Talk:Nancy Drew (2007 film)

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

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

[[Nancy Drew#Carson Drew|Carson Drew]] Anchor Nancy Drew#Carson Drew links to a specific web page: Carson Drew. The anchor (#Carson Drew) has been deleted by other users before.

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

Vandalism

Finally someone did something about the vandalism in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.74.105.81 (talk) 05:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Faison

Anonymous editors keep adding Stefan Faison to the list of actors (supposedly playing a character called Ned), but he's not listed on the film's cast list at IMDb and gets only 8 Google hits... So I added the dubious tag until someone can provide a reliable source for this. --Fritz S. (Talk) 15:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see on the IMDb page, The part of Ned was originally played Max Theriot, but he pulled out, and that is why IMDb doesent list him. Plus, on the message boards they accurately state that Max isnt playing Ned anymore. But, thats why I also added Max Theriot's name, so people wont be too confused.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.190.139.174 (talk • contribs) .

Also, it takes 2-4 weeks for updates to process on IMDb, thats probably why he's not listed yet. It's NOT just a rumor.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.190.139.174 (talk • contribs) .

True. But, how about we add a "citation needed" tag, until everything is listed?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.190.139.174 (talk • contribs) .

The message board posting that Max Theriot isn't playing the part anymore was just added yesterday[1] (and as far as I can see after I started this duscussion). And either way, an IMDb board posting is not a reliable source. Also, the film finished shooting in February or so, so this sudden/late change seems highly dubious to me. I have now commented out the related sections from the article (per WP:VERIFY; especially the section on Burden of evidence) until this can be verified by a reliable external source. --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was posted yesterday, and that is exactley when i added the character change, and you have absolutley no proof at all saying that it was posted right after you started this discussion. And if you were a member of IMDb's newsletter (which you're probably not, you're probably just some hacker trying to ruin an article) then you would have recieved the e-mail about recent changes. So, not only do I have I have proof from the official IMDb page of the movie, I also have it exactley from IMDb itself...Plus, I dont know where you're getting you're facts from, the movie is in-production. I dont know what you are...some crazed Max Theriot fan...but, the fact is, he's not in the movie anymore (get over it). Wikipedia is not some fan site, and Stefan Faison will remain as the actor playing Ned, until you have any ACTUAL proof that he's not!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.100.195 (talk • contribs) .

Actually "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." (see Burden of evidence) so you have to provide proof that he is in fact playing the role. As for dates of posts, both Wikipedia and IMDb store at what time posts are made (go ahead and compare them, if you want: [2] [3]). And IMDb states the movie is completed. Also, please remain civil. --Fritz S. (Talk) 19:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a persistent hoaxer. This and this are pretty conclusive. If Theriot had been replaced, somebody would report it, especially in Hollywood. Fan-1967 23:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theres no proof saying that Stefan Faison isnt in the movie, and from the posts that you added on his artice, you're obviously paranoid. For example, calling me people I dont even know (ha ha). Also, I dont see what good it would come to me by lying and saying that Stefan Faison is playing Ned, I'm just give you guys the facts.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Princessdiaries11 (talk • contribs)

We don't need proof that Stefan Faison isn't in the movie. You need proof that he is in it. If IMDB says Theriot's in the movie, and every single movie site and paper says Theriot is in the movie, then we're going to print that Theriot is in the movie. You do not have one single Reliable Source that says otherwise, so you can't put it in the article. Those are the rules here. Period. Fan-1967 23:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's you proof: http://imdb.com/name/nm2396860/resume —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Princessdiaries11 (talk • contribs) 00:49, November 20, 2006.

The alleged proof is a resume page that has a note: "IMDb is not responsible for the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this page, which have been supplied by a third party and have not been screened or verified." That resume is also tied to a profile ( http://imdb.com/name/nm2396860 ) that doesn't even have Stefan Faison's name. IMDB allows unverified information. We don't. Fan-1967 00:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Budget

$220 million doesn't seem right for this type of movie. Splamo 23:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC) My thoughts exactly. If it only takes $100 million to make Fantastic Four, $220 million dollars for Nancy Drew would mean special effects coming out the wazoo at every twist and turn. Or maybe Emma Roberts is being paid $200 for her appearance. 68.126.177.26[reply]

Trivia

Does anyone else think the trivia section could be entirely deleted, without incorporation into other parts of the article? Sophy's Duckling 22:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the trivia section. The two points I removed are as follows; if you can think of a way to incorporate them into the article, please do.

The two songs featured on the TV spots are No Secrets' "Kids in America" (performed for Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius) and Rooney's "When Did Your Heart Go Missing?".
When Nancy and Jane first talk, Jane's child is watching Hi Hi Puffy Ami Yumi, but when the film was released, the show stopped airing on TV.

Sophy's Duckling 06:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Nancy drew escaping.PNG

Image:Nancy drew escaping.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DVD (Or lack thereof)

Anyone want to mention the fact that it hasn't been released on DVD yet, despite the fact that it's been bloody ages since it was released in theatres? Or why it hasn't been put onto DVD?? Just a thought. --Promus Kaa (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The DVD is going to be released March 11, 2008... --Fritz S. (Talk) 08:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why it took almost 9 months to go to DVD. That's an unusual release pattern for a DVD of a regularly released film. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it's out now. Gzuckier (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

new yorker

Although i read the new yorker review , i wasn't entirely sure that it was mocking it as much as it was implying that the movie had missed the mark.

“The beautiful Miss Laura Elena Harring. After some ace detective work, I discovered that she was in a film called ‘Mulholland Drive,’ which dealt with similar material. Isn’t that coincidence just a little too suspicious? And the plot leads Nancy to a resort by the name of Twin Palms. Another clue! To sum up, a friend of mine said the film was like Lynch without the lesbians or the dwarves..."

Clearly anthony lane is taking a shot at julia and her niece in most of the review, but that paragraph almost seems to imply that the movie is either ripping off david lynch or celebrating him but for an audience that has no idea who he is. either way, it doesn't read as mockery as much as artistic license on the part of anthony lane. thoughts?

Nsfmc (talk) 11:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Garfield Article

Why is the live link on Dahlia Draycott pointing to the Garfield article ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.236.32.242 (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sequel

im going to delete the sequal section becuase it been so long and there has been no new comformaion about it --Gerty (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fan reception?

Ok, I can see why there might be negative fan reception, what with the "Nancy talks with ghosts" angle, but I'm not seeing any references for that. It should probably be deleted. Banaticus (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]