Terminator salvation imdb
Metacritic shows 52, which I'd call mixed. My approach clearly showed there's no merit to saying "negative" without explaining. The discussions above showed strong support for "mixed". This is a debate issue, and we can go through the Wikipedia lines for moderation and debates, and third party opinions on the matter.
![terminator salvation imdb terminator salvation imdb](https://image.tmdb.org/t/p/original/m9yHpYz4GcEtmHJW4rvQIrF891h.jpg)
A simple vote among 3 or 4 editors will not suffice. Williamsburgland ( talk) 15:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC) Disagree. Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.230.85.129 ( talk) 16:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Īgain - Let's try to keep this from being a debate with multiple posts - just a simple vote to create consensus. The article I posted saying "mixed bag" is another good source as examples. Metacritic is a good source saying "mixed to average".
![terminator salvation imdb terminator salvation imdb](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTEwMjY2MDM3NzBeQTJeQWpwZ15BbWU3MDY1ODU5MTQ@._V1_.jpg)
Anything that goes to sources and not saying "mostly negative" without any sources is better. Doniago ( talk) 13:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC) I agree. "Many prominent positive reviews" doesn't mean anything if there are many more prominent negative reviews, and I would be wary of citing what's currently in the article, as that may indicate the article is being inappropriately weighted. In any event, if we're going to get wound up about this perhaps we should remove the terminology entirely and just state exactly what the sites themselves state rather than interpreting. I might call 40-60% mixed, and that's being generous, but I certainly wouldn't call 35% mixed. Including a note saying that some of the actors were praised may be appropriate, but that doesn't alter the fact that the film itself received a negative review if that's the case. 94.230.85.129 ( talk) 00:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC) The actors aren't the subject of the review, the film is. Rolling Stone summarized it very well: " T4 is a mixed bag, but it's not fucking amateur". One could define it more interestingly - there was definite disappointment with the script with many reviewers but at the same time admiration of some of the actors' work, many (like WSJ) defining them even as revelations, especially Sam Worthington but also Anton Yelchin, Bloodgood, not to mention special effects etc. Above 30% especially with a score of 5/10 is definitely mixed. As for rotten tomatoes - Mostly negative in Rotten Tomatoes I would consider as 20% or even less. There are many prominent positive reviews, also in the article itself. GRAPPLE X 21:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Metacritic says "mixed to average". "Middle of the road" review scores aren't "mixed", they're mediocre - and even at that, they're usually negative. Doniago ( talk) 21:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC) I generally like to avoid "mixed" where possible unless something is clearly polarising.
![terminator salvation imdb terminator salvation imdb](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Yfrg5DehBq4/XHXs4s6_ZBI/AAAAAABCBVA/VPHkOARAHBAt1GBNDfrU8Cj_NVdRSnr-gCLcBGAs/s1600/Terminator-Salvation-2009-012.jpg)
In any event, "Mostly Mixed" sounds completely unhelpful, and "Negative to Mixed" strikes me as needlessly ambiguous I don't believe we should use a range like that. Williamsburgland ( talk) 20:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC) I vote for "Mostly Negative"- Williamsburgland ( talk) 20:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC) I prefer "Generally Negative" myself. Once a concensus is reached, perhaps we can all simply leave it that way regardless of who 'wins'. Given that, in an orderly fashion, could each of the editors involved simply vote once as to whether the lead of the article should reflect "Mostly Negative", "Negative to Mixed" or "Mostly Mixed"? Include your reasoning if you wish, but let's try to keep it to one post per without this turning into an argument. I'm adding a new section because the old one has degraded such that it no longer serves its purpose in gathering a consensus either way.