# Talk:The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie

This article has a rambly style, it needs to be reworked! Weirdo55 14:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

After coming here, I still know almost nothing at all about this movie. Perhaps a plot summary is in order? 137.99.136.194 (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I fixed up the article.
Check it out when you get the chance.
ATC (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The article has definitely improved since I last looked at it!  A few suggestions... first, the "Production" section does not need to use {{cquote}} templates.  I think that combined with the short paragraphs, the section looks skeletal.  Just use regular quotation marks and combine everything into one or two paragraphs.  Might need to give similar treatment to the structure in the "Awards and nominations" section.  Also, consider shuffling the sections in the film article.  For example, "Awards and nominations" should be more toward the end.  Also, could "Special appearances" become a subsection under the "Cast" section?  It may also be worth writing a "Release" section and have "DVD releases" and "International debuts" content rewritten into prose.  Also, I think the references could use some consistency in formatting... from what I can tell, {{cite web}} and {{cite news}} templates would be appropriate. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The changes look great!  Only one last major issue... "Releases and debuts" has three subsections with only a sentence each.  Unless there are plans to expand each subsection, I think it is a bit much to have them at this point.  Perhaps weave all these sentences together and not require any subsections? —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
User:Erik,
What do you think now?
I've got rid of the subsections.
I'm sorry if I'm a little rude asking you this, but do you mind fixing up the referneces and cleaning them up.
Thanx!
ATC (talk) 06:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
No problem, I've cleaned them up!  I think you can continue developing the article with other sources as you find them. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
User: Eric,
I was wondering if you like the extension I made on the plot or do you think it's too long?
Thanx!
ATC (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a bit long... take a look at WP:FILMPLOT.  For example, my last plot write-up was for Valkyrie, a two-hour film.  It's a little over 700 words.  Try to think of the film more in summary fashion.  Take events that are related to each other and summarize them better. —Erik (talk • contrib) 06:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Eric,
I made the plot much shorter than it was—putting the interviews with celeberties in the special appearence section—getting rid of unnecessary information and summarized it to its main ::idea.
Also if you find any minor grammar, spelling or summarizing issues.
Feel free to fix them up! Let me know if you still think it's too long.
Thanx!
ATC (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
The rewrite is definitely a marked improvement!  Rewriting the plot is always a challenge because you have to figure out how to best summarize events.  I copied and pasted the "Plot" section into Microsoft Word, and it says 999 words.  (This is down from about 2,219 words!)  WP:FILMPLOT suggests between 400 and 700 words, and I do not think that this is a complicated film.  (A complicated film would be something like a work by David Lynch!)  Do you think that it could be trimmed any further?  I'd try to help, but I'm not familiar enough with the film to believe I could trim it adequately. —Erik (talk • contrib) 21:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey User:Eric,
I decreased it more.
I copy and pasted it to Microsoft Word (Thanks for that great idea, by the way!) and now it says it's 777 words long.
Let me know if I should decrease it more or do you think it's fine the way it is.
Thanx, and feel free to fix grammar and spelling issues!
ATC (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Nice job!  I think that you are close enough to the range.  If you wanted to pursue Good Article status in the future, you'd probably want to trim the section a little bit more.  Let me see if I can find the time tonight to do some copy-editing.  By the way, I have the article on my watchlist, so you don't need to notify me on my user talk page. :)  Again, great work! —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanx for letting me know that you have this talk page on your watchlist.
I hesitated to ask you.
Now that makes it so much easier for me.
I will try to trim it up even more.
Thanx!
ATC (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I trimmed it down to 719 words long.
Thanx so much for your help!
And again feel free to fix any grammar and/or spelling issues.
I will continue to add references within the week.
ATC (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

In my copyediting, I've come across a few sentences that could have alternate meanings. As an outsider to the subject, I can't assess these, so I'll leave comments for the article's primary author, ATC:

In the "Filming" section: I have changed a sentence to, "It was filmed in New York City during 2004, where the family's real life apartment was located, on a budget of less than US$1 million." The original sentence was somewhat vague, so I'm not sure if it was filmed during 2004, or if the family resided in that apartment only in 2004. I assumed the former.
This is just a side comment, but is it possible to drop the "and-a-half" from the ages in the plot summary?
I need to leave now, will probably add more notes later. Jamie☆S93 00:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you could drop the "6-and-a-half" to just "6". I put that because they refer to him as 6 1/2 in the movie.
Regarding during 2004 — you could just say in the summer of 2004.
The film was not only filmed in the family's apartment, but also all around New York City.
Also, The New York Times article—the first reference—says that it was a "...five week adventure in 2004—using mostly friends and family members with a budget under one million dollars". So, would mind adding how - it took five weeks to film the movies - with that NYTimes reference? Thanx! ATC . Talk 01:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I got all of these points, as well as the "interview" bit. I'll keep looking through and copyediting the article as I have time. Regards, Jamie☆S93 00:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you so much for taking the time to copyedit. ATC . Talk 02:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi ATC, the prose looks better now. I've taken another look through the article, so my copyedit is essentially complete. It might not be perfect, and there's a couple of question marks that I can't alter myself, because I'm not not knowledgeable on the topic. One more thought - avoid using season terms per WP:SEASON. "Summer" is the easiest to handle (can be switched to "mid-2008", for example), but the other ones like "fall" can be trickier. Try estimating to your best ability, and using the terms "earlier" or "later" (i.e, "around later 2008"). Good luck with the GAN. :) Best, Jamie☆S93 21:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for all the help and I'll take your advice and hope that it could get a good grade. ATC . Talk 01:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this article going to FAC? YellowMonkey  (cricket calendar poll!) 08:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Actually, if its possible I will definitely do that. ATC . Talk 23:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Starting review Jezhotwells (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Quick fail criteria assessment

The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.

