Talk:The Hangover/Archive 1

Archive 1

Inspiration for the plot?

(moving comment by Rednoggin regarding this reference here to open up discussion to all interested editors)

The source content for the bit about the plot being inspired by real life events is a blog about a rumor, it's not reporting on fact. The article itself clearly points out that Warner Brothers, Alan Horn and the NYT support an entirely different version of the story. I don't think it should be included. Rednoggin (talk) 03:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know... I read through that entire article, and it seemed to me to be more a relaying of a discussion the writer had with the actual people involved than just the spreading of an unverified rumor. Just because the Warner brass he mentions at the end of the article dispute the story doesn't mean it's not true. If anything, we could mention the divergence between the stories of the two groups, but I don't think we should remove it entirely unless it was conclusively proven to be false. What is the link for the NYT article you mentioned? –Fierce Beaver (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys. I saw this newspaper article about one of the writers. When asked how the movie came about there was no mention of Tripp Vinson. “Jon and I had heard the studio was looking for a script about a bachelor party, and we thought it was a really boring idea. We hit on the idea of a movie about a bachelor party but without the party, just the train wreck afterward. Hearing about it seemed funnier than seeing it.”

I don't think these two accounts are mutually exclusive. According to the Finke article, Chris Bender took the other guy's story and pitched it to the writing team, who then went off and wrote it. In the article you provided, Moore is talking about his experience writing it after he got the job. It's not uncommon for writers to be given an idea or topic to run with by a producer, as opposed to coming up with the basis for a story completely themselves from initial concept to final draft. The Finke article does mention, though, the Warner chairman and president contesting the story behind the origin of the premise, which we could dig up some references for and mention next to the Bender account in the article as a counterpoint. –Fierce Beaver (talk) 01:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That quote above is much more interesting than what is in the article. The idea of not showing something being more interesting than actually showing it and letting the viewers imagination run wild is a great storytelling device and the quote encapsulates that nicely. I do hope you will consider adding it to the article. Also perhaps some of the interviews with the writers will help provide ways to turn the cultural references into something more about their influences in making the film and written out as prose rather than list format. -- Horkana (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Cultural references

What do we want to include in the "cultural references" section? Its name and some of its current content implies that it details similarities to other aspects of culture, notably films. If this is the case, is the fact notable that the singer at the end in the wedding ceremony is not only played by the same person as in Old School (Dan Finnerty), which is directed by the same person, but is in effect, the exact same character? The character, played again by Finnerty played in Starsky & Hutch in a very similar fashion. I think this is notable and should be mentioned. Leonid Grinberg (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Cultural references are not casting information. They are references to famous scenes or lines that were purposefully put in by the filmmakers to pay homage to films that have come before. If the filmmakers cast the same actor playing the same character from an earlier production, then that info (only if properly cited, with quotes from the filmmakers) would go into the casting or production section. As it currently stands, the cultural reference section is basically a WP:OR trivia section and should be deleted entirely as it contains no citations whatsoever. SpikeJones (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely with SpikeJones. I tagged that section as trivia, but left it in the article so as to give people some time to try to work the information into other sections in prose form where possible. I think someone actually did delete it at some point, but then someone else brought it back a day or two later. That bit about the wedding band is actually interesting, but it needs to (and very well could) be worked into one of the existing sections about the making of the film. –Fierce Beaver (talk) 01:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If the Casting section was expanded further it would be interesting to note Dan Finnerty playing the similar role but it doesn't stretch to a cultural reference anymore than the types of wild Asian characters Ken Jeong plays does (and I've given that a line in the Criticism section, since I had a source that wrote a whole article about it). -- Horkana (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The thing in Cultural References about the reference to Omar Little from The Wire seems incorrect. I don't recall an episode in which Omar Little gets eaten by a lion. Seems more likely that it's just a guy with the same name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.17.130 (talk) 21:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I've never seen The Wire, but based on the way Horkana reworded that sentence, is it possible that Tyson's line was not directly a reference to "Omar Little" himself, but an homage to the way someone in the show delivered a similar line? –Fierce Beaver (talk) 15:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Omar does have an awesome unexplained scar but without a citation from one of the writers there just isn't enough of an excuse to keep that item. I'm reluctant to remove it just yet, should probably inlcude a copy of the item here for reference. -- Horkana (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• In the hotel suite, Mike Tyson and his bodyguard talk about the tiger and mention Omar but that "he's not with us anymore" a possible reference to Omar Little, a character from The Wire.

