Talk:Big (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Big Too

Should there be mention of the talks of a sequel that have been going on between Hanks and the studios? Big Too (sic) will feature Hanks as an actual adult whose own child becomes 'Big', becoming the same age as Hanks, encroaching on his own work and personal life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.141.75.158 (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Importance

I've assessed this as of high importance as it is widely regarded as one of Tom Hanks' first classic movies. Halsteadk 21:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Hanks was nominated an Academy Award for his performance in this film. Christianster45 7:28 8 August 08 (UTC)

Something important

Am I wrong or didn't the character here basically invent several forms of entertainment which went on to become "big" themselves, such as computer text-adventures and animal-based transformers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Zork predates this movie by 10 years. No clue about the transformers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.229.30 (talk) 01:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Rumored alternate ending = bad memories of different movie on TV

Now and then someone will claim to have seen a made for TV or VHS version of this movie that ends with the love interest somehow becoming a young girl and showing up in class with the boy to continue the romance. They are thinking of the Disney TV movie 14 Going on 30 -- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094592/

The rumor of there being an alternate ending probably doesn't belong in the article at all. People's bad memories certainly are not reliable sources, so there's no reason to mention them at all. DreamGuy (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm

Big was received with almost unanimous critical acclaim, and is considered by many critics the gold standard of movies in which a child is trapped in an adult's body. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.105.25 (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The Wish

The synopsis at the beginning says that the character wished to age into adulthood. This isn't true, he simply wished to be 'big' after his embarrassment of not being big enough to get on the ride with the girl he likes. This should be changed in the article to reflect the actuality of the story. --Bentonia School (talk) 11:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have corrected this and made it clearer that he simply wished to be big, and being aged to adulthood was the result. I also don't believe the interpretation that he therefore wished to be an adult was correct; that aside we're not here to interpret, just state facts. Halsteadk (talk) 12:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This article shouuld be moved

The most commonly known Use for the word big is somthing that is large. THis article should be moved to Big (movie) Geekyperson (talk) 01:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not quite how encyclopedic articles are titled. They're almost always nouns. If you wanted to read an article about "big" referring to size, you'd look under bigness. Just like how you wouldn't look up "run" you'd look at "running" which would be a noun in this context. If this were a dictionary though, you would be correct, the size usage would come first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.229.30 (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

"these "See alsos" don't have anything to do with the film "Big"!"

The above was an edit comment justification for removing the entire See also section. Is this a joke? I mean, seriously, the argument is that a list of movies with similar themes and plots supposedly don't have anything to do with this movie? By that logic no article would ever have anything listed as a see also item. DreamGuy (talk) 20:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

If that is so, why don't you list every single film with Tom Hanks? No, this is not a joke at all! "See also" sections usually provide links to articles about topics which are directly related to the subject in the respective article. Usually, sequels or prequels are listed, as well as links to filmographies of the actors or director (e.g.). If another film is mentioned somewhere in the article then it might also be listed in the "See also" section. Does Big have any sequels? No! A list of 13 (!!!) unrelated films that have nothing in common with Big, except for rudimentary plot similarities, seems useless since none of them is mentioned in the article.

Just take a look at the "See also" section of A Fistful of Dollars. This is a pretty good "See also" section. There you will find links for the two sequels as well as links to subject related topics, and not a huge list of every single spaghetti western ever produced... just to give you an example! Dutzi (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Possible first example of "Crimping"

Found this on Urban Dictionary, I had previously believed that The Mighty Boosh invented crimping but this has thrown me into doubt. Is the so-called crimp in this film accompanied by music or any other factor that would preclude it from being a real crimp?

Crimping: A form of lyrical scatting, rapping or singing, that is often abstract and devoid of actual subject, but sometimes has a unifying theme. Cheese, money, or sex could be an example of words exploited by the crimpers.

Crimping often thought to have been invented by "The Mighty Boosh" actually shows up much earlier in pop culture, in movies and television. One example is the 1988 memorable block buster "Big" feature Tom Hanks. The young Hanks Character and his freand, do a blatent display of crimping, much earlier than "The Boosh" Josh and Billy Crimping: The space goes down, down baby, down, down the roller coaster. Sweet, sweet baby, sweet, sweet, don't let me go. Shimmy, shimmy, cocoa pop. Shimmy, shimmy, rock. Shimmy, shimmy, cocoa pop. Shimmy, shimmy, rock. I met a girlfriend - a triscuit. She said, a triscuit - a biscuit. Ice cream, soda pop, vanilla on the top. Ooh, Shelly's out, walking down the street, ten times a week. I read it. I said it. I stole my momma's credit. I'm cool. I'm hot. Sock me in the stomach three more times.

Anon- 11/9/10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.151.76 (talk) 04:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Now that you mention it, yes it is a crimp. There's no music or anything when they do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.28.221 (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Big and Da grande

Big has strong similarities to the Italian comedy film Da grande, produced in 1987. Da grande was directed by Franco Amurri and starred Renato Pozzetto, an actor, comedian and singer who's very popular in Italy. The film is archived by the Internet Movie Database (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0164519/) and Rotten Tomatoes (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/da-grande/).

