Talk:Bamboozled

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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 articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Library of Congress Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress 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.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Definition?

Why does the title need to be defined in the first paragraph? It's a standard English word.

The word is in limited usage and much of that usage (from my observation) is improper.TimB 04:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blaxploitation?

Can someone justify to me why this page is in the Blaxploitation films category? I don't want to delete it before asking, but it doesn't seem to fit a number of blaxploitation characteristics. --Rocketgoat 18:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"PC backlash"??

Such a cliche, "PC backlash". We think we know what it means, but dear author, can you please explain what it means, especially in the context of Bamboozled?

analysis section outdated?

Is the analysis section supposed to be kept current? Because it refers to the UPN network in the present tense and it no longer exists.Bobbyi 15:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider removing it entirely, as it seems to be WP:NOR.TimB 04:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Synopsis reworded, corrected

Corrected some false plot points, reworded some awkward construction, removed some of the wiki references. Isn't the first mention of a character or actor the only time they should be linked to their wiki page? "Julius" (Mos Def) was linked 4 times throughout the page. I also think its unnecessary to put the actor portraying the character after every single mention of the character's name. There were 4 "Julius (Mos Def)" constructions as well.

Also rewrote some cliche-ridden and poorly written sections ("only to have" replaced with "but" in 3 places, etc.) Raphaelaarchon 07:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler Alert

Someone should add a spoiler alert at the end.
roy.vanegas, wednesday, 10 september 2008.

No, per WP:SPOILER, "Since it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail, such warnings are considered unnecessary. Therefore, Wikipedia no longer carries spoiler warnings, except for the content disclaimer and section headings (such as "Plot" or "Ending") which imply the presence of spoilers."

"Producers" reference

I could or could not give two shits (depending on how you read that expression) about Broadway musicals but I care about tax shelters. Someone who has actually seen it can clarify but I thought they were trying to bomb because they oversold shares to investors, not because they wanted a tax shelter.69.255.170.233 (talk) 05:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)moi[reply]

Exactly; this is nonsense: "The plot also has a lot in common with The Producers. The Producers uses satire about Nazism and the Jewish Holocaust in a similar over-the-top way. Its protagonist [sic] creates a Broadway musical starring a fictional Adolf Hitler that is so offensive it is bound to lose money. This will give his boss [sic] a huge tax shelter [sic]. The musical becomes a smash hit and makes a lot of money, instead of losing money as intended." Autodidact1 (talk) 05:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay...I'm going to be the third person, trying to get the attention of the author of this article: the Mel Brooks film The Producers has nothing to with "tax shelters." The scam involved selling something like 10,000% of the "profits" from the play. If the play closed on opening night (like the last series of Zero Mostel's plays produced), the producers would have gotten away with their trick: 10,000% of zero (meaning, no money was made) would still be zero. But if the play was successful, then for every dollar of profit, the producers would have to account for another $10,000. Taxes--in any form--are never part of the film. PLEASE CORRECT THIS IDIOCY. Bill Abendroth (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the plot

Hey. The plot synopsis skips a couple really important bits by failing to include details about the Mau Maus (or their execution of Manray) until they're shot by the cops. Is there a reason for this? Albert Mond (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Film poster

Since a user using changing IP addresses refuses to start a discussion, I am starting one here. First, the user changed the film poster stating, "Does the image really need to be that creepy?", which falls into WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Second, the user changed the film poster saying that it was a promotional poster, when in the past the other poster stated it was the promotional poster. Third, the user changed the film poster saying it is the European poster. With an ever changing list of reasons, seems to me trying to throw everything at the wall to see if any of them will stick. Current and past versions of the article support the first film poster as being the correct one and without any evidence provided to the contrary, it should stay in the infobox, which I will due unless there is a consensus formed to make the change. Aspects (talk) 03:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it really matters, but without a good-faith reason, the status quo version should probably stay. If that's the European version, then, sure, I guess we should use the American version. But I'm not seeing any evidence provided. {{infobox film}} suggests we use impawards.com to sourc posters, and they don't seem to label either as specifically American or European. Maybe raise the issue at WT:FILM and see if one of them can provide better advice. I don't usually bother spending much time looking for posters. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bamboozled. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130922205228/http://edition.cnn.com/2000/SHOWBIZ/Movies/10/04/bamboozled/index.html to http://edition.cnn.com/2000/SHOWBIZ/Movies/10/04/bamboozled/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Network 1976

i added this to the "See also" section. perhaps not the ideal location, but i strongly feel it should be mentioned somewhere, especially as Spike Lee makes the reference explicit in the very first scene of the "Mantan" pilot. I think the Producers (1967?) might be mentioned as well, but at least i didn't notice an explicit reference as to the Howard Beal speech "I want you to open your window..." --91.64.59.134 (talk) 01:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]