Julius Onah interview

Adamstom.97 and Trailblazer101, this seems useful. Especially his comments on what was planned and what eventually happened, including the Leader's looks. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference @Kailash29792, you can add any links you find to the article talk pages using the {{Ref ideas}} template, rather than making a new discussion for each one. You can also WP:Be bold and add them in yourself, no worries. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:02, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't have desktop access then, and I'm not much of an MCU editor nowadays. Partly because of their now uneven success? I thought the MCU regained lost footing with D&W, but this movie's response suggests otherwise. I just showed this ref as the director apparently addresses rumours and discrepancies in it. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rosa Salazar?

Should we include that Rosa Salazar is only in deleted scenes? The article only mentions her once and she's not in the cast HiGuys69420 (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The cast list should be reserved only for those who actually appeared in the film. Salazar is mentioned four times in the article in the Post-production section which already adequately denotes she was cast but her scenes were cut. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK nevermind HiGuys69420 (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 March 2025

This article is misinforming the reader by saying the reviews were negative. They weren't. They were mixed. That's not the same thing. 64.124.84.126 (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Reliable sources cited in the Critical reception section explicitly refer to them as negative reviews multiple times. Mixed is both positive and negative, while most reviews have been overwhelmingly negative with some praise for certain individual aspects; (edit) please review MOS:FILMCRITICS for a breakdown on how these sections are made. Trailblazer101 (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@HiGuys69420: Please do not change the reception wording without adequately discussing it first. My word is not gospel, as I was merely explaining the reviews to the IP, not making such assertions as definitive fact. The current wording in the article is reflected by the present reliable sources. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
48% means mixed. You guys might as well evaluate every other movie article and proclaim movies with a Rotten Tomato score at 49% or less as "negative", and movies with a Rotten Tomato score at 51% or more as "positive", with only those at exactly 50% as "mixed". 2001:8003:B431:C100:2DAD:16E0:694A:A5B6 (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
48% means negative. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RT itself says nothing about 48% Tomatometer rating being negative, 50% mixed, 52% positive, etc. You both are reaching/implying a conclusion not stated by the source and we don't do that. ภץאคгöร 20:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RT is also not the sole determiner of reviews. I think people need to relearn that. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Critical response wording

There has been a bit of back-and-forth recently about how to categorise the film's reception, so I thought I would start a discussion to help settle this. I have put together a summary of available, reliable sources to consider:

Based on this breakdown, I think it would be more accurate to call the critical response "mixed" using some of the sources that support that, but I do think we could note that there are some sources saying "negative" or something similar. I also want to suggest some improved wording for the high-level summary. Here is a proposal for updated wording in the lead and critical response section:

Proposal A

Lead:

The film received mixed reviews from critics for its story, connections to other MCU projects, and visual effects. The performances, particularly those of Mackie and Ford, received praise.

Critical response:

Captain America: Brave New World received mixed reviews from critics,[1][2][3] who were divided on the film's story, connections to other MCU projects, and visual effects.[4] The overall reception was also described as "unfavorable",[5] "negative",[6] and "mixed-to-negative".[7] The performances, particularly those of Mackie and Ford, received praise.[8][9] On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, 49% of 318 critics gave Brave New World a positive review and an average rating of 5.5/10. The critics consensus reads, "Anthony Mackie capably takes up Cap's mantle and shield, but Brave New World is too routine and overstuffed with uninteresting Easter eggs to feel like a worthy standalone adventure for this new Avengers leader."[10] Metacritic summarized the critical response as "mixed or average", based on a weighted average score of 42 out of 100 from 56 critics.[11] Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "B–" on an A+ to F scale, the lowest grade for an MCU film so far, and PostTrak reported a "mixed bag" average rating of three stars out of five.[12]

