Talk:The Raid 2

Expansion

The Plot is too short and needs to be expanded in more detail, also the reception needs to be expanded as well.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if anybody's going to expand the plot for this film in better detail, and same for the reception. Who knows what they'll do with it when they make sure to expand both of those sections in this article? Skylar3214 2:10, 12 July 2014

Box Office

What many users and readers overlook, Box Office Mojo often doesn't include full Box Office tallies for worldwide, especially when it comes to foreign films or small-budget films. This isn't speculation, its actually pretty clear if you know how to interpret BOM properly. There is a section titled "Foreign total", which is indicated with n/a in the case of incomplete data.

Take for example: The Departed or Tron Legacy, major films with "Foreign totals" of [$157,463,039] and [$228,000,000], respectively. In contrast to The Raid 2 (n/a) or say Yakuza Apocolpyse (n/a). The latter of which, it only has records for 1 theater ($12,756).

However, on the Japanese wikipedia page, there is an additional citation stating 22 million yen (approx. $1.9 million in end-of-2014 currency rates) citing Kinema Junpo, late-March 2015, pg, 93 for the Japan BO. I would like to know if any other user has any input or know-how, or perhaps Japanese-speaking users who may have the ability to do some further digging? –DA1 (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't 22 million yen equivalent to $0.19 million, instead of $1.9 million? We should add that to the total. Punkalyptic (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Punkalyptic, another reliable independent source should be provided for the $6.6 million ww total. Adding the North American totals as well as those in other regions constitutes blatant synthesis because you're reporting a figure that is not explicitly reported by the source. If you've seen the link, you'd find out that BOM considers the $2.6 million domestic gross to be the ww gross. Tks, Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Synthesis would be to combine two different sources. BOM states that the NA gross was $2.6 million, the UK gross was $1.8 million and so forth. Why would you only add the NA gross, while it's an Indonesian film? If you want to be totally accurate about it, add them all national grosses in plainlist. For me, you can either add all the figures we have for a total (you can also add a note that this is not a complete WW gross as it was stated in a previous revision which you edited out), or include some notable national grosses, like the ones I mentioned, separately, although I can't say I've seen the latter on wikipedia. In almost all foreign film cases, there has to be missing a few national numbers to add to the total, yet still BOM does calculate the foreign total for some (sometimes even errouneously, lower than the sum of its parts! example) and not for others, while we are perfectly aware that there are countries that simply do not release their numbers, so the worldwide total is a farce anyway. Basically the only thing we're debating about is the fact that BOM hasn't done the math for you this time. The numbers are there, we're not doing original research, we're simply summing them up from ONE source, you simply decide to ignore the other numbers and just keep North America's. Seriously, do what you will, I'm only interested in maintaining cohesion and consistency in wikipedia. You might as well go tackle Vidocq, Red Cliff, and Nymphomaniac (random examples) for synthesis, while you're at it. Punkalyptic (talk) 08:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@Punkalyptic: I recall specifically adding a parenthesis "(not including Indonesia, Japan and various)" which has since been removed, even though they were fact and backed up by citation (missing Indonesia and Japanese listings). In its place we've now got a redundant citation to BOM which was already present. Matter of fact, the article seems to have become the subject of an edit war in past months.

Also, I have no idea what the user above is talking about. 6.6 million is the total from BoxOfficeMojo itself not counting the Japanese figures. A simple research would show that the total (albeit incomplete, mind you) comes to 6.6 mill. That does not include Japanese figures or any sort of synthesis whatsoever.

The user also removed the section on the sequel/cancellation citing WP:FUTURE which is completely baseless because right in the beginning it states verifiability, which the section was very much so (with citations), it also mentions that it is appropriate to report on future projects and developments, which this section was absolutely about. The article looks like it's been seriously messed up by users editing and removing without any concern for quality or actual guidelines. DA1 (talk) 05:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Rumors of a hypothetical would be WP:CRYSTAL. Until there is some actual work begun there would not be anything specific to say anyway, and as WP:CRYSTALHAMMER says, it will not hurt to just wait. Tks, Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:12, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Slightlymad: I am extremely confused by what you're saying. There were no rumors, but articles directly referencing the filmmaker himself–both in the sequel's premise and plan, as well as its subsequent cancellation. That's not "rumor" that is a direct primary and secondary source. DA1 (talk) 05:21, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Genre conflict

Since a last few days, a user edited the main genre of the film and shifted it from martial arts action to crime genre. He had a source which had the director saying, "This is not a martial arts film and a gangster-crime film with yakuza, crime drama elements." He never refused to call it an action film and also said that this is what he feels like towards the film; not that it's really true.