The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags.

The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.

The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.

No quick fail problems. Commencing substantive review. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


### Checking against GA criteria
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): 
I copy edited the article to remove redundancy.
b (MoS): 
I think the See also section does not add anything. Consider removing it or at least severely pruning.
OK See also removed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): 
All reference links are valid. Consider removing references from the lead - as long as they are cited elsewhere in the article which  I think they are.  I won't make an issue of this,  it may be commented on by others if you go to FA status. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
b (citations to reliable sources): 
All references are to RS
c (OR): 
I see no evidence of OR
It is broad in its scope.
a (major aspects): 
The article is broad in scope
b (focused): 
and focussed
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
The article is neutral in tone
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 
The article appears stable

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): 
rationale in place
b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
caption OK

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Just consider removing references from lead as long as they are present in the main body of the article and loo at the see also section again.  On hold Jezhotwells (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, I am happy to pas this as GA status, congratulation. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll add some here as and when I can find them:

Variety review
Steve T  • C 19:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
And finally! The semi-mythical viewing figures information (2.7 million):

Viewers are kind to 'Idol'
Steve T  • C 20:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I found one:

The Naked Brothers Band - Release of Their Debut CD
ATC . Talk 22:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

In the second paragraph, it is unclear which Wolff contributed the underscore or performed "Rathskeller Polka".  Later in the same paragraph, we refer to things that Nat has done and other things that Wolff has done.  I assume the second Wolff is Alex, but not knowing the subject, I can't really copy edit this section further. --Thomprod (talk) 19:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I fixed what you were talking about and when I say Wolff (since adults are considered by their last name, while children are normally by their first name) so I changed it to Michael Wolff each time, as an exception of repetition since, "Mr." isn't allowed to be used in an encyclopedia or at least not this one. ATC . Talk 21:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

As requested, here are some comments on the article as a followup to the peer review comments I made. While this looks better, there are still some rough spots - I will try to point some of them out, but do not have time to point all of them out (hopefully this will give an idea of what to look for / fix in general). 

