Talk:Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Start a new topic

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

Film: 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 American cinema task force.

United States: Cinema Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force.

The content of Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (soundtrack) was merged into Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri on 23 April 2022. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. For the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Cast section consistency

The cast section includes a note that says "The cast is in closing credits order and the names are as credited" - however, this is not the case. While the majority of the cast is in closing credits order, Harrelson, Rockwell, Cornish, Hawkes, and Dinklage are not. They are in the poster order (for example, Rockwell is fourth in the credits order, but third on the poster, as with in the article). Furthermore, the names are not as credited for McDormand, Harrelson, Rockwell, Cornish, Hawkes, Hedges, Newton, and Peters - there is no Hayes surname, given name/nickname for Bill Willoughby, surname for Anne, given name for Dixon, and title for Abercrombie.

While I normally support having the cast in closing credits order, the obvious problem with this film is that the closing credits for the cast is in order of appearance, which appears to have resulted in Harrelson, Rockwell, Cornish, Hawkes, and Dinklage being placed in their poster order instead of their closing credits order due to their perceived prominence and not in line with what the cast section says it's supposed to be following. So for consistency purposes and to have the cast be more reflective of prominence, I suggest we use the title credits order, which would read as follows:

Frances McDormand as Mildred Hayes
Woody Harrelson as William 'Bill' Willoughby
Sam Rockwell as Jason Dixon
Abbie Cornish as Anne Willoughby
Lucas Hedges as Robbie Hayes
Željko Ivanek as Desk Sergeant
Caleb Landry Jones as Red Welby
Clarke Peters as Chief Abercrombie
Samara Weaving as Penelope
John Hawkes as Charlie Hayes
Peter Dinklage as James
Kerry Condon as Pamela
Darrell Britt-Gibson as Jerome
Kathryn Newton as Angela Hayes
Brendan Sexton III as Crop-Haired Guy
Amanda Warren as Denise

If Hawkes and Dinklage seem too low, I am not opposed to prioritizing the poster order, then using the title credits. Nevertheless, I believe using the title credits order will allow us to order the cast through prominence - which appears to be the intent, as the credits order is currently not applying to the aforementioned Harrelson, Rockwell, Cornish, Hawkes, and Dinklage - and with a source, as opposed to a completely original order.

As for the names, I do not have a preference if we use the credited names or not, but if we are following this rule, then this rule needs to apply to all names, including the above cited ones that are not as credited. If we are not applying this rule to all names, then it should not apply at all. Bluerules (talk) 22:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The cast section order has been changed numerous times, including several times in the past week. We need to reach a consensus here before an edit war starts. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 17:23, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I concur, which is why I am seeking the input of other editors before changing the cast section per my suggestion of using the title credits as the primary basis. Bluerules (talk) 04:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

As more than a month has passed since your original post, I suggest making the changes. If people object, they can make their case here. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Understood, I have implemented the changes. Bluerules (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Cutting Edge Group

Cutting Edge Group is not a producer. They provide music services. Their own website attests to this. The Variety credit is incorrect. I tried changing this but my edits were reverted by someone who threatened me with banishment for disrupting the page. Carnival Honey (talk) 01:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, we go by what reliable sources say. Our own personal definitions (such as what qualifies someone as a production company) do not matter. In this case, Variety, a trade magazine, has labeled them as a production company. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:33, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Agree with the 2021 proposal that the soundtrack (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (soundtrack)) doesn't warrant a separate page and should be merged to here; it's short and would benefit from the context of the merge. Klbrain (talk) 16:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Merge completed Klbrain (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Critiques taken down

@U-Mos: why are you removing the criticisms.? Oskarimi (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

