Talk:The Lost Daughter (film)

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: American This article is supported by the American cinema task force. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: January 2 to 8, 2022 (11th)

Current Winners — 2021 Awards — Boston Society of Film Critics Espngeek (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had to sit through this rubbishy film last night. I gave it about 0 out of 10. It seemed to involve a woman taking a child's doll and oddly, not giving it back (Maguffin). I expected to come here and find it was panned by critics. Instead it is held out as a great film in the "critical reception" on the Wikipedia page. Something has gone wrong (probably vested interests putting whatever slant they want on how good or bad it was, and no one else being interested, so they get away with it.) Maybe someone could look into the actual reception of the film, instead of saying it had "universal acclaim" (in quotation marks!). It doesn't look like it went to the box office, it simply went straight to TV. Wheatfromchaff (talk) 08:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wheatfromchaff You're using this talk page as a platform for your personal views. That doesn't follow the guidelines. See: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines - Åüñîçńøł (talk) 12:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some other people's "not so hot" views then. Please read your "Reception" section and compare to these reviews, and appreciate that you are totally misrepresenting, in you "Reception" section, the quality of the film, at least as perceived in the eyes of the ordinary film-watcher. It isn't the great movie you are claiming it to be on the Wikipedia page, which is the reason I have felt the need to comment here. Please adjust your "Reception" section to be more honest and not present mutton as lamb. Then you can delete my section here on this page as redundant: the Wikipedia page itself will contain a more accurate appraisal of the film rather than pretending a movie is great when it isn't and wasting people's time when they come to the Wikipedia page to find out if the movie is actually worth watching or not. You shouldn't be representing a movie to have "universal acclaim" in the light of these ordinary reviews, many of which point out it isn't a great movie: it's dishonest to do that and not what Wikipedia should be doing. Wheatfromchaff (talk) 08:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article correctly reports aggregated results of critics' reviews from the usual sites. Anyone is entitled to disagree (many people hate universally-acclaimed classics), and it's not the job of Wikipedia to report on random viewers' reactions. Look at any other film article. Unless it is universally panned, there is no reason to convey that the film is rubbish. The reception section always reports on RT's overall score, and sometimes Metacritics and/or a few film critics' opinions (including negative ones). If you can find a decent source and you can paraphrase the gist of it, you are welcome to add it to the article. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I've added a paragraph at the end flagging the (presently) 46% approval Audience Score on Rotten Tomatoes (contrasting with the 95% critics' score) with a link to the percentages on the RT page. Play with my wording as you like. If you are happy for something to be said along these lines on the Wikipedia page, you can remove this section here, it doesn't need to be here. It isn't a good movie (at least in the eyes of many) and that should be reflected on the Wikipedia page rather than there being a pretence of "universal acclaim" which isn't true. Thanks. 15:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wheatfromchaff (talk • contribs)

I removed your paragraph. Reasons in my edit summary, and warning on your user talk page User talk:Wheatfromchaff#Original research and personal interpretation - DVdm (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, idiot. What part of "If you can find a decent source and you can paraphrase the gist of it, you are welcome to add it to the article." - above - didn't you understand? Pay attention. And you haven't even watched the movie yet, have you. Wheatfromchaff (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Explain to me why it is possible to say the critics give the movie 95% but it is impossible to say the public give the movie 46%? Two attempts to say this in different ways, by two different people, have been deleted by you. You're dishonest (or you have a financial interest in the film, or are trying to please buddies). Explain, do. Wheatfromchaff (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note @Neohzq98:: I partly undid your content removal, as it was properly sourced and thus as relevant as the Tomatormeter, so I restored the content, but removed the npov "however" and the "only" part. - DVdm (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Audiences scores such as those from

Ok, thanks for pointing to that inconspicuous note in

WP:UGC. I hadn't noticed. - DVdm (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:RS. User voted web polls are not reliable. Sometimes editors do not know or forget to enforce the existing rules but they still apply. -- 109.76.209.211 (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Marchino61 (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Remember the

secondary sources

. You are not allowed to do your own original research. If it is half as significant as you say, then sooner or later reliable sources will point out the disparity between critics and audiences, and then you can quote those sources. (In other cases you might even be able to find articles complaining about the misleading marketing, but I did not get the impression that this film was promoted as anything other than a "serious" film.)

Until then editors can improve the article in other ways to give readers a better understanding of what kind of film this is. Include more about what the critics actually said, they say plenty of things about this film that they consider complementary that clearly mark this out a "serious" film that will be utterly boring to certain audiences. I found several of the reviews to be unintentionally

undue weight on the negative. -- 109.78.211.92 (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes. As soon as some other reliable (and relevant) source says that the non-critics audiences tend to dislike the film, we can add it to the article.

(My personal off-topic opinion: probably only those who have read and liked the book, will like the film.) - DVdm (talk) 10:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems odd that "The Lost Daughter" just redirects to Elena Ferrante's Wikipedia page. Surely if something is considered the primary subject for a page title, it should actually have a Wikipedia page. As it is, the book does not have a page but the film does. It would seem to me to make sense that this page should not need the parenthetical qualifier "film". 134.41.100.67 (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]