Talk:Josie and the Pussycats (film)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Josie and the Pussycats (film) 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: Canadian / Comic book / 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 Canadian cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the Comic book films task force.
	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.

Comics: United States / Films Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles

Low

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

Related work groups:
/
	This article is supported by United States comics work group.
	This article is supported by Comic book films work group.

Subliminal Advertising?

"In line with its theme of subliminal advertising, it is arguable that the inordinate degree of product placement in the movie constitutes a running joke. Almost every scene features a mention of one or more famous brands, including the likes of Motorola and Starbucks. None of the advertisement was paid promotion by the represented brands, it was inserted voluntarily by the filmmakers."

Is there documentation for this? If so, it's beyond "arguable" -- in fact, it's pretty much inarguable. -It's mentioned in IMDB trivia also. 204.120.207.2 18:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it looks as if the film showed blatant advertising like in the film Mac and Me, which was seen as McDonalds adware by some... Blake Gripling 11:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The directors state in the DVD commentary they did not receive any money for the "advertising" in the film--and indeed, the movie was quite low budget. If they'd gotten the money for all that advertising, I imagine the film would have had a much higher budget and they would have been able to be more elaborate with certain scenes. Just because it "looks like" to some people that they are advertising doesn't mean they are. The "excessive" ads make sense within the context of the film--they're depicting a world which is heavily corporate-marketing controlled. Anyway, as the statement currently reads (without "Arguable" or "inarguable"), it looks fine to me. DeathQuaker (talk) 18:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some part of this film that mocks the very real idea that MTV is attempting to corner cool culture by way of massive hyperbolic plot?

"The Conquest of Cool" By Thomas Frank might have some relevance to this discussion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.174.110.147 (talk) 18:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cult status

I don't think the supposed "cult status" of this film has been shown properly shown by reliable sources. Despite the section heading only one source[1] actually uses the term "cult film", the other sources in the section do not. That the film has a Legacy and that following many years later doesn't quite add up to the same thing as "cult status" IMO. I think the section would be better if it was retitled and explored the later reviews a bit more instead. -- 109.79.176.51 (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]