The changes you have made to the lead are not representative of the critical reception section in the body of the article, particularly in describing reviews as "mixed" rather than generally positive. They also introduce sources that are not part of the reception section, which is poor style (see WP:LEADCITE). You may wish to proportionally summarise the negative reactions from the reception section in the lead, and/or add to the reception using the sources you have found. U-Mos (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@U-Mos: The critical reception section in the body of the article is filled with "mixed" rather than generally positive reviews. What justifies privileging a single perspective in the lead when the section clearly documents both praise and criticism? Oskarimi (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Again, you are welcome to edit the lead, but not in a way that contradicts the reception overview that clearly shows a predominance of positive reviews. U-Mos (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

The fact that the film has 90% on RT with an 8.4 average rating and 88% on Metacritic stating universal acclaim clearly shows the film did not receive mixed reviews, they were overwhelmingly positive. No one disputes the film received some negative reviews, but the overall consensus is positive. Cryptkeeperfun (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes is not the standard that determines whether a film has received mixed reviews. I'll continue looking into other sources on this film, but based on what I've seen so far, it has clearly not received widespread critical acclaim. Oskarimi (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

How do you figure? Also, continue to try. Good luck! Cryptkeeperfun (talk) 07:47, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I agree with you that the film has received positive reviews, not mixed ones. While Rotten Tomatoes is not great methodology, the average rating of 8.4 across 408 reviews shows positive reviews. Metacritic itself has a breakdown that shows 60 positive reviews and 3 mixed reviews. So the "Critical reception" section needs to follow WP:PROPORTION in citing mostly positive reviews. I think what needs to be considered is more of a "Social commentary" section of sources that go beyond reviews (since these are predominantly positive). For example, The Guardian here is technically an analysis that would suit such a section. So we can cover both distinct scopes, that it has been well-reviewed by film critics as a whole, and also that there has critiques from commentators about the film. Erik (talk | contrib) 18:27, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

RFC on mixed reviews in the lead

Should the lead include the following information about mixed reviews:

It received mixed reviews, while performances by its ensemble cast received acclaim, critics said the film was morally ambiguous, denouncing McDonagh's handling of violence, race, and social themes.^[1]^[2]^[3]

Oskarimi (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

No (Summoned by bot) This is rather ridiculous. It doesn't reflect the body of the article at all. I don't think a RFC is necessary for this question. Nemov (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Please refer to the RfC below, which presents additional reliable sources that I have also attempted to incorporate into the article body but which were removed primarily on Wikipedia:I just don't like it. You offer no substantive policy-based justification for excluding this well-sourced material. Oskarimi (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
No. This would actually be a significant diminution of the film's nuanced and complicated storyline, characters, and plot development. Views and opinions by significant critics, i.e. from significant & reliable sources, whether negative, positive, or indifferent, have their place in the main text. -The Gnome (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
However, the current lead states that the film "received widespread critical acclaim," rendering this objection a strawman; while I agree that such material belongs in the main text (as addressed in the RfC below), once the lead summarizes reception, omitting well-sourced critical perspectives borders on censorship. Oskarimi (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
No - I was summoned here by an RFC bot. That information about the reviews does not belong in the lead; rather that information should be in the body of the article with RS to back up both positive and negative reviews per WP:BALANCE. Netherzone (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
As said above, the RfC below concerns the article body, whereas the lead already summarizes reception (albeit in an unbalanced manner that fails to incorporate the full range of well-sourced critical perspectives). Oskarimi (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
This RFC, to which I am replying, clearly states that it concerns the lead. Netherzone (talk) 01:58, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Yes - This should be included in both the lead (and the body, as the RfC proposes). This content is supported by multiple WP:RS, so it's WP:DUE. Oskarimi (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
No, it is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV to claim that reviews have been mixed, as I outlined here. Therefore, the lead section should correctly summarize a "Critical response" section that properly follows WP:BALASPS. This does not mean there cannot be a sentence after this statement about commentators having made various critiques about the film. But that commentary should not be considered "mixed reviews". Erik (talk | contrib) 17:57, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

No, even the most critically acclaimed film is going to have some negative reviews. We wouldn't say the reception was mixed because 99% liked it and 1% didn't. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
No, (Summoned by bot) even the most critically acclaimed film is going to have some criticisms levelled at it. Intelligent criticism of 'less than perfect' aspects of a film don't equate to the usual meaning of 'mixed reviews'. Pincrete (talk) 05:49, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

no per Erik.--Plifal (talk) 02:47, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