Any thoughts on this proposed wording? Note that I have removed "took varying stances on the political commentary" as that isn't really supported by the two summary sources. Once we have agreed on the summary wording, my intention is to rework the rest of the response section, including how we are handling the political commentary aspects. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favor of this revised wording as I think it more accurately reflects the critical responses overall. I think the general mixed reviews is on par while addressing the negative and unfavorable ones is a nice touch that represents what is being said about the reviews. Most reviews are not clear-cut nowadays and I believe this covers all bases from what we know. Nice work, Adam! Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adam, amazing work on this! I support this wording. BarntToust 01:18, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't support it, it's too bloated and for some reason prioritizes certain sources. Why prioritize initial reviews and sources like Screen Rant and Collider, which are part of WP:RSP/VALNET? It could be stated that the film was not well received by critics, with a note of sources reporting that the reception was mixed, negative or somewhere in between. It is not helpful to say "this is what it is (prioritized), this is what it was like ... but it was also described with (similar) phrases like 'A', 'B', '1B'". We also never synthesize (the Tomatometer rating etc.). ภץאคгöร 07:30, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be specific about what sources you think we should be using instead? Based on the breakdown above, the majority of sources say mixed but a few noteworthy sources say negative and I think it is better to just tell people that rather than cherry picking certain sources to claim one or the other. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:55, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think how film reception has been written has gone largely unchecked over the years and with reception being more generally less clear cut than it may have been in the past, we as an encyclopedia ought to reflect what all sources cover, especially when it is broadly different. Things can change. While I don't think prioritizing the aggregate sources to prove the point is the way to go, there are plenty of other sources which support this wording, whether you like it or not. This film's reception is not one or the other, it clearly varies as not everyone can possibly be on the same page, so this article should reflect that. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Critical receptions of films don't have Ebert-levels of dissection today, it's sad to note. Maybe there should be reform in whether we as an encyclopedia should call such a subjective interpretation of an aspect of a film in Wikivoice, or none at all, with us just pointing out the areas of common commentary on films. Until reform though, we are meant to summarize critical reception, so here we go. It's about time honestly that RSP deprecates RT, they count "reviews" from randos on random blogs, not encyclopedic value at all. BarntToust 19:10, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the sources do not support adamstom97's specific wording here. They just state "mixed", "negative", "many critics dissed the movie", etc., not the paragraph proposal above. I literally wrote "sources reporting that the reception was mixed, negative or somewhere in between" so I'm clearly saying that it varies as well and we can even count them and maybe see it leaning more towards one or the other. However, it's adamstom97's current wording that I find problematic so why not use better wording with better sources than Screen Rant and Collider? For example Variety, EW, TheWrap (and RT editorial) from above and these new sources:
Would it be beneficial to somewhat restore that wording by saying something along the lines of the film received "mixed-to-negative" reviews before explaining that some critics deemed it unfavorable. My analysis of the sources is that it has been described as both mixed and negative enough to the point where we cannot solely determine one or the other as the primary critical response. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At one point (god only knows what it looks like now), but to cite some precedent: on DP&W, we came to an impasse on critical response with a dozen or so sources saying it was "mixed" / "divisive", while another dozen said it was generally positively received. A consensus developed that per WP:RECEPTION, there should be common points of praise and derision pointed out in the prose, and the reception being worded like so: "[aspects A and B] were the subject of praise, while [aspects C and D] were not well received".
In CA:BNW, a potential sentence summary would be "critics praised Ford and Mackie's performances, while criticism was levelled towards the film's narrative and political content". But perhaps the criticism was more notable and prevalent than the praise? "The film received criticism for its narrative, political content and characterization, though the performances of Ford and Mackie were praised".
I think that unless it is commonly agreed in reliable sources that something is acclaimed, like Don Quixote or TLoU, or objectively terrible, in the case of Cats (2019 film) it's almost laughable in the practice's uselessness to look at subjective opinions of publications on the reception of mid films such as these. Some publications think "average is average. Not terrible, not great"; other publications think "if it's not awesome, it's just a waste of space on a film reel and is cultural pollution". So, those who believe in a scale will give it an analog rating, and those who think that if the film isn't a win, it's a loss will say otherwise. I mean, are we going to look at two different ways to skin a cat (to judge the reception of a film receiving middling reviews) and try to come to one conclusion? I should hope not. BarntToust 21:18, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am failing to see what Nyxaros's issues are with my wording. They suggested we do a round-up of sources to determine whether they are leaning towards "mixed" or "negative", well that is what I have done above and I think "mixed" is the clear winner. I intentionally left out The Independent in my round-up because those sources appeared to be talking about initial social media responses, not actual full reviews from critics. I have done no WP:SYNTHesizing, everything I put in my proposal comes directly from the sources. I'm not sure we could describe the reception as "mixed-to-negative" in Wikipedia's voice, because there aren't many sources using that wording and the meaning of that phrase has always been a bit vague. I still think my proposed wording above is completely accurate to the sources, but if there is consensus that there are not enough good quality sources saying "mixed" then we could include it in the list of quoted descriptions and avoid a simple categorization in the lead, as was done with Deadpool & Wolverine. Here is an example of possible alternate wording:

Proposal B

Lead:

Critics were divided on the film's story, connections to other MCU projects, and visual effects. The performances, particularly those of Mackie and Ford, received praise.

