Talk:Forgetting Sarah Marshall

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Forgetting Sarah Marshall article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

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.

Comedy Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Romance Low‑importance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romance, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional romance in literature and romantic fiction writers. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.RomanceWikipedia:WikiProject RomanceTemplate:WikiProject Romanceromance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hawaii Low‑importance

	Hawaii portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hawaii 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.HawaiiWikipedia:WikiProject HawaiiTemplate:WikiProject HawaiiHawaii articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

California: Los Angeles Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

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 articles
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 (assessed as Low-importance).

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Russell Brand#Music and Infant Sorrow|Infant Sorrow]] The anchor (#Music and Infant Sorrow) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Ad campaign coverage?

Have there been any news articles discussing the unusual print ads plastered on billboards and bus stops? It would be a notable point to make in the article. Lawikitejana (talk) 04:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Here are some articles: [1], [2], and [3]. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons between Sarah Marshall and Kristen Bell

Some news outlets have mentioned the similarities between the careers of Kristen and her character (series cancellation, J-horror with killer phones etc.), some to Kristen's shock and offense, which while Segel maintans is unintentionally would probably add some texture to the article. How should this best be included?~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With sources 75.80.82.112 (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The character is based loosely on Jason's ex Linda Cardellini. At the time she was on ER — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.135.183 (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American self-celebration at work again...

The article goes on to praise the movie, but most critics in Europe liken Kristen Bell's performance to that of an inflatable love-doll... They also say the romantic thread is pretty weak and only the comedy part works, keeping the movie going. Definitely not 85% pro, rather like 65-75% (which is still significantly better than Hollywood average, where junk in, junk out is the recipe.) 91.83.17.235 (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arrogant arrogant little title there. 24.222.21.50 (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.21.50 (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. "As of April 23, 2008, the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reported that 85% of critics gave the film positive reviews, based on 132 reviews - with the consensus being that the film "finds just the right mix of romantic and raunchy comedy."" = Fact, "Definitely not 85% pro, rather like 65-75% (which is still significantly better than Hollywood average, where junk in, junk out is the recipe.)" = Opinion, conjecture, and arrogance.204.210.209.95 (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please get some European reviews on this website? They sound like it would make the website more fair and balanced. I don't think they are necessary if they are not in English - but on the other hand I do not want to hegemonise other countries! Anglocentricism can only get us so far........ I will think about these ideas after I have my dinner. Thank you for reading, God bless. I am from Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.253.81 (talk) 08:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reviews from RT, which give it an 85 percent approval based on 175 reviews, include reviews from a variety of foreign press, including Austrailian. Wiki users can click on the external link to RT to look at any review they want. That should be sufficient for the purposes of wiki.Fsm83 (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel/ Spin-off

Is it worth mentioning that the next film being made by Stoller, Get Him to the Greek, will see Russel Brand reprise his role as Aldous Snow, making it sort of a sequel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.81.129.226 (talk) 11:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary

can someone write a plot summary in the intro that doesnt detail the whole plot - for people who havent seen it to get the gist of what its about. cheers - Noel Gallagher ("not THE Noel Gallagher FFS!") 89.240.162.195 (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. These synopsis always seem to be written by a five year old. "girlfriend breaks up with him while he is standing stark naked..." being naked is a detail incidental to the plot, but it's the sort of thing we come to e/pect from Wiki contributors.

on another note, Wiki has rules against independent research and the synopsis is not attributed to a verifiable source so is it even allowed under Wiki's terms? just sayin. APDEF (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A plot summary does not need to have a verifiable source. It is a summary of the film, there is nothing to verify. I've seen a lot worse then this one. And obviously it went through a lot or rewrites since that first complaint was filed 5 years ago. Fsm83 (talk) 05:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meta question: Why don't plot summaries need verifiable sources? What gives this particular information an exception to the Wikipedia rule? NewkirkPlaza (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Forgetting Sarah Marshall. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511172420/http://chicago.metromix.com/movies/movie_review/forgetting-sarah-marshall/379893/content to http://chicago.metromix.com/movies/movie_review/forgetting-sarah-marshall/379893/content

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) 03:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary and length

@Willondon Your revert restored the previous plot summary, which is only 265 words (shorter than plot lengths that are described as insufficient for other films). Why is the detail that I added considered to be WP:PLOTBLOAT, particularly when it is under the recommended plot length at 690 words? Spectrallights (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The summary at Heartbreak Kid (other films) isn't described as insufficient because of length; the maintenance tag says "This article needs an improved plot summary." I felt many details were unnecessary: "trip to Hawaii" becomes "trip to the Turtle Bay Resort in Oahu"; "offers him an expensive suite for free" becomes "offers him an expensive suite in exchange for him cleaning up after himself"; unimportant details such as the names "Infant Sorrow", "A Taste for Love" are introduced. Some unnecessary detail is in the form of editorialising: "the unusual number", "hilariously caught by some vines". Other add-ons are excessive detail: "along with seeing all the vacationing couples at the resort", "and that he cheated on her with a housekeeper", "so Peter can bask in the success of his show".

A problem with some plot summaries is that they seem to be written with an aim to describing each scene blow-by-blow, as a screenplay might do, rather than picking out the important plot points. Guidelines about word lengths are not strict goals, rather just an indicator that the plot might be too short or too long. Some 3 hour epic sagas will probably need more than the recommended 700. You can have another go adding to it. Please just consider whether or not the material is important to understanding the plot of the movie. Since there are a little over 100 watchers of the page, I'm inclined to leave it to you and the rest of the community to continue with edits to the plot. Cheers. _signed,Willondon (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The cleanup template for The Heartbreak Kid’s plot states "more plot" which can be interpreted as more detail, hence expansion. I can provide more examples of shorter plots on film articles getting tagged with an "expand plot" template if need be. Compared to many film pages, the plot for Forgetting Sarah Marshall looked unusually short in comparison, and I didn’t see any problem with adding certain details while also making sure it doesn’t go over the recommended length.

I incorporated some of the changes you suggested. Others I left because I believe they provide relevant detail to the plot. The line "along with seeing all the vacationing couples at the resort" presents a major source of conflict for the main character. If the goal with the summary is to get the word count to be under a minimum as much as possible, then I would delete other details. Seeing as the word count is already under 700, I’ll leave it to other editors to decide what is considered plot bloat. Spectrallights (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At The Heartbreak Kid, I'm still only seeing: "This article needs an improved plot summary. Please help improve the plot summary. (August 2022)" In any case, I think we agree that we shouldn't focus on the 700-word count as anything more than a guideline. Your newer plot summary looks better. I don't have any more tweaks to suggest. _signed,Willondon (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Related sites?