Did anyone else think that the Alan playing blackjack seem to be a reference to 21, the entire scene almost felt like an homage to the film. --174.100.15.229 (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No. Unless the filmmakers say so in a citable reference, in which case... yes. SpikeJones (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

21 was actually the first thing that jumped into my mind during that scene (along with the scene from A Beautiful Mind when Nash has his breakthrough), but as Spike said, without a statement by the director/writers, those kinds of connections are not something we should be putting in the article. The best thing to do is search the web from time to time for any new interviews that might pop up discussing those scenes. Also, DVD commentaries are a great source for director intent behind specific scenes (although, of course, you have to wait for the DVD to be released...). –Fierce Beaver (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The scene where the tiger is asleep in the back of the Mercedes and punches out the windows reminds me of the deer scene in Tommy Boy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.234.19.253 (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Preserving another dubious cultural reference here in case a citation becomes available. Lazy deletion loving editors cannot even be bothered to request a citation before removing other peoples efforts, not to mention provide a decent edit summary. -- Horkana (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

• When Phil asks the doctor for directions to the Best Little Wedding Chapel, the latter replies "I'm a doctor, not a tour guide." This is a reference to Dr. Leonard McCoy's oft-repeated catchphrase "I'm a doctor not a..." {{citation}}: Empty citation (help)

I don't appreciate personal attacks, Horkana. For all editors, cultural references MUST be supported by a reference before being added. It is rare that cultural references belong in an encyclopedic article such as the ones here on Wikipedia. Unless it has been noted by a filmmaker/writer or by a critic/press, it DOES NOT belong here. Take it to a trivia site. BOVINEBOY2008 22:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

You claim cultural references must first have a citation before they are added but that excludes the entire list. You deserve criticism if you continue take the easy option with the minimum of effort and delete things without taking any time to request a citation giving the writer a chance to backup their point. The guidelines on trivia aren't an excuse to delete things indiscriminately and specifically say try to merge the information into the article. Make an effort. Your use of cryptic two letter edit summaries only add to the feeling that you aren't making much effort to explain yourself clearly or be helpful. -- Horkana (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

According to Horkana, I need to do this his way. I propose we remove all cultural references that do not have sources and attempt to merge the ones that do. They do not satisfy Wikipedia's main policies: No original research, Verifiability, and Notability, as well as Trivia guidelines established by MOS:FILM. BOVINEBOY2008 03:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