Critical response:

The overall reception to Captain America: Brave New World has been described as "unfavorable",[13] "mixed",[14] "negative",[15] and "mixed-to-negative".[16] Critics were divided on the film's story, connections to other MCU projects, and visual effects. The performances, particularly those of Mackie and Ford, received praise.[17][18] On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, 49% of 318 critics gave Brave New World a positive review and an average rating of 5.5/10. The critics consensus reads, "Anthony Mackie capably takes up Cap's mantle and shield, but Brave New World is too routine and overstuffed with uninteresting Easter eggs to feel like a worthy standalone adventure for this new Avengers leader."[19] Metacritic summarized the critical response as "mixed or average", based on a weighted average score of 42 out of 100 from 56 critics.[20] Audiences polled by CinemaScore gave the film an average grade of "B–" on an A+ to F scale, the lowest grade for an MCU film so far, and PostTrak reported a "mixed bag" average rating of three stars out of five.[21]

My vote is still for proposal A, but I am happy to go with proposal B as a compromise. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:27, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both links from The Independent clearly state "negative reviews from critics", so they are reviews from critics, not "initial social media responses".
Sentences such as "RT is at 49 percent which could be described as "mixed"" are WP:SYNTH.
I did not suggest we do a round-up of sources, the current version of the article already has that and you wanted to do that, I just pointed out that with these new sources we could even do that to determine whether there is a majority or not. The main issue I brought up was the quality of the sources and the wording.
Look at the wording of Black Adam (film)#Critical response and Joker: Folie à Deux#Critical response, for example. I think a similar treatment can be given here because I think the wording in those articles is better than these proposals (especially the first proposal). ภץאคгöร 10:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Independent sources are attributing the phrase "negative reviews" to a previous article that is not linked properly, and the only previous article I could find that they may be linking to is this one which is specifically about initial social media responses. So yes, those sources do say "negative reviews from critics" and we could take that at face value, but I don't think it is wrong to be cautious about that.
"RT is at 49 percent which could be described as "mixed"" -- this is not in either of my proposals for wording to go in the article.
You literally said "we can even count them and maybe see it leaning more towards one or the other", that is the same as what I said: a round-up of sources to determine whether they are leaning towards "mixed" or "negative". And as noted, I have already done that round-up at the start of this discussion and sources are leaning more towards "mixed" than they are "negative".
I disagree that was not well received by critics is better wording than my suggestions. We can be more specific than that. The wording at Joker: Folie à Deux is essentially what I have suggested in proposal B. I still think proposal A is more accurate, since the majority of sources say "mixed", but again I am okay with proposal B as a compromise. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:32, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The link you attributed (for some reason) from The Independent ALSO states "In a more positive review, [...] Another strong review came from critic [...]" so all three talk about reviews from critics. There is no logic in omitting them because some or all of them are mentioned on social media and/or called responses, while the source clearly identifies them as reviews from critics. Why ignore/claim something different from what is stated in the sources?
This is one example that you presented as a rationale for your proposal in the first place. It shows that you counted the RT score as "mixed" even though there is no such thing. An example.
I have already explained this twice above, I don't see how the repetition will advance the discussion. The article has some sort of a round-up already. It's more about how you used low-quality sources in your summary and then came up with your proposal.
I have cited the consensus reached in these two articles as examples to be considered here in a similar way. I did not imply that we should copy and paste directly, but maybe copy and paste would be better than just stating mixed or "described as 'mixed', 'negative', 'unfavorable', 'mixed-to-negative', 'split', 'divisive', 'mixed but actually not that much', 'no it's mid', [...]'" (goes on and turns into a quotefarm). ภץאคгöร 13:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you aren't going to be constructive then you should leave the discussion for those who do want to come to a consensus. I have provided two options for possible wording that are actually reflective of the available sources, unlike what is currently in the article, and have provided clear reasoning for how I got to that wording. You have been vague about why you don't like the proposals, and keep making contradictory statements. If you don't support either of my proposals, you should suggest specific alternative wording for us to consider. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adam has a point. Please clearly suggest something constructive if either proposal doesn't tickle your fancy. BarntToust 14:25, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have neither been "vague" nor made "contradictory statements" unlike you who has been pushing for low-quality sources and ignoring what is explicitly stated by better ones with your wording. I clearly pointed out what is wrong and why I don't support it. Those who do not support it are not obliged to provide an alternative. However, I counted the sources without your Valnet links.
  • These are negative (incl. poor and unfavorable, not including mixed-to-negative): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
