Jump to content

Talk:Dumb and Dumber To

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cleaning the page up

[edit]

We don't need the additional information on the cast, because it may give away too much of the story, so I cleaned up the page. Npabebangin (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vine Video contest

[edit]

How come no one has mentioned the Vine Video contest the Farrelly Bros did when the shooting of the film went on. Here the source Npabebangin (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could add that to the cast/casting section. It might also be worth clarifying that Lawrence had other commitments and had to turn down a larger role and that the cameo was only one day of filming. To avoid giving WP:UNDUE emphasis the article might need to explain in more detail how very small the role actually is. -- 109.78.129.71 (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Lucic source?

[edit]

Is there a source to add his inclusion? 71.188.21.128 (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

[edit]

JimCarreyOnline.com looks a lot like a fansite and WP:RS guidelines advise against using fansites. In particularly the site claims filming was due to begins Wednesday, September 24th but another sources said Monday, September 22nd (this article erroneously claimed Sept 16 but I read the source article, published Sept 19 and it said filming was due to begin in Atlanta the following Monday, i.e. Sept 22). It is possible Carrey himself did not start filming until the 24th but filming started before he did. The sources are unclear. I tagged it for clarification. -- 109.78.129.71 (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The case I was most bothered by has been fixed. The article still uses JimCarreyOnline.com so it is something that will probably need to be removed after the film comes out and tries to get to the level of a Good Article. -- 109.78.129.71 (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both posters...

[edit]

I would like to ask if I can add the poster for Jeff's character, so we can have both. (It makes sense when you think about it.) --96.255.147.97 (talk) 04:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can only put one poster in the infobox. Koala15 (talk) 05:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop deleting the 'Marketing' section

[edit]

The official trailer has premiered, and it needs to be noted as such, it is technically a marketing situation. Stop deleting it. 98.110.8.213 (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

98.110.8.213, please see the guidelines at MOS:FILM#Marketing. A "Marketing" section needs to be more in-depth than saying a trailer has come out. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
STATicVapor, an example of a proper "Marketing" section would be the one at Edge of Tomorrow (film)#Marketing, Fight Club#Marketing, or Valkyrie (film)#Marketing. There's always going to be secondary sources that state that a trailer or a poster came out, and to avoid being indiscriminate, such sources need to state something more than the fact such media came out, to add value about the sub-topic. Otherwise, it's too easy to blandly reel off that very standard items were advertised leading up to the film's release. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 03:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that was obviously just a start of the section. The information covered was still important and of course it could have been expanded on. I have seen many film articles that just list those things and it is still informative to the reader. It would not be able to go to GA with that type of section, but there need not be a strict inforcement just on this article. It does no good at all just removing the reliably sourced content.STATic message me! 03:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found this which adds some relevance to the trailer's release. I don't think a "Marketing" section is required in every film article. Some films will have very standard marketing campaigns with nothing worth noting except that trailers and posters came out. It does look like this one warrants a section after all. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Reception section excessive

[edit]

If the plot section were trimmed a bit, the Critical Reception section would take up nearly half the page. The number of negative reviews is excessive. It seems like user Captain Assassin!, who is largely responsible for the section, didn't like the film and thus is lambasting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.191.152.115 (talk • contribs) 05:05, November 16, 2014‎

I agree that it is way too long especially when the consensus is very clear. In addition, there is zero effort to rewrite any of the sampled reviews in our words. It is just an endless stream of quoting way too many reviews' slangish passages. To say "as if the script were written in Comic Sans" is not going to make sense to most readers, for example. It should be trimmed to quotes that can be more precise about the problems with the film. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About this

[edit]

Shouldn't under the Distributors it Should also say New Line Cinema (Warner Bros.)

budget

[edit]

I'm not sure who keeps changing the budget of the film back to $35 million, but that number is based on preliminary budget estimates from over a year ago. The most recent number from Variety says the budget was actually $40 million, but each time I edit this page to include the more accurate number someone keeps deleting it and keeps linking to out-dated articles from 2013. Not sure how to resolve this issue, but I figured a discussion topic on this page might help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.126.180.233 (talk) 13:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "Dumb and Dumber For" bit keeps being deleted.

[edit]

"A poster for Dumb and Dumber For coming Summer 2034 suddenly appears with a camouflaged Lippencott walking out of the text." has been deleted twice now. It's the most significant part of the post credits scene and its inclusion seems important. It's back ...for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.194.73.6 (talk) 05:53, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dumb and Dumber To. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Car

[edit]

There should be some mention of the car they drive. Google search says: To showing in cinemas all over the country at the moment, we've been casting our minds back to the original 1994 film and it's fair to say that Harry and Lloyd's customised 1984 Ford Econoline van plays a central role in the action. --5.43.83.177 (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dumb_and_Dumber_To&oldid=1207054278"