This section of this talk page was about giving people a chance to come up with sources for those cultural references. How long should we wait? It is possible but unlikely that any sources will become available before the DVD is released and we get to hear commentary from the director and hopefully the writers. I'd give a little more time, maybe until the end of the month and then (re)move the section to the talk page in case it can later be supported by DVD commentary. You do of course have a fair point about the lack of sources, and nearly the whole section fails on that point but not every line of a wikipedia article must have a reference and do you really think it unreasonable to give a little time for people to find a references? The references in the film to Rain Man are I think self supporting, three men and baby to a lesser extent. Merging is difficult enough. The standard approach with Trivia sections seems to be to break it out in the Cast and Characters information or Production details and even sometimes Cultural references. Reviews which mention the Rain Man references and other nostalgic nods could possibly be used to move some of the cultural references into the Criticism or Reception section. I understand some of it will have to go and I've tried hard to find sources, read many reviews but haven't had much luck. I just want to make that work done in good faith isn't thrown away without a good faith effort to find a source first. -- Horkana (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a lot more that could be added to the article, there's nothing written yet about the soundtrack and IMDB lists further trivia items that could be included like a car being stolen from the set (a production detail) but I haven't got a source yet. I wouldn't rush to include half of the film references mentioned at IMDB but it gives an idea the potential to expand the cultural references much further than what we have at the moment. Other information like Todd Philips agreeing to take a cut of the profits as payment could be included in production details, with the Howard stern show as the source. That Bradley Cooper and Justin Bartha's have been in three films together could probably be noted in the Cast section. -- Horkana (talk) 16:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, waiting until the DVD released would be a good idea, but note that all of the information from IMDB does not belong here. The goal is not to mention every little trivial cultural reference, but to bring up the notable ones with references. BOVINEBOY2008 16:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Bradley Cooper and Justin Bartha's have been in three films together is NOT relevant to this page. It may be relevant to their individual bio pages, but not here. (similarly, "Joe SoundGuy and John BestBoy have worked together on 26 different films this year, including this one" would also not be relevant on this page...unless it is significantly notable and cited as always) SpikeJones (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The production details mention how the actors were already acquainted and how this resulted in a good on screen rapport. That they had been in films together previously would be evidence to further reinforce this statement. In fact this information might be better included under Cast rather than under production (or possibly Casting being made a subsection of Production) along with the non-casting of Lindsay Lohan. This article is good but my point is there is plenty more that could be changed and expanded in this article if enough people wanted to do it. The DVD release will bring more changes too. -- Horkana (talk) 21:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the edits that you are proposing are falling squarely in WP:OR. BOVINEBOY2008 21:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It is amazing the lack of consideration some people have for the work others put into Wikipedia and how quickly they will delete content without so much as a comment on the talk page. Preserving the cultural references section here for now, I expect the DVD commentary will give us reason enough to reinstate it and I think there are a few of the reviews which have already mentioned the film references. I think it is setting the bar for "original research" far far too low to say that [Rain Man]] and Gremlins - both is mentioned by name, the film iteself is the source - are not worth including and I'd want to stretch a little and make sure the Three Men and a Baby reference was explained too. I'll wait until the DVD comes out but this section will be going back in sooner or later. -- Horkana (talk) 12:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You can't include information into the article in the hopes that the future DVD release will address each item (WP:CRYSTAL). The Gremlins and Rain Man items are arguably easy to identify in the film, but citations are still appreciated. Timecodes indicating exactly what is being referenced in the source film will assist the casual WP user in matching up the items are legitimate references that could be added, as well as helping other WP editors in verifying whether the added item is WP:OR or something intentional. Comments from the filmmakers or excerpt from the script is always best. SpikeJones (talk) 12:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The deletionist didn't read this discussion and just removed a whole section making an effort to identify sources or dispute the reference, which is rude considering the effort others put in writing the section and the restraint others have shown in an effort to give people a chance to find suitable citations. As I wrote above the section might need to be removed until the DVD provides more references but I wasn't going to remove it just yet. Since another editor has forcibly removed the section I'm not going to add it back just yet and I'll keep it here with the expectation that the DVD will make the references clearer. Timecodes are a good idea, if I have a chance to watch the film again I'll try to make a rough note of when it happens (will be easier when the DVD comes out of course).

Cultural references

• When the main characters try to locate Jade's apartment carrying the baby they found, Alan tries to remember the name of the film Three Men and a Baby by saying it had "Ted Danson, Magnum, P.I., and that Jewish actor".
• Alan claims counting cards is easy, noting that Rain Man practically bankrupted a casino even though he was "ruh-tard"[sic]. The way Phil and Alan are dressed as they ride down the escalator and card-counting at the casino references a similar scene with Tom Cruise and Dustin Hoffman in the film Rain Man. Additionally, Phil and Alan must win $80,000 to pay back Mr. Chow, which is also the amount that Tom Cruise and Dustin Hoffman's characters must recoup in Rain Man.
• The scene in which the camera pans around the blackjack table showing Alan's stack accumulating is taken from the Blackjack film 21.
• The scene with the meet-up in the desert references Casino when the reflection is shown in Mr. Chow's sunglasses.
• When Doug tells Phil that Alan isn't supposed to be allowed to drink or gamble, Phil compares these instructions to a gremlin, referencing the film Gremlins and its instructions not to let mogwais eat after midnight or be exposed to water.
• When the characters first wake up after their night of partying, a still-smoking burned-out chair and TV-screens turned onto noise are shown in their hotel suite, a reference to a similar scene in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

If anyone was ever in any doubt about the references to Rainman being intentional (and someone must be since they were insisting on a citation) the connection is underlined by the use of the song "Belle Stars - Iko Iko]" which was also used in Rain Main. -- Horkana (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

From Variety magazine review of the Hangover "Jokey references to "Rain Man" and "A Beautiful Mind" are amusing, but not nearly as funny as the pic's self-aware reference to the cliched notion that there's nothing as hilarious as a pratfall by a fat man."

Not very specific but a start. Looking through Golden Globe related news for more sources, have not watched DVD extras or commentary yet. -- Horkana (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Is Alan a savant?