  • These are mixed (not including mixed-to-negative): 1, 2, the inconclusive Cinemablend 3, and the inconclusive ComicBook.com 4.
Since you know that 5 is greater than 4 (2 when you don't count sources whose reliability has not been sufficiently discussed), you can see that we will have to make changes from the beginning. We can state something such as:
  • Critical reception was described as negative or mixed.
  • The film received predominantly negative reviews/Critical reception for the film leaned towards the negative, with others/some sources describing it as mixed.
  • Most critics responded negatively to the film, while others offered a more mixed perspective. / The film was met with generally negative response though some opinions were more mixed/varied.
These are some alternatives we can use instead of creating a disjointed mess of a long sentence(s) full of quotes. The order of negative and mixed may change because which side the reception is leaning towards will most likely be discussed again and changed accordingly based on the sources present now and to be added in the future. ภץאคгöร 15:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who says "unfavorable" or "poor" are the same as "negative"? You have selected and arranged sources in a specific way to get to the result you wanted, which is WP:SYNTH. The suggested wording options are also SYNTH as there is no source saying "predominantly negative", "leaned towards the negative", "others offered a more mixed perspective", etc. I know my version is not a short, simple summary of the reception, but it is presenting accurate details per reliable sources, not making up something to suit a certain perspective. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Look who's saying "You have selected and arranged sources in a specific way"... Your version is presenting bad writing with low-quality sources in a specific way. You should realize that they are synonyms. Poor reviews and negative reviews both indicate unfavorable feedback. Even if they were antonyms/unrelated, we would still have other sources reporting "negative reviews". I have provided some alternatives as examples to be closer to your own proposals, since you are keen on majority-minority. We can always state "Critical reception was described as negative or mixed." and "Some publications reported that critical reception was negative/the film received an unfavorable critical reception, while others...". Still much better than your proposals. And without any MOS:QUOTEPOV/scare quote farm. ภץאคгöร 16:18, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying your suggestions are "better" than mine, but you have not provided any good reasoning to support that. You continue to be vague and contradictory, and the only partial suggestions you have made are all WP:SYNTH. If you can't provide full, specific suggestions for alternate wording that are actually supported by sources and representative of all the sources we have been looking at, then I'm not sure how this conversation can progress in any way other than with one of my suggestions. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I certainly didn't give reasons, didn't point out what I found problematic one by one and didn't offer alternatives... You failed to show where I was vague and contradictory and where was my WP:SYNTH. Come up with decent proposals instead of empty repetitions and don't try to pass off your mistakes as mine. ภץאคгöร 17:44, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These debates about film receptions are just getting tiresome. I want to assume good faith from Nyxaros, but it seems they always disagree with whatever is not their preferred wording and says others are synthesizing when they disagree. I still think Adam's wording is clear and to the point, rather than being cagey and beating around the bush. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be frank @Trailblazer101, I have noticed this sort behaviour from Nyxaros on the various occasions where I've encountered them out and about, and I've frankly been annoyed as well with the very same concerns about them you've voiced above. I didn't want to say anything rash because that would be provocative at a time where I have better things on Wikipedia to focus on. Adam's wording includes the popular viewpoints and perspectives on this film, and getting the typical "JDL" from Nyx without further deliberation is reductive to our aim to form consensus. BarntToust 17:36, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will also note that Wikipedia has never treated random social media responses to the same degree as critic reviews. Anyone can post anything on social media, especially nowadays. That does not mean those warrant inclusion in the encyclopedia. The whole section is about critical responses, not public responses. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a "preferred wording" but I presented multiple alternatives above because I was asked, so anyone can find them. By "others" I guess you mean in an alternate world where I say all editors with whom I disagree are synthesizing. Where did random social media responses come from? The source that explicitly states that they are reviews from critics? You're way behind. No one is forcing anyone. If you wanna pick between the two you can do it. Just don't expect either to be of good quality. ภץאคгöร 17:44, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to stick to the article contents here, it looks like Nyxaros isn't interested in having a constructive discussion so that takes us back to my initial wording proposal which everyone else here is happy with. Unless someone else has concerns / wants to have a discussion about specific changes or improvements that could be made, I'm thinking we should implement my proposal A wording soon. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I concur and won't engage in unconstructive chatter at this talk any longer. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Everyone clearly interested in constructively discussing the building of content on this page is in concurrence. Give it maybe 24 hours for any further viewpoints, then implement. BarntToust 18:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