References

[1]
"How Three Billboards went from film fest darling to awards-season controversy". Vox. Retrieved March 11, 2026.
[2]
"Can Three Billboards Hold Off the Critical Backlash Until Oscar Night?". Vanity Fair. Retrieved March 11, 2026.
[3]
"Will Three Billboards get swept to victory on a wave of righteous anger or drown in its backlash?". AV Club. Retrieved March 11, 2026.

RFC one mixed reviews in the body ("Reception" section)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was reached to exclude the information in question.

Those in favour of inclusion argued that the film has received significant backlash; that negative reviews should not omitted from the article ("omitting this is WP:CENSOR", "it's inappropriate to present only positive coverage"); that negative reviews are actually close in weight to ones already in article; and that a balance of positive and negative reviews should be maintained.

Those against inclusion argued that there are far more positive reviews than negative ones; expressed concerns that those in support may not have realized that negative reviews, including of the film's handling of race, are already included extensively; expressed WP:NPOV concerns about giving equal weight to negative reviews or framing the response as "mixed"; and a case was made that overly political/biased reviews that do not penetrate the film's themes do not carry as much "intellectual weight" as critiques of the film's artistic merit.

As other possible actions, a responder on each side suggested the possibility of separating social commentary into its own subsection, though this would need to achieve consensus in a separate discussion. The possibility of swapping one or more of these quotes in for the negative reviews already discussed in the article was also suggested.

Some facts that may be useful in understanding the outcome:

The film has an aggregated critic review score of 88 on Metacritic, and has received positive reviews from outlets that have also published critiques of the film, like The Guardian.
The article currently has 2 paragraphs devoted to negative reviews, 1 of which is focused on racial issues.

First time closing; let me know if it was not appropriate to do so in this case.

Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Should the section on "Reception" include the following information about mixed reviews:

Business Insider said the film "makes some jokes about racism and political correctness, but doesn't go anywhere with them", adding that "Even positive reviews say the movie feels artificially constructed."^[1]
Marc Bernardin in The Guardian said that, despite its multiple awards, the film offers a limited and superficial treatment of race in rural America. Bernardin criticised the film's handling of racism, particularly through the character of Officer Dixon, saying that the movie downplays Dixon's explicit racism, attributing his behaviour to personal anger and providing him with a redemptive arc that lacks accountability for his actions against Black characters. Bernardin suggests that the film uses racial themes without meaningfully interrogating them, contrasting it unfavourably with Get Out (2017).^[2] Film Comment argued that, despite a strong cast, the film feels contrived, tonally inconsistent, and lacking in realism.^[3]
The film faced "loud backlash" for its portrayal or racism and race,^[4]^[5] with CNN saying it became "one of Oscar season's most divisive films."^[6]

Oskarimi (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

No (Summoned by bot) Like the other RFC that was just opened. I don't understand this escalation to RFC. The status quo is fine and I'd be in favor of pulling the plug on this RFC since it's a waste of time. Nemov (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

This amounts to Wikipedia:I just don't like it. This information is widely supported by sources, and its being excluded for no grounded reason. Oskarimi (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