I see no evidence of this in the film. Card Counting actually requires very few mathematical skills (despite the films indications) so he seems to me as just a socially inept individual. Prokhorovka (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That wording was introduced in this edit because the editor thought calling him "smart" was misleading. I tend to agree that "savant" might be too technical and inaccurate, but do you really think card counting is that simple? At the very least it requires conentration to perform the calculations and maintain it in your head while still interacting with the people around you without giving visual cues as to what you are doing. –Fierce Beaver (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought, that sentence can be made to work just fine without the whole "savant" angle, so I've gone ahead and changed it. There was really only that one scene that supported Alan having any special mental skills, and really his character is better summarized overall by his social ineptitude/eccentricity anyway. –Fierce Beaver (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

To clarify the card counting, the difficulty is in maintaining concentration with few/no outwards signs. This is a skill, but not one that is mathematical nor one a normal person couldn't be expected to learn. (Prokhorovka, but not on my Home PC)

And nice edit, the sentence is now perfect. Cheers (Again, Prok)

Criticism?

The article was well received but the Examiner criticised the Asian stereotype. In another article on their site the reviewer criticised the film as unoriginal and cliched, referencing Very Bad Things and suggesting it was a better film, I disagree but it is a reference I thought of when I heard the pitch for the film. Other articles have been critical of the casting of Mike Tyson. I really liked the film and I think it was critically and commercially well received so I don't want to give undue weight to the few criticisms but I do think some interesting points are raised and including them could make the article better and more encyclopedic. -- Horkana (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say go for it. That's definitely one of the sections of the article that could use some additional content (I think as of now it's just the Rotten Tomatoes numbers and a quote by Ebert). As you said, although a strong majority of critics praised the film, there were some who had some valid criticism, so it would be good to show both sides of the critical coin. I also agree that additional quotations should be added on the positive side too to keep what we are presenting in balance with the general critical consensus. –Fierce Beaver (talk) 15:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Noted characterisation weaknesses complaints and included count criticism that the film is more than the sum of its parts. Used a citation from The Irish Times as I like to do (they've a remarkably good reputation for their book reviews and appear on book jackets all the time) and covered the racism angle and other criticisms The Examiner complained about. Got a in a reference to Very Bad Things which I hope will survive, people don't seem to like including a "See Also" section, and I like how Ebert in his review mentions the director and writers previous works which hadn't prepared him for how good the Hangover turned out to be, some really nice opportunities for cross-linking to other films within the main article rather than the more awkward cramming them in the intro or the cultural references section as the article does at the moment. My writing will probably be rephrased substantially and I'm not overly attached to my prose - not sure the way I use quotes fits with Wikipedia style so much - but will try make sure the ideas I introduced are at least preserved after other edits. -- Horkana (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Not so much criticism or goofs but a look at the reality of what might have happened if the boys had really stolen a cop car. Not sure how it could be worked into the article but I thought it was interesting. -- Horkana (talk) 04:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not exactly a review but College Humor question the originality of the Hangover with a short comparison called "Dude Where is my Hangover" http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1915202 Might be able to include it in the criticism section as it reinforces the opinion that the Hangover although well executed does not is fundamentally not all that original. -- Horkana (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Box office milestones

I believe a mention of the film's place among the highest grossing comedies of all time in the box office section is at once relevant, notable, and warranted. The statement I had added is factually accurate and is attributed to a reputable source (Variety, and I'm sure we could add a second reference from Box Office Mojo). Additionally, including this information provides a greater sense of scale to the film's earnings that is not as immediately apparent from stating its raw numerical earnings alone, and it adds some interesting color to a usually dry discussion of financials. –Fierce Beaver (talk) 20:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The film has gone on to become Warner Bros.' highest grossing comedy ever, and is the second highest grossing R-rated comedy of all time in the U.S. behind Beverly Hills Cop. Warner projects the film will end its run with the highest domestic gross ever for a comedy