References

  1. ^ https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/captain-america-brave-new-world-first-reviews/
  2. ^ https://www.thewrap.com/captain-america-brave-new-world-flies-to-88-million-3-day-box-office-opening/
  3. ^ https://collider.com/captain-america-brave-new-world-global-box-office-341-million/
  4. ^ https://comicbook.com/movies/news/first-captain-america-brave-new-world-reviews-marvel-latest-intense/
  5. ^ https://variety.com/2025/film/box-office/box-office-captain-america-brave-new-world-opening-weekend-100-million-presidents-day-holiday-weekend-1236309865/
  6. ^ https://variety.com/2025/film/box-office/captain-america-brave-new-world-second-weekend-drop-box-office-1236316772/
  7. ^ https://ew.com/captain-america-brave-new-world-box-office-weekend-2-11684797
  8. ^ https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/captain-america-brave-new-world-first-reviews/
  9. ^ https://comicbook.com/movies/news/first-captain-america-brave-new-world-reviews-marvel-latest-intense/
  10. ^ "Captain America: Brave New World". Rotten Tomatoes. Fandango Media. Retrieved March 1, 2025.
  11. ^ "Captain America: Brave New World". Metacritic. Fandom, Inc. Retrieved February 23, 2025.
  12. ^ https://deadline.com/2025/02/box-office-captain-america-brave-new-world-1236289044/
  13. ^ https://variety.com/2025/film/box-office/box-office-captain-america-brave-new-world-opening-weekend-100-million-presidents-day-holiday-weekend-1236309865/
  14. ^ https://www.thewrap.com/captain-america-brave-new-world-flies-to-88-million-3-day-box-office-opening/
  15. ^ https://variety.com/2025/film/box-office/captain-america-brave-new-world-second-weekend-drop-box-office-1236316772/
  16. ^ https://ew.com/captain-america-brave-new-world-box-office-weekend-2-11684797
  17. ^ https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/captain-america-brave-new-world-first-reviews/
  18. ^ https://comicbook.com/movies/news/first-captain-america-brave-new-world-reviews-marvel-latest-intense/
  19. ^ "Captain America: Brave New World". Rotten Tomatoes. Fandango Media. Retrieved March 1, 2025.
  20. ^ "Captain America: Brave New World". Metacritic. Fandom, Inc. Retrieved February 23, 2025.
  21. ^ https://deadline.com/2025/02/box-office-captain-america-brave-new-world-1236289044/

Change it back to mixed reviews!

The film recieved mixed reviews from critics not negative reviews! Both Eternals and Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania both had scores set in the 40%-50% range. Please change it back to 'mixed reviews' on the last paragragh 8.48.249.21 (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is already being discussed above. Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Has correctly referring to it being a box office bomb been previously discussed? 89.243.118.11 (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any reliable sources to support those claims? Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

I made too little of a gap between my edits. I forgot about the rule. I will make sure to wait till at least twenty four hours after my edit to edit again for this article. Evope Evope (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sanctions are only pertaining to content in the scope of the contested material, which is primarily about the Arab-Israel conflict, not the article as a whole, so your box office and reception edits are all good. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:27, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Captain_America:_Brave_New_World
No tags for this post.