Plus if you leave his statement aside, every single publication from major to minor addresses it as an action film. I'm not saying it doesn't come under the crime genre, but this film is known worldwide for its action more than story. But in another interview, Gareth said, "We’ve got 16 or 17 action set pieces in the film. There’s about an hour of nothing but action. When you think about it, the rest of the drama is about one hour and 22. It’s either a very short drama or a long action film." Source: http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/features/116382-interview-gareth-evans-on-the-raid-2s-intense-action-and-deadpan-humor#U5zg1wuUYvmFxyUF.99

Even logically, why would a director who adds this much action sequences refuse to say that he has made an action film? Crime films usually tends to be dramas or thrillers but not really action. Calling it just a crime film would mean it has no action. Plus, the director's statement is not definitive and just subjective. And that statement about yakuza, crime drama elements is not present everywhere but just in one article. He never said that in any other interview!

I would like more editors to analyze this, because just one editor cannot decide it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MyBleedingHeart (talk • contribs) 09:45, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

First of all, let me just say that I believe that genre distinction, as well as anything related to judging and distinguishing/categorizing pieces of art, is subjective, thus it is original research, no matter how much we want to hide this notion by citing "credible" sources. There is no credibility or non-credibility in each person's viewpoint.

After getting this out of the way, I personally classify The Raid films as action (primary genre), the same way that I classify Mission Impossible, James Bond, Dunkirk and even The Dark Knight as action. What do all of these have in common? Many hesitate calling them action films, because somehow the term action is subconsciously perceived derogatory to the overall quality of the film, the same way that a horror film is, which is absolutely ridiculous. The Dark Knight has as many action scenes as the MCU films, and even more than its predecessor, Batman Begins. Sure, there are crime elements in it, but superficial in complexity and depth, in comparison to, let's say, Michael Mann's Heat. Dunkirk is one big action sequence split in timelines, with many thriller elements to enhance the suspense. Terms such as martial arts, super hero, spy and gangster are thematic terms, even terms such as fiction and animation have to do with the setting or the technique used, they got nothing to do with the mentality/emotional status of the film/viewer, they can't be considered as primary genres. So the question, for me, is this: Is the focus (by duration and importance) of The Raid more (1) on the thrill of the action sequences, or (2) the aspects of games of auhority, politics and/or mind games that typically constitute a crime film? Punkalyptic (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that not calling action films as action films is absolutely ridiculous. It only shows too much of subjective mindset viewers hold. They have over years regarded action as a pointless genre and that's not good given the fact that there have been so many great action movies like The Dark Knight, Dunkirk and Mad Max which have won Oscars. Thus, considering a genre to be derogatory is highly condemnable, especially to me who loves action films and has been seen such viewers vandalise the genres on IMDB.

Coming to your question, I'd like to tell that the focus of The Raid 2 is:

- Neither politics nor mind games. The focus is clearly and entirely action. To make it even clear, it has around 16-17 nonstop, large scale action sequences.

There's a plot which involves some crime elements but they are just elements and not the focus of the film. Because if they had been, I'd have never argued with that user in the first place.

The Raid 2 clearly falls under the action genre and crime is a subgenre. But that editor is rarely ready to accept. He even made it clear that he was editing pages according to his own watch list. I even explained him everything in detail but in the end all I got what threat to be reported. MyBleedingHeart (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@MyBleedingHeart, Punkalyptic: As of right now, the article does not describe it either as "martial arts" or as "action" but merely as a crime film even though it is all of the above, and is referred to as such in many citations that we can easily insert. Martial arts is a subgenre of action (literally says that on the WP article), and an action film can also be a crime film. It is not an either-or classification. This form of editing is concerning. What was wrong with the older description of "martial arts action–crime drama film"? Most articles on Wikipedia follow similar formats when involving multi genres or martial arts, comedy, etc. DA1 (talk) 05:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Wow, even the WP:INTERWIKI links have been replaced by WP:REDLINKS. Some of these are minor characters who will likely never have a WP article in the near future, and even if they do that's no reason to remove the Interwiki link whose function exists for a reason. DA1 (talk) 05:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but we try to avoid chained-together "genre salads" such as "martial arts action–crime drama film". The community wants "the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified". So, pick one. Maaaybe two if exceptionally warranted by sources. The guideline also says, "Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources." If one site describes a film as an action, but another as a crime thriller, and a third as martial arts, then maybe the smart thing is to pick the nexus of all three, in this case, action, rather than mashing them all together. Tks, Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Which of course isn't how it's been edited as of currently where it only says "crime film" without any indicator that it is an action film. If you're going to adhere by WEIGHT, it is described as an action and martial arts film in several published material, so I don't see why that is the one genre that gets opted out of in the lede. DA1 (talk) 05:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Ooookay thanks for calling me out on that. I shall revert myself accordingly. Tks, Slightlymad (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Why not call it a martial arts crime film? It doesn't have to be an either-or between action and crime. Both have weight, and WP:FILMLEDE does not state a maximum of one genre but rather states a "minimum" of one. DA1 (talk) 05:46, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