This is what you had added. A second-highest grossing film of an American-rated genre seems pretty specific and almost gives it undue weight. And the second sentence is about a projection (crystal-ball) given by the distribution company (POV). This is why I don't think it should be added or at least should be re-worded. BOVINEBOY2008 20:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The main point of the statement is that it has grossed very high compared to its "peer" films (and it's still very high even if you take away some of the conditions); mentioning that it is second highest is just providing additional specific detail. The rating here is significant because it is an acknowledged trend that R-rated films typically do no fare as well as lower-rated films because of the more restricted audience range (to see this in action, just look at the list of top-grossing films from just about any year, and most will be in the PG-13 "sweet spot"). I don't believe that this combination of parameters is as obscure as you make them out to be. I suppose I can see your point about Warner's projection potentially being POV, though, even though we could probably dig up a similar statement by an independent analyst. –Fierce Beaver (talk) 21:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, and I don't know if this would cross into OR, we could change R-rated to "adult" or something similar to avoid the American-centric aspect. Otherwise, I would be alright with the first half. And even if you could find an independent analyst to back up the projection, it still would be crystal-ball and shouldn't be here unless it actually does surpass Beverly Hills. BOVINEBOY2008 21:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

(a) must be sourced appropriately in mainstream press, no blogs or WP:OR. (b) shouldn't consist of anything more than a sentence or two - can't imagine that it would require anything more than that. (c) Being 2nd is meaningless. Only list the times it is 1st. Must keep it international in nature/phrasing. (d) MPAA ratings are usually excluded from film articles, tread carefully. (e) have you done research on other film pages to see how the topic has been handled for similarly-high-grossing films? If not, I strongly suggest you do so as there may be a standard that has already been established. (f) your "acknowledged trend" needs to be sourced. SpikeJones (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

(a) as mentioned, statement is sourced to a Variety article, and could probably find something on Box Office Mojo too (b) check (c) Why is 2nd meaningless? If there are are thousands of films that have been released since the start of the medium, and one is almost at the very top of the list, how does that not matter? (d) I concur that just flat-out listing MPAA ratings ("This film is rated <Z> for <this reason>") is not kosher, but it's okay to mention them if they are relevant within a context. (e) Here are a couple similar examples I found just off the top of my head: The Dark Knight (film) (second highest all time gross), Iron Man (film) (second highest non-sequel opening, fourth highest grossing superhero movie), The Passion of the Christ (highest gross for an R-rated film), Spider-Man (film) (eighth in all-time domestic box office). (f) "acknowledged trend" was a term I used here (talk) and not in the article, but you will frequently read stories about studios pushing directors to make cuts to their films to achieve PG-13 ratings for the corresponding jump in earning potential. Here is an article that touches on the phenomenon and another that made a mathematical comparison between different ratings and their corresponding earnings over time. –Fierce Beaver (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

2nd is meaningless. If it meant something, where do we draw the line? Every time there's a new subsequent record broken, are we updating every article down the line? FlapJack Attack 2 is the 901st highest grossing weekday film ever released in Sandusky, Ohio would just be silly. If not 1st, then it shouldn't be mentioned (this is not a movie fan site containing all trivial aspects of each film, but an encyclopedia - the details are available in the BOM link if anyone cares to look there). SpikeJones (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If 2nd is meaningless, should we then revise Ruth Bader Ginsberg's article to remove all reference to her being the second female Supreme Court Justice? Should we drop all mention of The Dark Knight being the second highest grossing film of all time? Buzz Aldrin being the second man on the moon? Purge all references to Mark Spitz holding the second most Olympic gold medals? A similar argument could be made for the appropriateness of subclassification: should we edit out Florence Griffith-Joyner's world records in the 100 meter dash and 200 meter dash since they hinge on her being a woman? (after all, Usain Bolt is the "human" world champion, and FloJo doesn't even place in the top 10 if you don't consider her in a separate class). Obviously there are reasonable limits to the degree of subclassification that FlapJack Attack 2 would fail, but comedy is one of the fundamental genres, and I don't think it's unreasonable to constrain based on these aspects.

