Talk:Jupiter Ascending

	Chicago portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Film: Australian / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the Australian cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Science Fiction Low‑importance

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Box Office

"It also opened in markets such as France ($2.5 million), South Korea ($2.1 million), the UK ($2 million), Brazil ($1.9 million), Mexico ($1.8 million), Germany ($1.8 million), Italy ($1.2 million) and Spain ($1.1 million). The film also debuted in Asian markets, bringing in $6 million in total from Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand."
Is there a reason South Korea isn't included in the 'Asian markets'? --TasioScholar (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

Don't you think it's time someone summarized it? It was released yesterday, wasn't it? 68.149.21.178 (talk) 02:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"fall to his death"

I'd probably just say "fall". You know how villains can be, especially when sequels are a possibility. I also know that this sort of change can cause major edit wars, so I'm running this here first. - Richfife (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about gender issues

hello everyone why was the section about the gender-specific audience removed from the page? it referred to this article: http://www.hitfix.com/harpy/jupiter-ascending-is-the-sci-fi-movie-women-were-waiting-for — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.253.8.42 (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the content has been re-added, or at least I think so, in the critical response section. I think it is noteworthy that some women have taken an unlikely shine to the film, although the current prose is a little unclear to me, and it could much clarification:

The film received attention for the reversed, campy depictions of Jupiter’s and Balem’s personalities. The motion picture has also gained a cult following, particularly among female sci-fi fans, which commentators attribute to its appeal towards "the female gaze."

I'm going to take a stab at this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes to the prose. I cut two references because they weren't relevant to what I was doing, but if anyone needs them, they're here in the collapsed section:

Extended content

<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.imakeupworlds.com/index.php/2015/02/eggs-bees-and-toilets-jupiter-ascending-as-womanspace/ | title=Eggs, Bees, and Toilets: Jupiter Ascending as WomanSpace | author=Kate Elliott | publisher=[[Kate Elliott]] | date=February 12, 2015| accessdate=March 5, 2015}}</ref>
<ref>{{cite web | url=http://freebeacon.com/culture/jupiter-ascending-review/ | title= ‘Jupiter Ascending’: Gloriously insane new film from Wachowskis | author=Sonny Bunch | publisher=[[The Washington Free Beacon]] | date=February 6, 2015| accessdate=March 5, 2015}}</ref>

Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Critical response summary removed

In this edit I removed the summary of critical response. Although sourced, it was relevant to a specific moment, not necessarily indicative of all critical response that the film would receive. Also, we are not critical response aggregators. It's best to let the aggregators summarize their own findings and leave it at that. The summary was being contested by Wikiepdiax818, who seems to be interested in shifting the critical response summary toward negative even though that's not consistent with Metacritic's "average" assessment. Seems more intuitive to avoid the summary. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Reception

In no way can the critical consensus of Jupiter Ascending be described as "mixed. " On Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds a rating of 25%, based on 203 reviews, with an average rating of 4.2/10 on Metacritic.

Other contemporary films that hold similar scores and a "mostly negative" or negative" descriptor in its Wikipedia critical reception lead paragraph include Entourage, which received an even better Rotten Tomatoes score at 30% and a 4.7/10 on Meteritic is described as "negative." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entourage_(film)#Reception

Get Hard also received a higher Rotten Tomatoes score with 29%, and a higher Metoritic score at 4.3/10, and Wikipedia's critical reception claims "Get Hard has received generally negative reviews." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get_Hard#Release

Calling the critical reception to Jupiter Ascending "mixed to negative" is not only biased, but goes against many similar and cemented Wikipedia articles on similarly received films.

Jupiter Ascending has received "mostly negative" reviews from critics.

Mainstream sources that all indicate a negative critical consensus:

^[1]^[2] ^[3] ^[4]The Frame wrote that the film has been "hilariously panned" by critics. ^[5]

[CSMonitor-1] Driscoll, Molly (February 6, 2015). "'Jupiter Ascending': What are critics saying about the movie starring Mila Kunis?". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved February 8, 2015.

[2] ttp://www.thewrap.com/jupiter-ascending-9-terrible-reviews-that-might-knock-the-sci-fi-movie-out-of-audiences-orbit/

[3] ttp://archive.entertainmentwise.com/feature/165143/eddie-redmayne-jupiter-ascending-best-moments-diva

[4] ttp://csusmchronicle.com/home/2015/02/movie-review-jupiter-ascending-review.html

[5] ttp://www.scpr.org/programs/the-frame/2015/02/06/41459/critics-hilariously-pan-jupiter-ascending-by-the-w/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]