Jump to content

Talk:I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry

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

I know it was briefly mentioned in the trivia section, but I think the similarities between this film and the Australian film Strange Bedfellows deserves its own section. Here is an article from an Australian newspaper if citation is needed. There has been no legal action as of yet, but there may be some in the future. Any thoughts? Raph89 08:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Current Affair (18/7/07) just aired a report on this very subject, showing that the entire concept of "I now pronounce you Chuck and Larry" is almost exactly the same as that of "strange Bedfellows". Both have two very straight men turn gay for tax reasons. Both have the main characters as fire fighters. Both involve investigation from someone who has to be fooled by the main characters. The show also aired similarities between other movies and Hollywood copies. Oranges91 08:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles may exist, but they're false. They claim that the australian film's creators investigated the matter. That's not true, as they didn't write it. It was a remake of a film from the 50s or 60s. That was originally in the article. Why was it taken out? --lincalinca 10:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it looks like they rewrote the article and are clearly reporting that there is no ripping off. Strange Bedfellows was in production after Chuck & Larry and according to the article the movies are vastly different. This has become a non issue deserving of little but a sentence. 128.227.43.42 01:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are you on about? Strange Bedfellows came out in 2004. How can you say it was in production AFTER Chuck and Larry? 70.236.3.113 12:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that Strange Bedfellows was released 3 years prior to I Now Pronounce You Chuck And Larry, and that it was based on a 1950's movie, I Now Pronounce You Chuck And Larry seems to be the newcomer, and also the copier, rather than the original. Also, I noted in my previous post the various important similarities between the two movies. Vastly different? I hardly think so. By the way, A Current Affair never aired claims that the Australian film makers investigated the matter, so why claim it? I watched it, I should know. And it is most definitely not a "non issue". Perhaps if I took a notable Hollywood movie, say for example Casablanca. Then I put it into modern Australia with a different title and a few small differences. Hollywood would be crying for my balls. Why does Hollywood have different rules to that of Melbourne's film making industry, or Sydney's? Oranges91 03:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet there is no article that backs you up. Meanwhile, the article that did back up the allegations has been rewritten in a way to undermine all your points. There was ample sources for this before but now I can only see the section being dismantled one uncited statement at a time. 128.227.43.42 23:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also I believe you have never seen the Australian film. The men are not firefighters in that movie yet you stated that they were.
First off the men ARE firefighters in the Australian movie. Secondly I don't think any of the creators of that show was actually investigating anything or even really criticising it. From that recent article about the co-star of the Aussie version he worked with Rob Schneider in The Animal, and gave him a copy of the movie, and Sandler eventually saw it. He probably thought it would be a good idea to make a similar movie, just with different humour. Caton the actor in the Aussie version said tongue in cheek "Sandler owes me a role" about that. 124.180.229.162 02:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tell that to the commenters on imdb: [1]. I have seen pics of them in firefighting costumes but most sites clearly state the guys are a mechanic and a cinema owner. 128.227.43.42 03:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hogan didnt give Schneider a copy of the movie, he gave him the script. (The movie didnt come out until 2004; The Animal came out in 2001) James Luftan contribs 20:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I stand corrected with that Schneider bit, and as for the firefighters bit (I made that comment about them being firefighters), I thought they were firemen but I do remember the cinima owner bit. They were volunteer firefighters. Jabso (can't be stuffed logging in)
If you have seen the Australian movie, you would KNOW it has been ripped off. It is identical. Reason for the fraud, firemen as their jobs, the entire party scene etc. I suggest you see the Aussie version just to become aware of it, not to mention it is much better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.192.228 (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oranges91 claims that the Aussie movie is based on a 1950s movie of the same name. There is no 1950s movie of the same name. The article's trivia section says that both films are remakes of the 1965 movie of the same name. There is a 1965 movie of the same name, but it has no similarity to the 2004 movie beyond the name. The 1965 movie is a sort of commentary on the "happily ever after" part of "opposites attract" romantic comedies: Stuffy Rock Hudson and wild Gina Lollobrigida meet, fall in love at first sight, marry impulsively--and then argue so badly that they get a quickie divorce. Five years later, they meet again, marry again, and... well, I don't remember the details, but I think a huge fight over something related to politics or business ends up bringing them together in the end. No gay themes, no fake marriage, no attempting to fool an investigator... there's really nothing in common at all. (P.S., from what I remember, it's really not worth seeing.)
It's hard to imagine how the 1965 movie could have shared much in common with the 2004 movie, as there were no legal benefits to being a gay couple in 1965 (as Rock himself could have told you).
Given those facts, I'm removing this entry from the trivial section:
  • There is a similar movie to this one called Strange Bedfellows, with the same plot which was made in Australia. In fact, both films are remakes to the 1965 comedy of the same name which was made by Universal Studios, the distributor of this film.
The "in fact" part is not true, and the rest of it simply duplicates information that's already better detailed in the "Controversy" section. --76.202.58.220 19:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They may not be based on the same old movie, but they are based on the same real-life event, which makes the plagiarism claim a little thinner. But it doesn't really matter. There is a legal case filed, and it's been widely covered, so it's notable. --75.36.135.39 (talk) 10:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. There's a 1950's movie also called Strange Bedfellows and I got that mixed up with the 2004 one. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_Bedfellows_%282004_film%29 for details. Oranges91 (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever we write, let's make sure it's cited. There's nothing new under the sun, especially in popular comedy. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal

[edit]

I heard yesterday the rating's being appealed from R to PG-13. Is the R rating official now?ChesterG 18:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guess not. ChesterG 12:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT

[edit]

I have an objection to the use of "LGBT comedy film" in the lede. I won't deny the film is LGBT-ish, but LGBT comedy implies that one or more of the major characters is actually L, G, B, or T. This is really more of a buddy comedy or a romantic comedy or both. I'll change it soon unless someone gives me a good reason not to. Polymathematics 17:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The entire movie centers on LGBT issues, and at least two major characters are gay, the big black fireman and the brother of their lawyer; also it's strongly implied that the main character's son is gay. The movie features numerous cameos from prominent real-life LGBT celebrities. It focuses on freedom and the hypocrisy of homophobes like the bigoted protester that Adam Sandler punches out. This movie was meant to appeal to all audiences, but everything about it is LGBT related. You would be flat out wrong in every way to change the lede.Rglong 23:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call either the gay firefighter or the lawyer's gay brother "major characters." As for the potentially gay son... there's a whole other set of problems there. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the definition "contains a character that is LGBT" is frankly discriminatory, and would disallow movies in which straight characters deal with their feelings and potential prejudices against the LGBT community. Which is, frankly, not a good criterion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.166.192.44 (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

[edit]

The entire plot section has been removed as a copyvio. Exploding Boy 15:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WTF?!

[edit]

Is it just me, or did I see Michael Palin in the trailer?!? Curvebill 00:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cuts from film

[edit]

Should you guys mention the cuts? Like the "Homosexicals" or the "We're gay not transexuals". Both were taken out of the film, even though they are still present in the commercials. Xihix 02:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Critical vs. social reaction: a definite NPOV issue

[edit]

I added a section on Rotten Tomatoes and divided it from the LGBT and Catholics' opinions, which are hardly objective and neutral. The LGBT organizations were commenting on how well LGBT people and issues were represented in the film, which is worth noting, but is still not a movie review. The Catholics, let's face it, are against gay people - they would find any movie portraying homosexuality in any way to be "morally offensive" (I remember when Brokeback came out, the reviewer gave it high marks because he felt it was a beautiful film, but then they forced him to change it to "O" for offensive because, well, God hates fags, right?). And anyway, no matter what this movie is about, the Catholic reviewers never use standard movie criticism in reviewing movies, they use an arbitrary scale of what might offend touchy people. Hardly objective. Long story short, critical and social reaction are entirely different things and deserve their own categories. I didn't have time to put a proper footnote on the Rotten Tomatoes, and I also wanted to add all the other standard sources Wikipedia normally uses, so if someone wants to toss that in there for me that would be great.Rglong 17:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While you are inaccurate with your statements about the Church and it's views on homosexuals, I agree with putting the Catholic Bishop's section in the current section since it is not a standard movie reviewer. cloonanw 15:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But don't you wish real movie reviewers would use the word "fisticuffs" more often? --76.202.58.220 19:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Judaism?

[edit]

Can someone explain why this article is included in WikiProject Judaism? --Davidstrauss 05:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because one of them (either Chuck or Larry, can't remember which) is Jewish in the movie and there is significant portrayal of Jewish wedding themes. 90.197.38.191 (talk) 04:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack?

[edit]

Was an official Soundtrack released for this film? It seems likely, seeing as Queen's songs were used...

If so, a section needs to be created for it. Fultron89 (talk) 19:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar problems

[edit]

The second to last paragraph of the plot (and the sentence preceding it) suffer from terrible grammar problems. I haven't seen the movie myself so I cannot correct what I don't understand, but I would appreciate if someone would take a look at it.

Soon the city agent Clinton Fitzer play basket ball with Tori and Eric ask that Chuck should spent time with his Family and ask where he is. Tori mentions that Chuck is hanging out with Alex who he always talk about whenever Larry is not around and he is shocked to hear this
Larry confronts Chuck about his spending time with Alex. Larry said that if Chuck was around then the city agent would believe that Chuck like him soon Chuck and Larry argue Chuck said he had to lied to him because of it now had to lie to everybody especially Alex he was unable to be honest with her or get close to her or have fun with her then Larry ask why he could not had fun with him Chuck said he change ever since Larry force him to marry him saying he does act like his husband and unable to breath Larry said that only reason he feel that way because he was afraid feeling trap that what happen when get marry Chuck respond they are not really saying he just in a gay nightmare Larry reply he can not commit to anything and try make it work Chuck said it did and became work and then relationship become work Chuck tell Larry to Face it they are not suppose to be together and found someone he really be with and tell instead being jealous he should the same but Larry repllie to for in the love Paula Chuck reply he should just move on because his house is like a Shrine to Paula and he should just get a real wife while his kid would lie to every 2 second Larry respond he can not hold it for five minute it the reason this mess Chuck respond he know real reason why they are in this mess and said unable to deal with and Larry leaves but soon reconcile

Crusoe704 (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch I wish I did not read that now my head hurt. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry. 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) 09:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:I_Now_Pronounce_You_Chuck_%26_Larry&oldid=1207168250"