Talk:Fred: The Movie

	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.

Television Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

This article has graduated from the Article Incubator.

Improving this article...

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

This article has had at least two recent incarnations... one which was recently sent to AFD, deleted and set as a redirect, and another which was more recently created under a slightly different name and sent to AFD. Now that now that the film has completed principle filming, and expecting that there will be more coverage over the next few weeks, I re-wrote the article myself under its proper title, added proper sourcing, and then moved my work to WP:INCUBATE. Were it should find the attention it needs. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please Note:

This is NOT the original article that was deleted, nor the one that was set as a redirect. Those both suffered from lack of content and context and had little to no sourcing. This one is a new article that simply shares a similar name. So editors please note... this is not just recreated material... it is an improved effort that handles the topic properly. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Project notified

Wikipedia:WikiProject Films notified here -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok are you sure this movie is gonna be real? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.5.2 (talk) 03:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's already been made, just needs to be released. There's also a planned sequel. liquidluck✽talk 03:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Father

I'm pretty sure the father is Fred's imagination. He states at the beginning that he only has a mom. As well at the end it is implied the man on the toilet is the father. STHayden ^{[ Talk ]} 01:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)>

I agree, I do not believe John Cena is his dad...Its his imagination. At the end, his mom states that she dated that guy 15 years ago, and Fred is 15....so...Its implying that the man was probably his dad. TropicalAnalystwx13 01:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I think all the scenes with John Cena were imaginary. I am actually not sure if all the encounters with Derf were real either. 117Avenue (talk) 06:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 92.29.177.153, 30 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Need to add the UK release date as "17th December - Cinema" There is no DVD release date confirmed as of yet though. 92.29.177.153 (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. Its in the second paragraph. 117Avenue (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Serbian Film

Is the link and reference to A Serbian Film really needed? I don't see the point in redirecting anyone who happens across this article to an article about a rape exploitation film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.127.247.95 (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.35.20 (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia made up of links between articles, this is the spirit of the project. 117Avenue (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't think it's at all right for a kid to be reading about a film that involves a 17 year old acting like a 6 year old, and then end up reading about a film that involves murder, rape, necrophilia, child abuse, child rape, murder-suicide,torture, incest, the list goes on. It's just a hyperlink, can't you leave this one out?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.43.114 (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored Asasa64 (talk) 14:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewer related this film as being as bad as A Serbian Film, and so having the other film linked to it so one can compare this film with the other directly, via wikipedia. Personally, I think this would be somewhat more painful to watch than A Serbian Film, but I don't believe I will be watching either at any time in the near future. Wiki is not censored, as is rightly pointed out above, and A Serbian Film IS related, in so far as the review compares the horror of this film to it, and judges them equal. CybergothiChé ^{word to your mother} 05:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I came to the Talk page because I had the same concern as the original poster. On the whole, I don't think that the link to A Serbian Film lends anything to an understanding of Fred, and doesn't immediately have a reason to be in the article. On the other, it does lend to an understanding of how poorly critics received the film. It could be replaced with a sufficient reference to critical reception of the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asteroixiii (talk • contribs) 15:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits about it's "amazing" reception

Recent edits have completely gone against what sources such as Rotten Tomatoes have displayed. Can all these changes be reverted and this page be locked against unregistered users. Clearly this is quite a popular vandalism page. Bezuidenhout (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can revert changes. But it isn't enough vandalism to protect to page. See WP:SILVERLOCK for more information. 117Avenue (talk) 23:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page says the film grossed £838,617 in the UK, and that it was a 'box office bomb,' but what was the international gross? Might have done better internationally. Outpostmodern (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timelines

No one cares about the whole Timeline thing, it's really not needed at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.35.20 (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It explains how the movie and video series differ to anyone expecting the movie to be in the video storyline. 117Avenue (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that when a user reads that this movie is based off the Fred Figglehorn internet video series, they would expect the film to somehow fit within the storyline of the well known series. This article should include a section on how the movies are their own storyline, because of the differences, ie. the age of Fred, and the use of YouTube. I fear, however, that the explanation with timelines, and canon, may be too advanced for the young readers that this article attracts. Any suggestions? 117Avenue (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever is added needs to be supported by reliable third party sources. Active Banana (^bananaphone 23:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And anyways, you don't really need that information. For example, the The Twilight Saga is based off of the original Twilight Series, yet, they both lie in different timelines. But there is no mention of that on there article because there is NO NEED to.--KH1MOVIE (talk) 23:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the worthiness of such a section. Just a note that while there is not a section specifically on timeline differences, there is (in the main "saga" article, and in at least the first movie's article) rather large sections on differences in development between the book and the films. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 23:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If any work is based off a previously existing work, its article should mention how they are related, and how the new one was produced off of this existing work. 117Avenue (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone disagree? 117Avenue (talk) 18:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a general statement on the relationship is needed, e.g., "This film is based on the original videos, but Fred is now X years old; in the videos, he was only Y." Any further explanation, such as how it can't be the same timeline because of how long YouTube has been around, is heading down the path of original research—and that's not allowable. —C.Fred (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good? 117Avenue (talk) 04:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with putting it in the plot section, it is not part of the plot. 117Avenue (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how some people can feel so strongly not to mention that this film was based off of previously existing content. It's a simple encyclopedic fact. 117Avenue (talk) 03:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is unimportant and not needed. PLEASE REMOVE IT.--KH1MOVIE (talk) 00:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't find that a convincing argument. I think that the origins of a film plot and characters are very notable, and should be included in an encyclopaedia article. If no film article were to discuss the production process, they wouldn't have much of an article, would they? Could you please further explain your comments? Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 05:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well you see, that information that you put in that article does not explain the origins of a film plot and characters. All it does is point out that Fred was younger in the video series than he was in the movie. But you see, how do we know that they are on these different "timelines" that you speak of? Maybe this was just an error, or maybe he did age in some weird way. You have no source of this information, and since it is invaild, it must be removed. Plus, the fact that this movie was based on the Youtube account is already said in the beginning of the article. --KH1MOVIE (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been reading what you are reverting? It says nothing about timelines. 117Avenue (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I just realized that. My bad. You used to put that. Still, the fact that this movie was based on the Youtube account is already said in the beginning of the article. And the whole "age" thing doesn't really matter.--KH1MOVIE (talk) 00:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Like we discussed above, when a film is based off of something, the similarities and differences can be discussed. 117Avenue (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but if that's the only difference, then there is no point.--KH1MOVIE (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fred:The movie 2 being filmed now

on Lucas's twitter he retweeted that they were 2 weeks away from filming Fred: The Movie 2 just today he tweeted hes going to LA to film and won't be back home till spring I'm now thinking this was quick my guess is that the movie will be released around 2012 in theaters i'm just confirming what I know so far thank you 24.16.49.60 (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing it on http://twitter.com/LucasCruikshank. 117Avenue (talk) 06:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found it but I don't know how to give a link to that tweet its true though 24.16.49.60 (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the time of the tweet, then copy the entire URL, and paste it here. 117Avenue (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok heres the link http://twitter.com/LucasCruikshank/status/40139239941210112 24.16.49.60 (talk) 06:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also heres the link saying he wont be back till spring http://twitter.com/LucasCruikshank/status/43282065155829760 24.16.49.60 (talk) 07:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, adding them now. 117Avenue (talk) 07:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I noted about this movie

Flipping through channels, on the scene in this movie where Fred is making a youtube or music video that features pelvis shots and near up-the-dress shots of young girls. You know, for kids. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 04:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]