Talk:A Million Ways to Die in the West

Novel

There will also be a novel with the same title according to MacFarlane. I don't know enough about WP protocol to decide whether the novel should have a separate article or just be mentioned in the movie's article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellsass (talk • contribs) 21:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Who wrote that first sentence?

It currently includes "produced and directed by Seth MacFarlane and written by MacFarlane". What's wrong with "written, directed, and produced by Seth MacFarlane" (with or without the Oxford comma). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.174.25.122 (talk) 08:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Error in Plot Summary

Anna (played by Ms. Theron) is NOT Clinch's (Neeson) former wife. She is his current wife. I know this from having seen the movie but I guess under the rules I cannot make the correction without finding this fact in print somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.131.163 (talk) 06:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Mixed

Is 33% mixed? Surely that's mostly negative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.51.34 (talk) 23:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Remember that Rotten Tomatoes classifies a review only as positive or as negative. This means that a review in the middle could fall on either side. Los Angeles Times mentions this film having "mixed reviews", so it seems like that assessment is fair. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

This is very flimsy reasoning. I think the IP has a point. If 33% is mixed than what percentage is bad?Chhe (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Both Metacritic and Los Angeles Times call them "mixed". RT isn't useful for gauging the quality of reviews, like Erik said. The percentage rating of the film is not a good representation of the average scores given. It's average score on RT is 4.9/10 and the Metacritic score is 44/100. That's actually half decent, despite the low percentage. People give the percentage too much credits.

In short, a reliable source stating how the reviews are is better than just looking at the Rotten Tomatoes percentage. Corvoe (speak to me) 04:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Someone changed the article to call the reviews negative. Personally I'd call 33% at Rotten Tomatoes negative but I checked the reliable sources: LA Times called 36% from RT "mixed" and Metacritic also called "mixed". I changed the article back to mixed, in line with the sources and the previous discussion. Mixed by definition includes negative, it's not wrong, and that's the wikitruth. -- 109.77.232.250 (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

It should be called mixed to negative. 33% isn't mixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.39.8 (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

"Mixed to negative" or "mixed to positive" doesn't make any sense. "Mixed" means "some positive, some negative". How can you have "some positive, some negative to negative reviews". You have to think about it that way. "Mixed to" could be replaced with "generally", if we didn't have the LA Times saying it got mixed reviews, in addition to Metacritic classifying it as mixed. Sources trump interpretation. Corvoe (speak to me) 16:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The past discussion, consensus, and basic writing quality was ignored again and not reverted for over two years. I fixed it again. There have been many discussions about this topic over the years, here's one example from the archives Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_48#Mixed_to_positive_/_Mixed_to_negative. The longstanding consensus was that this was simply bad writing and should not be done. I don't particularly care what you pick so long as you pick one and show your sources and consider due weight. I care about clear writing that that best serves normal readers of this encyclopedia article. -- 109.78.196.89 (talk) 04:32, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Casting

Interviews claim Theron actively pursued/sought-out the role -- 109.78.64.159 (talk) 05:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Added this in. Thank you! Corvoe (speak to me) / Comment on The FP's FA nom! 13:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Reviews

There must be some of the reviews which mentions that the script (film) has too many fart jokes which is a common criticism of McFarlane; maybe when some reviewer, such as John DeFore of The Hollywood Reporter, says that its uneven jokes "appear to have breezed through a very forgiving editing process". Forgive me for asking. The film was such a laugh, but - yes! - uneven.

One reviewer says it this way: Joe Morgenstern of The Wall Street Journal too found the film's length "exhausting," noting, "Some of it sputters, settling for smiles instead of laughs, and much of it flounders while the slapdash script searches [...] for ever more common denominators in toilet humor."[46] -- So I guess that one reviewer says it. I guess that "searches for even more ..." relates to those toilet jokes breaking the otherwise even level of probability. --d-axel (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)