I also don't think we should not include something based on the fact that it might change in the future. If that were the case, very little would ever be written. At the highest level, these stats are relatively stable, and it takes minimal effort for our veritable army of editors to check a ref and update a figure. We do it all the time, and that's part of the beauty of wikipedia. –Fierce Beaver (talk) 01:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Per your argument, in the extremely small set of people who were ever supreme court justices (110 in 267 years), it is reasonable to list RBG as the 2nd female justice. Ditto for Buzz, as being 2nd is a significant part of his notability. Spitz held the medal record for a large amount of time and there was mainstream press coverage specifically about him moving into 2nd place, so that is again part of his notability. A film that just makes it to #2 in earnings without ever being #1 is trivial. I think you and I will agree that continuing this discussion will spiral into silliness (and I believe you, at the very least, see the point I was trying to make).SpikeJones (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Those were rhetorical examples intended primarily to illustrate that 2nd is not meaningless, but mentioning an ordinal ranking in a relevant hierarchy, even if not first, is not unprecedented in film articles (and many other types of articles too) when that ranking is relatively high. I understand your concern about every random film trying to mention its standing in some excessively winnowed-down category, but I believe our editors are reasonable enough not to go overboard with obscure cases like the one from your previous example.

To get back to my original argument though, I think including a statement like this, within the context of discussing the film's box office earnings, is relevant to the topic and makes the discussion more interesting to read. It also helps give the reader a sense of scale to the surrounding numerical information when earnings are particularly high, similar to how a man is often used to illustrate the scale of large dinosaurs, or a coin is often used as a visual reference size for small objects, in addition to the basic factual descriptions such as "a T. Rex could be up to xxx feet tall" or "a typical great white tooth is xxx centimeters long". Yes, such information might be trivial if considered separate from its context, but so is the vast majority of the information we include — and even encourage — in our articles, such as production histories and award nominations/wins. What separates an encyclopedia from simple trivia is the manner in which we organize, group, and present the information. –Fierce Beaver (talk) 23:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now that the film has surpassed Beverly Hills Cop, I'm going to add the information back in within the context of discussing its box office gross. Per Bovineboy's concerns, I will omit the bit about Warner's projections. –Fierce Beaver (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, this simply isn't accurate, as has been noted in Slate and elsewhere. There have been many movies that have broken Beverly Hills Cop's record if you don't bother to adjust for inflation. Just off the top of my head, see There's Something About Mary which grossed ~370 mill. -- 209.6.238.158 (talk) 02:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, it is not inaccurate to state that the film has grossed more... that is basic fact. The Slate article makes an argument for the relative value of the achieved grosses, however, it is standard practice in the film industry to report and compare box office grosses as unadjusted figures, not approximations of number of tickets sold (which is really what the inflation adjustments are). It may be true that when taking special factors such as inflation into consideration, things shuffle around, but the place to note that would be on the article of the film benefiting from the adjustment (e.g. Gone With The Wind), not as an overworded caveat on the successor's article. Also, the There's Something About Mary thing is related to worldwide gross, not inflation adjustment; it was never ahead of Beverly Hills Cop in domestic box office (it did well at the domestic box office but made over half of its gross internationally), nor has been any other film until now. –Fierce Beaver (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, it's a fact, but plenty of other movies have grossed more domestically since then. If you don't bother to account for inflation, there has been a new record holder every couple of years, as is explained in the Slate article. -- 209.6.238.158 (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

No, they actually haven't (as I mentioned above, Something About Mary's record is related to international box office and not inflation... BHC has been on top domestically since its release, without adjustment for inflation), but that's beside the point. The point is statements nitpicking the relative merit of inflation-adjusted vs. non-adjusted box office grosses belong more in a separate discussion of the commercial film industry and its history. Despite your claim in your edit summary, the industry standard is to use non-adjusted figures (which, judging by several of the other posts made by the Slate commentator, is apparently one of his pet peeves). –Fierce Beaver (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Meh, whatever. Find me a counter-ref that isn't just regurgitating a press release. -- 209.6.238.158 (talk) 02:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The problem here is that people are not used to thinking in terms of money having varying worth. But when the changes are profound, inflation and deflation should be taken into consideration, otherwise the facts suffer. As an example, sometimes where there was been wild inflation, people needed to bring money to the market in wheelbarrows. That doesn't mean that a loaf of bread is now worth a fortune -- it's worth pretty much what it always was -- it's the value of the money that changed.

Similarly, supposing there was rampant inflation in America. A loaf of bread cost $200, instead of $2. Would you really feel comfortable saying that The Hangover grossed 417 billion dollars??

