participating users. We are all well aware that edit warring and content dispute has occurred on the article about the overall critical reception. As no one seems wanting to discuss this issue on the talk page and edit war (as well as other issues that can be handled), I think it is time we discuss about the idea of a full page protection or pending changes. It is obvious we will have to test it out and see how it continues to do. The current page protection is due to expire on the 20th February, and I am not risking to be overloaded with edits by IPs and users changing the overall critical reception then RPPing again. Please discuss this matter before requesting. Consensus is needed. Thank you, Callmemirela (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Personally I find "pending changes" next to useless. It is mainly cosmetic and you will still have to revert a load of IPs. Maintaining semi-protection for another week or two is the best solution. Betty Logan (talk) 01:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The acting wasn't "highly" criticised

Dakota Johnson's acting was mostly praised, for example. Say it was "highly criticised" is very inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.40.82.211 (talk) 09:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2015

Now that Fifty Shades of Grey has been nominated for a series of major film and music awards (including several Grammy Award nominations) I suggest a chart of nominations is added to the article. I have provided one below, but feel free to add your own contributions to it if it's necessary.

Awards
Award	Category	Recipients and nominees	Result
Grammy Awards	Best Compilation Soundtrack for Visual Media	Fifty Shades of Grey: Original Motion Picture Soundtrack	Pending
	Best Song Written for Visual Media	Savan Kotecha, Max Martin, Tove Lo, Ali Payami and Ilya Salmanzadeh for "Love Me like You Do"	Pending
		Ahmad Balshe, Stephan Moccio, Jason Queenneville and Abel Tesfaye for "Earned It"	Pending
	Best R&B Song		Pending
	Best Pop Solo Performance	Ellie Goulding for "Love Me like You Do"	Pending
	Best R&B Performance	The Weeknd for "Earned It"	Pending
People's Choice Awards	Favorite Dramatic Movie	Fifty Shades of Grey	Pending
	Favorite Dramatic Movie Actress	Dakota Johnson	Pending
Satellite Awards	Best Original Song	"Love Me like You Do"	Pending

--190.194.10.18 (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Below I provide a full list of reliable sources that show that the film has actually been nominated, extracted from the official sites for the awards:

• Grammy Awards:
  • Best Compilation Soundtrack for Visual Media and Best Song Written for Visual Media
  • Best Pop Solo Performance
  • Best R&B Performance and Best R&B Song
• People's Choice Awards:
  • Favorite Dramatic Movie
  • Favorite Dramatic Movie Actress
• Satellite Awards:
  • Best Original Song

--190.194.10.18 (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Done Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 07:27, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Ellie Goulding's "Love Me like You Do" was nominated for Best Original Song at the 21st Critics' Choice Awards but lost to Furious 7's "See You Again", as it can be seen here. The nomination should be added to the table. 181.169.76.161 (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Club scene/drinking

In the second paragraph of the plot it says:

Ana and her friends celebrate graduation, and, after drinking too much, Ana ...

That's a judgment

Then:

Ana spontaneously calls Christian saying she is returning the books and berating his behavior towards her. Concerned, he goes to the bar to find Ana,

I didn't see concern. If anything it was a stranger overstepping the mark, interfering and possibly controlling. Yes, a personal interpretation/judgment. As is saying concerned.

Unless there's a ref.

Dannman (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I've done the edit. Dannman (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fifty Shades of Grey (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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150209161808/https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/fifty-shades-grey-original/id956689788 to https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/fifty-shades-grey-original/id956689788

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) 11:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fifty Shades of Grey (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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120629041847/http://movies.yahoo.com/news/mark-wahlberg-talks-fifty-shades-grey-making-movie-213418827.html to https://movies.yahoo.com/news/mark-wahlberg-talks-fifty-shades-grey-making-movie-213418827.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.fashionnstyle.com/articles/12524/20131021/christian-grey-casting-madness-shirtless-scott-eastwood-vs-francois-arnaud-50-shades-grey-movie-actor-hints-rumors-twitter-2014-trailer-release-date-jeopardy.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131205021706/http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/134404/PHOTOS-Jamie-Dornan-And-Dakota-Johnson-Start-Shooting-Fifty-Shades-Of-Grey-Movie to http://www.entertainmentwise.com/news/134404/PHOTOS-Jamie-Dornan-And-Dakota-Johnson-Start-Shooting-Fifty-Shades-Of-Grey-Movie

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) 13:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fifty Shades of Grey (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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20171105201952/http://laist.com/2012/06/09/50_shades_of_patrick_bateman_bret_e.php to http://laist.com/2012/06/09/50_shades_of_patrick_bateman_bret_e.php

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) 23:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)