No. A casual online look-see scares up significantly more, and rather more nuanced, positive reviews, as it happens, than the ones the RfC's initiator provided. In full good-faith assumed mode, I have to submit my uneasiness with the initiator's intense focus on this particular film and the film's director. (E.g. see here.) Could we all back off for a while from the fire of passion? -The Gnome (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Sampling randomly: Le Monde ("Une farce sudiste"); Sight & Sound ("Film of Week: Three Billboards"); The Washington Post ("Three Billboards: a vigilante comedy for our age"); Roger Ebert's website ("Three Billboards", "How can you not be angry at an unfair world? Life will take children before parents. Life will give cancer to relatively young people. Life will be racist, sexist, and cruel."); and so on. -The Gnome (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes. While there is no dispute that the film received positive reviews, there is equally clear evidence of significant backlash (as demonstrated by the cited sources), and omitting this is WP:CENSOR. Oskarimi (talk) 17:45, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
Yes, there's no reason to omit these; they're roughly equal in weight to the reviews that are already there. We should have an expanded paragraph, and perhaps even a section, devoted to the controversy. A quick look at reviews (and secondary coverage of the reviews!) makes it clear that criticism of the movie's racial themes is a major strand in coverage; see also eg. ^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13]^[14]^[15]^[16]^[17]^[18]^[19]^[20]^[21] These are not marginal sources. There is certainly plenty of coverage that doesn't focus on that, which we can (and do!) include, but it's not so overwhelming as to render the coverage of its views on race marginal. Bluntly, the original list of reviews in the reception section inappropriately gives disproportionate weight to positive reviews. Nobody is saying positive reviews don't exist! It clearly got some positive coverage. But it's inappropriate to present only positive coverage, when it is clear that that is not an accurate summary, and when secondary coverage, in particular, indicates that there was a substantial controversy. --Aquillion (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
@Aquillion Am I missing something? You state it's inappropriate to present only positive coverage. The critical reception section already has a few paragraphs dedicated to criticism and controversy. This RFC isn't about scrubbing all criticism. This is an award winning film that got positive reviews and like any high profile film has some well sourced criticism. The section could be reworked and sources changed, but that's not what led to this RFC. Nemov (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Critical response is positive on the aggregate level, as reflected by Rotten Tomatoes, which shows an average rating of 8.4 out of 10. Metacritic's breakdown here shows 49 positive vs. one positive. So it is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV to frame the critical reception of the film as "mixed". As I said above, "...what needs to be considered is more of a 'Social commentary' section of sources that go beyond reviews (since these are predominantly positive). For example, The Guardian here is technically an analysis that would suit such a section. So we can cover both distinct scopes, that it has been well-reviewed by film critics as a whole, and also that there has critiques from commentators about the film." So in the overall "Reception" section, the "Critical response" subsection should meet WP:BALASPS, and the "Social commentary" subsection should be weighted outside the classical film reviews. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) 17:53, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
No, maybe I am missing the point but there already seems to be an undue amount of weight on the critical side of reviews taking up 3 full paras in the reception section, which already seems to cover this issue. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:07, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
No - (summoned here by Media, the arts, and architecture RFC bot). Per WP:NPOV, WP:BALANCE and WP:PROPORTION, the inclusion of negative and positive reviews (including comments and quotes) should roughly reflect the proportion of what the best RS's say. In general the reception has been more positive than negative (approx. 90/10). That does not mean the negative reviews should be deleted, it means that there should be appropriate balance between positive and negative. Netherzone (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2026 (UTC)
Yes, there's no reason to omit these; they're roughly equal in weight to the reviews that are already there. per Aquillion. Intelligent criticism of 'less than perfect' aspects of a film is a useful aspect of defining the character of a film, or other creative≥ work, where it succeeds and where it doesn't. As long as the balance of + and - is roughly maintained, including the criticism, enhances rather than diminishes the overall coverage. A creative work is not diminished by noting that not everyone raved about all aspects of it or thought it was beyond criticism.Pincrete (talk) 06:00, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
Comment: The obligation of a conscientious editor is not to have every opinion evenly spread across a divide; otherwise, there would not be, for example, any place in Wikipedia for labeling a hypothesis as "conspiracy theory": One could almost always find enough sources from each camp, especially on popular such hypotheses, to post up a "50/50" field of sources. The merit of each source must be assessed in terms such as possible bias, potential ignorance, political prejudice, and so on. For instance, a reference offered above in support of "backlash against the film" is nothing more than an opinion piece by a "comic book writer and podcaster" who claims without any solid proof that Billboards "offers excuses" for racism and leaves its racist character "never punished." Does this overly simplistic view carry the same intellectual weight as, for instance, a review which goes deeper into the story and wider into the director's work to point out the essential element of redemption in Martin McDonagh's work? I beg to differ. -The Gnome (talk) 14:18, 6 April 2026 (UTC)
No-ish: it’s not clear to me what exactly the proposal is… Include all the text in the question? Then no, there’s already pretty good coverage of the negative reviews, as observed by Darkwarriorblake. Swap one of the critical review quotes for one of above, sure. It’s a question of Wikipedia:Due. In my quick read, the negative reviews are already sufficiently covered. Dw31415 (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2026 (UTC), edit 01:36, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

