Talk:Viking (2016 film)

Reception

184.170.80.19, Kritikanstvo and Megacritic are not web forums. They're review aggregators, Russian equivalents to Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, respectively. The pages I linked at are collections of links and quotes from reviews by professional Russian issues, including Afisha, Film.ru, GQ Russia, Gazeta.ru and TimeOut, as well as their average rating of the movie. Currently Kritikanstvo shows 55 out of 100, and Megacritic shows 59 out of 100, which, I believe, should be described as "mixed reception".

You might have been misled by the fact that Megacritic also publishes user reviews. But so do both RT and Metacritic. User ratings are counted separately and they don't affect the aggregated score of the professional reviewers. Beaumain (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

WHY was the movie poster pic deleted? It was the heatrical release poster, all Hollywood films on Wikipedia have such a pic of the poster. What made this so different? Please explain, I am not interested in arguing for argument sake, it just seems strange. Star Wars can have a Star Wars poster, bt not this film. VsanoJ (talk) 05:02, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• It was wrongly uploaded to Commons, which is only for copyright-free material. Poster, since it's copyrighted, should be uploaded right here, to Wikipedia itself, with a Fair Use license. Check out the page of Star Wars poster, it includes a block called "Non-free media information and use rationale – non-free film poster". Viking poster will need the same. Beaumain (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Is this a translation?

"The total box office grossing of the painting". Am I the first to notice that? I believe no one actually read this page, at least not beyond the lead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.217.185.138 (talk) 20:33, 27 January 2021 (UTC)