You might be thinking: Well, everyone knows that money loses its value over time. But actually, historically, it doesn't. Sometimes it gains and sometimes it loses. But the inflation factor is important for two other reasons, even if in the last century the buying power of the USD has tended to decrease. 1) Other English-speaking countries don't use the dollar, and their currency hasn't always decreased in buying value. That discrepancy makes it important to describe a) the monetary value, b) the year, and c) the currency. 2) The rate of change is important. People tend to assume inflation (or deflation) has always been about the same. Again, that's not true. So if a reader is "guesstimating" the value of a change in the 1960s, based on their experience in the 2000s -- they're going to get it wrong.

You can bet this wouldn't have been lost on The Hangover marketing people if money had significantly *deflated* since Beverly Hills Cop. Say the USD had lost half its value. The Hangover grosses $417 M (but at 1/2 of what the USD was worth in Beverly Hills Cop). Wait a minute! Adjusted for inflation, that makes The Hangover ... a waayyyy bigger gross. Oh. Wait! Suddenly "adjusted for inflation" appears everywhere, because nobody wants to make their recent releases look bad. I.e., it's perfectly fine to exaggerate your gross, but strike us blind if we understate it!

This is an encyclopedia. Not an online marketing exercise. Not an extension of Variety magazine. Tell the whole truth, or leave the information out.

Piano non troppo (talk) 03:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I understand your concern but you are interpreting the data which falls directly under original research. The source states the gross inflated. If you can find a reliable source that states the uninflated gross or that states Beverly Hills Cop's inflated gross, you can't go around saying that the latter grossed more. We all get it, if these films aired around the same time, BHC would have definitely done better. But facts are facts and varying from the source would not be appropriate. I would definitely be comfortable putting "unadjusted for inflation." at the end of the statement, because that would be definite and verifiable. This is indeed what Titanic (1997 film) does for its box office statements. It is a common fact that Titanic is not the highest-grossing film of all time (Gone with the Wind is) but we must go by the sources. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 03:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

(I added a reference for Beverly Hills Cop gross -- wasn't aware it was missing from Wiki.) The inflation needs to be explicit. Let me explain why. It's not intuitive to most readers. Even for those who are more aware, it's not a calculation that can be done simply, off the top of the head. Saying that a car only cost $290 USD in the 1920s is factual, but wildly misleading.

Also note another problem, here. The article is correct about The Hangover today, but what about in a year? In five years? Without a date on the figure for The Hangover gross, the information will gradually drift out of being correct. Piano non troppo (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The fact is that the film industry generally uses unadjusted numbers for its grosses. I am sorry you find this misleading and it is something that should be mentioned in the article. I just don't know why you are so adamant about including the fact about BHC. Would you be just as happy to say: "making it the highest-grossing R-rated comedy ever in the United States, second-highest when accounting for inflation." This is factually correct. I personally hate comparing grosses in individual film articles. This subsection should be chiefly about how The Hangover did in the box office, not how when you adjust numbers for inflation BHC still has grossed more. Do you understand where I am coming from.

And also, it doesn't make it incorrect. It states the gross. You should really bring this up at project's talk page if you have such a major problem with gross inflation. As far as I know, all of the article on wiki use uninflated numbers. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 03:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we should list BHC's adjusted boxoffice figure since (as Piano noted) it will slowly drift and become incorrect. ie. $644,149,148 is probably already incorrect by a few dollars. Maybe just note that BHC is the highest when adjusted for inflation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.215.238.8 (talk) 22:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Movieset

An anonymous editor posted a link to The Hangover at movieset and the link text talked about behind the scenes. The page is an aggregate website that links to many news stories on The Hangover so it might actually be appropriate to include it in the External Links section just not with that link text. The site includes a page listing many Hangover related videos some of which might could potentially be cited. In one of the video clips Bradley cooper describes the hangover as a combination of The Bachelor Party (film) and Momento which i think is a pretty clever description of it, I'm just not sure of a suitable place to include that in the current article, perhaps if Production had more subsections or it might be squeezed in as a comment on the writing?
Point is there's lots of interesting behind the scenes video, lots of links to articles on the Hangover, and although the anonymous editor didn't add it in the ideal way there's a lot of information that could potentially be added to the article and maybe used to reintroduce some of the previous texts that were deleted due to lacking sources. I'm going to watch some more and try to figure appropriate places to add some of the content. (This article may seem big but it's still about half the size of some of the featured film articles I've seen. With appropriate context and sources loads more could be included.) -- Horkana (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The link looks fine but other than the videos, I don't see how much it adds compared to the imdb link. I would be in support of using the videos as a source in the article, but I don't think it belongs as another external link; it regurgitates most info that the others contain. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 04:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