References

[1]
Shamsian, Jacob (March 1, 2018). "Why so many people are furious with Oscar frontrunner 'Three Billboards'". Business Insider. Retrieved March 24, 2026.
[2]
Bernardin, Marc (9 January 2018). "Despite its awards, Three Billboards is a shallow look at race in rural America". The Guardian. Retrieved 23 March 2026.
[3]
Pinkerton, Nick (November–December 2017). "Review: Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri". Film Comment. Retrieved 23 March 2026.
[4]
"Three Billboards Meets Backlash". National Review. January 18, 2018. Retrieved March 24, 2026.
[5]
"Three Billboards Director Responds to Backlash". W Magazine. February 9, 2018. Retrieved March 24, 2026.
[6]
"Why 'Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri' is dividing audiences". CNN. February 12, 2018. Retrieved March 24, 2026.
[7]
McDermott, Maeve. "The growing racial backlash against 'Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri,' explained". USA TODAY. Retrieved 2026-04-05.
[8]
Sharf, Zack (3 October 2022). "Martin McDonagh Confronts 'Three Billboards' Being Slammed as Racist and a 'Gross Misstep': 'It's Hurtful…Was It That Bad?'". Retrieved 2026-04-05.
[9]
Sharf, Zack (9 February 2018). "Martin McDonagh Defends 'Three Billboards' Against Backlash Over Sam Rockwell's Racist Character". Retrieved 2026-04-05.
[10]
Wilkinson, Alissa (19 January 2018). "How Three Billboards went from film fest darling to awards-season controversy". Vox. Retrieved 2026-04-05.
[11]
"'Three Billboards' is for people who want to feel better about their racist family members". NBC News. Retrieved 2026-04-05.
[12]
Abdurraqib, Hanif (13 December 2017). "'Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri' Is Hopelessly Bad on Race". Retrieved 2026-04-05.
[13]
Squire, Eva (1 February 2018). "Three Billboards' portrayal of dwarfism is reductive and ableist, and I would know". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2026-04-05 – via The Guardian.
[14]
"'Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri' didn't need its racist cop". The Washington Post. 28 November 2017. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2026-04-05 – via www.washingtonpost.com.
[15]
Abdul-Jabbar, Kareem (22 February 2018). "Kareem Abdul-Jabbar on Race and Redemption in 'Three Billboards'". Retrieved 2026-04-05.
[16]
Weis, Max (December 1, 2017). "Review: Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri". Baltimore Magazine. Retrieved 2026-04-05.
[17]
Collins, Bob (9 January 2018). "Why 'Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri' has people stirred up". MPR News. Retrieved 2026-04-05.
[18]
"'Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri' Fails to Live Up to Its Incisive Premise". www.theringer.com. 8 November 2017. Retrieved 2026-04-05.
[19]
Bui, Hoai-Tran (26 January 2018). "The 'Three Billboards Against Ebbing, Missouri' Backlash, Explained". SlashFilm. Retrieved 2026-04-05.
[20]
Clarke, Donald. "'Three Billboards' is not suffering a backlash: some people just didn't like it". The Irish Times. Retrieved 2026-04-05.
[21]
Bramesco, Charles. "Oscars scandals: 'Racist' Three Billboards and 'paedophilic' Call Me by Your Name". The Irish Times. Retrieved 2026-04-05.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Related Articles