While genre classification can be subjective, we can follow sources and use the most common classification. Sometimes it's not really possible, like there's no one genre to nail down for Fight Club. This does not mean we cannot talk about other key elements of the film within the lead section. The premise at the end of the first paragraph conveys that crime is part of the story. At first I thought the section did not mention martial arts at all, but I see it oddly paired with the release sentence in the second paragraph. This can be moved up to talk about it as part of the general background of the film. The release detail should be separate from it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@Erik: On a related note, what's your opinion on this so-called "genre salads"? How many is too many, as far as listing genre is concerned? I've seen plenty of articles include three descriptors, and many more include two. Personally I think "martial arts crime film" makes the most sense. Martial arts film falls under "action film", and it's also a crime film. So its succinct but does not fall short in describing the film either. DA1 (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I do think that genre salads (I personally call them genre mash-ups) are problematic because I've seen many content disputes over this kind of thing. For a lot of films, genre classification is easy enough to determine, but there are some films that can be seen multiple ways by the editors (as well as the sources themselves). Heat (1995 film) is a notorious example in my personal experience where the local consensus is to call it a "crime film" even though it can be seen to have action, drama, and thrilling elements (and we've had numerous discussions about that). If multiple editors are in disagreement about the genre (including what kind of mash-up it should be), the problem is that often most of the ideas are not that wrong. The best way to overcome that disagreement is to follow Wikipedia's policy of verifiability and due weight. What is the "real world" saying for the most part? Because Wikipedia should follow suit. The "real world" doesn't do novel mash-ups except on occasion, and usually these novel examples don't outweigh the "classic" classifications. WP:FILMLEAD is intended to encourage that litmus test. Heck, we've had some polite discussions as a result where we do search engine tests to see how often specific genres come up, and we just go with the most common one in sources. It's a way to separate editors' personal thoughts from the labeling process. I do hope you all won't spend too much time on this. If anything, a few years later, if you're gone, someone else will change it to something else, and the cycle continues. I feel the same way about plot summaries, never editing these because I know someone will write a brand-new version years later. Almost everything else will stay, though, and these are the most rewarding contributions for me. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Erik: That is getting too philosophical and not really addressing what I asked, I just want to know when a combination of genre descriptors become too many that it's prohibited (as opposed to simply disagreeing on the type of genre). We all can agree that 100 is too many, as is 10, as is five correct? So what is the limit of being acceptable, three or two or four? It certainly isn't one, because articles use two and three genres all the time. Are those using three incorrect? DA1 (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

It depends on if sources use a specific genre or sub-genre more than other genres. You say, "I personally think it should be martial arts crime!" It doesn't matter what you think. Look at the film databases and the film reviews and determine what's the most common. You can't just make up a genre label that never existed in sources for a given film. If you are ignoring the sources and just putting together whatever you feel like, that goes against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. So in short, it's vanishingly unlikely for multiple sources to actually stitch three or more genres together. If sources combine genres, like comedy-drama or science fiction comedy, then that should be used. Don't make stuff up that never existed elsewhere. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:56, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Erik: There are indeed sources that describe it as a "martial arts film" and those that as a "crime film". Pulling the Original Research card is very disingenuous there because all the labels have sources to back them up! Which is precisely why I'm asking where the limit should lie. If your answer is "well does it describe it as those in combination?", then perhaps not, in which case WHICH do you choose? It becomes a matter of DUEWEIGHT, and the answer is all three descriptions of "martial arts film" and "crime film" and "action film" have WEIGHT behind them. Matter of fact "martial arts film" has the most weight behind it. Your tone there was out of line to state I am "ignoring the sources and just putting together whatever you feel like". There are sources behind all of these, and I have been very diplomatic in having a conversation so as not to offend anybody beforehand.

Per WP:NPOV, an article can represent multiple points of view. So if some sources state "martial arts film" (which is a subgenre of action) and others state "crime film", we include both if appropriate. Your suggestion that "well, none of them call it martial arts crime film" is misled. Wikipedia does not rely on one source, it relies on several and if they both share WEIGHT, we include both. The phrase "martial arts crime film" is not a quote, it is a summarized statement referencing multiple sources; see WP:BALANCE and WP:IMPARTIAL. Wikipedia is not wholly composed of direct quotes. – DA1 (talk) 04:25, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Language

The article lists the film as being in Indonesian and Japanese. Does this film contain significant amounts of Japanese? Template:Infobox film says "Insert the language primarily used in the film". (The BBFC listing for The Raid 2 isn't helpful as it only lists English, for the subtitles.) Japanese should not be listed unless the film includes a significant amount of Japanese. -- 109.78.199.78 (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)