"Dragostea din tei" Confusion with "Live Your Life"

"Dragostea din tei (also known as Numa Numa)" - O-zone has been removed from the article by me, as the song is not actually in the movie, a similar version of the song is the intro of Rhianna's "Live Your Life" song. Please take note of this for future edits. 118.208.33.176 (talk) 11:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Production

Philips worked for scale to keep control of casting. Will profit big since film was success. Variety article with lots of info I don't have time to merge into the article right now but don't want to forget. If anyone else wants to add it first be my guest. Reckon you could get a paragraph or two out of it. -- Horkana (talk) 07:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Stu's Song Jack Black Cover

On this page, under soundtrack, it says that a Jack Black cover is also available. I have looked everywhere on the internet, YouTube, Rhapsody, even on the actual soundtrack in stores, and can't find it. Does anyone know if it is true or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.4.247 (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The Plot Section is Ridiculous

Why is the plot section of this article an entire outline of every main event in the movie? This is not the definition of a plot. I came here to learn what the movie was about and instead had some overzealous fan ruin the movie for me. Spoilers are not to be included in plot descriptions. A plot should be one paragraph, not a whole page. If someone who has seen the movie can change this plot description to an appropriate one, it would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.216.138 (talk) 04:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Good articles include a very short, one or two sentence plot description in the introduction. Plot summaries are complete, and Wikipedia has a policy not to try and identify spoilers as the whole of Wikipedia is considered a spoiler.

With Wikipedia film articles - even very well written ones - you cannot even be sure you'll be safe by avoiding the last paragraph of the plot description. I think IMDB does an adequate job of what you want, providing both a summary and a full plot description in seperate places, if you want to avoid spoilers. -- Horkana (talk) 04:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this section should be shortened. A paragraph of two or three should suffice. King Ruby (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

If you feel it should be shortened, why not be bold and do so? If other editors disagree with your changes, we can then discuss the relative merits of them. Doniago (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Revert

I've twice reverted changes by User:InfamousPrince. His main point is the infobox image is too small but it is 200 pixels which is exactly the size it will be displayed at in the infobox. Using this size means the image will not does not need to be resized again. Perhaps there is some explanation why a bigger image is necessary but this change should be made separate from other changes.

Other changes include removal of unused fields, please try to fill in the unused fields in citations rather than removing them. Comments were removed from the source, including a comment advising editors not to include more cast members in the Infobox (and since many casual editors do this all the time the warning is unfortunately necessary and should not be removed). Spaces and indentation were stripped from citations, making them marginally more difficult to read/scan and check for mistakes. The changes in capitalisation might actually improve readability but it seems unecessary for comments and wikimarkup seen by editors not readers. I would caution against overlinking WP:OVERLINK. Please note that the Numbers links only to a disambiguation page and there is little point in making it a Wikilink. Please use lots of small edits with edit summaries to explain your changes which make it easier for other editors to make fairer changes. -- Horkana (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

End Credits

I'm surprised no one has included a mention that the series of stills from the lost, now found camera shown along the end credits includes an explicit still of a blowjob. Yes, the penis is probably fake but it's an explicit on-screen blowjob and there was some discussion in the media about it. In particular people were surprised that didn't land them in NC-17 territory. One theory was that the ratings board people didn't stay for the entire credits and having given the film an R they didn't want to admit not watching the whole thing. BTW, when editing or writing a Wikipedia article about a movie can the movie be a reference. Yeah, I know you can't say a film has great acting; you'd have to cite an article where someone else says it. But what about matters of fact? Can one say that some movie is in black & white citing the movie or must one cite some article that in turn gives us this fact? (Sorry to throw in a question here.)66.245.133.115 (talk) 04:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Including it in the Plot section would be inappropriate, as it's not pertinent to the Plot. This may constitute a notable point and hence be worthy of inclusion on its own merits, but you'd need to provide reliable sourcing to establish it was controverisal. Theories as to the rating are original research unless sourcing is available to back them up.

While the movie itself can be a reference, I would argue that "best practice" is to limit this to the Plot section. For something that occurs in the movie but that would also be considered controversial, I wouldn't blame editors for wanting sourcing beyond an unsubstantiated, "it's in the movie," though we could probably argue as to whether that should be required. Doniago (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1