I think this an information that should be added to the article. The fact that Da grande was not an international blockbuster is not a good reason for not mentioning it. On the contrary, that's what an encyclopaedia is for, to give people access to news and info they wouldn't get elsewhere. --93.44.210.83 (talk) 07:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I think both meet the general notability requirement as both of the films do have articles present on the English and Italian wikis. The similarities with both films are obvious, so it doesn't strike me as unusual to state this in the article here. Dawnseeker2000 03:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

"Obvious" is a matter of opinion. Lots of films have lots of similarities to lots of other films. And simply having a film "archived" by IMDb or Rotten Tomatoes is no evidence that one film has any purposeful connection with another film. Each film per se may be notable, but there is weak, if any, evidence that any connection between the two is notable. 75.177.158.143 (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that there are connections between the two films, but simply that the two have similarities with each other, which is a perfectly notable aspect. --151.80.188.128 (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Mentioning another film in this article implies a connection or that similarity is established. There needs to be reference to a published, acceptable source (ie something with some influence like a movie review site, not someone's blog or comment) that likens the two films, otherwise it is original research. Halsteadk (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Halsteadk is exactly correct. Anyone can draw his/her personal conclusions about connections in films, but it does not go into a Wikipedia article unless the connection is specifically well sourced. I could add literally thousands of connections between films to Wikipedia articles, but without proper sourcing, those are just my opinions and do not belong in Wikipedia articles. And the item should not be restored unless/until that sourcing is provided, or there is a consensus here to restore it, per WP:BURDEN. 67.239.176.127 (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I included "Da grande" among the age-changing comedies of the late 1980s, as confirmed by many sources. 93.44.211.65 (talk) 06:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

And you have provided no evidence of any relationship to the film Big. 24.163.39.26 (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The paragraph now only states that Da grande is one of the age-changing comedies produced in the late 1980s, which is a fact confirmed by the sources brought as supporting documentation. 93.44.211.27 (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

A source is necessary but not necessarily sufficient to include in an article, particularly disputed material related to notability and sourced by opinion pieces. This matter is currently under consensus discussion. It is entirely inappropriate to repeatedly restore it to the article unless/until consensus is achieved. WAIT FOR CONSENSUS. 24.163.39.26 (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Capital letters and such a tone are unacceptable. 93.44.211.27 (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Capital letters are not a violation of policy. Repeatedly restoring material without consensus is a clear violation of policy. 24.163.39.26 (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

• The material is acceptable as it stands — The sources were provided that establish a connection between Big and Da Grande. I really feel like you're pushing too much with this. It's fairly disruptive on your part to hassle this user that's done nothing but try to improve this encyclopedia and frankly you're not assuming good faith and doing just the opposite by calling this user's edits vandalism. This user has done all he/she needs to include the material, and I'm impressed with their reaction and restraint to this pummeling. Dawnseeker2000 18:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, Dawnseeker20000, but let's remember that it is an opinion, and that this is a consensus discussion about whether the material is notable enough to be included in the article. Your pronouncement (unnecessarily bolded to falsely suggest that you have some sort of authority on this matter that supersedes consensus) that it is "acceptable as it stands" is simply an opinion, and every opinion here has equal weight. Currently there is no consensus, regardless of what sort of impression you are pushing that your opinion here is more important than any other opinion. It is fairly disruptive on your part to hassle those with different opinions that's done nothing but try to improve this encyclopedia and frankly you're not assuming good faith and doing just the opposite by suggesting that this matter if finalized by your opinion alone. I have done all I need to do to continue the normal consensus process, and I am exercising considerable restraint in my reaction to your pummeling. This consensus discussion is proceeding exactly the way thousands of consensus discussions have proceeded quite successfully on Wikipedia. So before you continue with your pronouncements, please inform us about what authority you think you have to declare the consensus process irrelevant. Thank you. 24.163.39.26 (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I stated where I stand so that we can build consensus and bold makes it easy for others to follow. We all need to know where everyone sits with this so I communicated that. I made a 3RR report based on your editing today. Dawnseeker2000 18:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe for a minute that you bolded to "make it easy for others to follow." I believe you bolded to present a false impression of authority. But that's OK; there's no policy against bolding; let's just not confuse bold with anything more than a shouted opinion. And your 3RR report is irrelevant to this discussion; once again, commenting about that here appears to me to be an attempt to present yourself as some sort of authority. Now, whether I am blocked or not, I assume you will respect the consensus process here, because I'm not the only one watching this page or your edits. Thank you. 24.163.39.26 (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Bolding doesn't make anyone's text more authoritative. It's just something we do here when consensus building. Articles for deletion are a good example. It lets others quickly see where others stand so they can gauge the tone and progress of particular discussion. I suggest we all start following that style here for coming up with a solution. Dawnseeker2000 21:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that Dawnseeker is being dishonest about his motives (my bolding was done only to make it easy for others to follow). Please don't lecture me (or anyone) about what "we do here", once again as if you are the authority on these matters. I was editing Wikipedia long before you, but that again is beside the point. It's clear to me that you were caught with your pants down trying to present your opinion as carrying more weight than any other opinions here, and now you're just trying to backtrack as a cover for what you did. 24.163.39.26 (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

To put this comment into context, you will see from my previous comment above I said that the material was inappropriate without a reference (which is fairly unarguable given WP:OR). Refs are now in place. This ref: http://www.cinemaitalianoinhawaii.org/judges2.php (currently ref 5) states that Da Grande is considered by many as the inspiration for Big. I am now happy for it to be included as it is now - some sort of relationship (other than them being of similar genre and time) has been identified publicly by others. However, as that article itself doesn't state its sources, I don't think it is reliable enough to take the statement further (eg "many see it as the inspiration" - which is pretty irrelevant if it isn't the case, and certainly not as a claim that it "was the inspiration"), so I suggest it is left as is. We wouldn't also want to list out every possible similar film as that will be unhelpful and water it down (perhaps it is now too long?) - but I do think including La Grande has merit on the basis of providing some variety in that it is Italian and all the others are American. Halsteadk (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)