Lead: It stars brothers Nat Wolff and Alex Wolff, the sons of actress Draper and jazz pianist Michael Wolff, and chronicles a [their] fictional rock group as they manage their fame[,] with an ensuing dispute that results in a [the?] break-up and eventual reunification of the band.
Fixed. ATC . Talk 00:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The verb began just seems odd to me in In late 2005 the enterprise began as an independent film, which received an award at a film festival;... I thought that "the enterprise began" when they started filming?
Fixed.
Members is plural, so lives should be used (not singular "life" unless they are a hive organism). The band members are being filmed as their personal life is being documented; however, at times they become annoyed and yell at the cameraman to leave them alone. The sentence just is awkward though, perhaps The band members' personal lives are being filmed; however, at times they become annoyed and yell at the cameraman to leave them alone. is better
Fixed Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Most bands become popular after a hit song, not just being signed to a contract. Also the dash seems to be unnecessary in Their popularity is the result of having been signed to a record contract—on music executive John B. Williams' label Who's the Man Records.
Fixed. ATC . Talk 00:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Why is this the fourth sentence of the plot section and not the first? The film begins with Nat and Alex introducing their documentary film.
Fixed. ATC . Talk 00:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Why is this even needed in the plot section? The next scene is of a limo on a bridge in New York City with an enthusiastic girl who becomes overly excited after winning "Today's Big Win Question" on the radio, in which she receives two free tickets to the group's upcoming concert.
Fixed and erased. ATC . Talk 00:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Active voice is better than passive voice so in ...Nat writes a song called "Rosalina", which his fellow band members prefer (with the exception of Cooper and Alex) although Nat is teased because the song reveals his feelings for Rosalina. the end could be "although they tease Nat because..."
Fixed Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Could these be combined? and Cooper (Cooper Pillot) as the manager. Cooper[, who] dresses in a suit and oversized sunglasses.
Fixed. ATC . Talk 00:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Since the preceding sentence is on the Timmerman Brothers Band, it is unclear what band is meant in  A music critic (Barbara eda-Young) described the fictional band's music as "nostalgic." Also, the end quote should be "nostalgic". - see WP:MOSQUOTE and logical quotation
Fixed. ATC . Talk 00:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Clean up suggestion Growing up with [Since] their father as [is] a jazz musician, the two boys were exposed to music from the time they were born. 
Fixed Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Problem quotes in this too Nat easily learned piano chords, which he called " 'my proud chords.' "[7] 
Fixed Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Bottom line, I found a fair number of rough sentences and think it still needs more work before it is ready for FAC.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 04:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Copied from talk page: Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 03:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The verb began just seems odd to me in In late 2005 the enterprise began as an independent film, which received an award at a film festival;... I thought that "the enterprise began" when they started filming?
Note regarding comment on the lead section via Talk:The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie: No, that's not when they started filming - it even says in the paragraph before that, that principal photography was filmed in mid-2004. I was trying to say that it began as a low budget, family project (or enterprise) and when no one wanted to put up the money to making it a film (which make sense because Polly Draper made her directing debut with this film and was famous to a degree, but not known enough). This is why in late 2005, they entered the indie film for a screening at the Hamptons International Film Festival where it won an award and was then picked up by an executive from Nickelodeon who brought it for the network to make it a show.
...So anyway, what would be a better way to say "In late 2005, the enterprise began as an independent film, which received an award at a film festival;..."? Thanx! ATC . Talk 00:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my point was that saying "In late 2005, the enterprise began..." makes no sense as we already know that filming started in 2004. Sorry to be unclear. Hmmm. I am not as familiar with the film as you, but I will try. How about "In late 2005, it was marketed [or perhaps "released"?] as an independnet film, and received an award at a film festival;..."? Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 03:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Well marketed or release will not work, since it was not sold in stores at the time, actually not until April 3, 2007, after the film was picked up by Nickelodeon. ATC . Talk 16:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
(out) OK, I understood that a small film looking for a distribution deal might be marketed to distributors, but if that does not work here, sorry. I looked at the body of the article and there are two sentences there that seem to apply. Both sentences have problems (and show this needs more copyediting).
The first is in the Filming section Originally the film was an independent family home-video.[8]  The problem is that I am not sure what "an independent family home-video" is exactly. A home-video sounds like someone with a camera videotaping the kids to show Grandma, and adding family makes it sound even more like this. I have heard of independent films and of direct-to-video releases. Would either of these work here in the first sentence? I also note that the same ref is used for both sentences - sometimes it is good to use a direct quote, so perhaps you could use whatever term they used to describe this as in that (I am not going to watch all 73 minutes).  
The second sentence is in the "Releases and debuts" section Box offices initially didn't want to put the marketing money into making it a movie, and as a result, Draper and Wolff decided to enter it into a film festival and television executive Albie Hecht (former president of Nickelodeon and founder of Spike) persuaded them to make it a television show. This is a run-on sentence and needs to be rewritten (probably split into two). "Box office" can either refer to the ticket booth at a theater, or more generally to the monetary receipts a movie or play brings in. Neither the booth where tickets are taken, not the money brought in by a film can make the decision to put money into marketing a film. Usually an independent film gets a distribution deal which includes marketing. Sometimes someone from the distributor(s) will add themself as a producer in the credits. I also note that this section never explicitly says that Hecht bought the film, presumably for Nickolodeon. I am not sure, but would something like this work better: Distributors initially didn't want to put the marketing money into releasing it as a movie, so Draper and Wolff decided to enter it into a film festival, where it won a prize. Television executive Albie Hecht, a former president of Nickelodeon and founder of Spike, bought the rights to the film and persuaded Draper and Wolff to make it the pilot for a television show. 
So what about the sentence in the lead? It now reads In late 2005 the enterprise began as an independent film, which received an award at a film festival; this prompted Nickelodeon to co-opt it as a pilot for the television show, The Naked Brothers Band. How about something like In late 2005, Draper and Wolff sought a distributor for their independent film, which received an award at a film festival; this prompted Nickelodeon to co-opt it as a pilot for the television show, The Naked Brothers Band. 
This level of work is a sentence by sentence copy edit. As it says on my talk page, I am glad to review articles, but do not have time to do copy edits. This is especially true here, where I do not know the show and do not normally write about television shows or movies. I would be glad to look at it again after someone else copy edits it, but this is about as far as I can go here. Sorry, Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 17:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I just wanted to understand your request is all. Thanx for explaining and happy editing! ATC . Talk 18:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I've rewritten the lead, sentence by sentence, as I should have earlier. A serious copyedit will result in substantial changes, but clearly to achieve FA status, this is what's needed. Please revert if you don't like it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanx, but in one way I like it - in another way I'm not sure if I like it, though lets leave it for now. I really did like that you changed 2007 to just television movie, which makes a lot of sense and a few other things that I actually really liked. ATC . Talk 17:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't mind if you change it back. Not until the conversation with Ruhrfish above did it sink into my brain that the movie was only a TV movie (despite working on this article so much) but in a way that's one of the problems with the article. Sometimes it's best to state what a thing is and not make the reader work to understand the content. Unfortunately some of the recent edits have resulted in grammatical errors or awkward sentences. Another thing to realize is that when a writer uses fewer words, it's easier for the reader to grasp the meaning (simply because there's less to plow through). Good writing is clear, concise, and comes straight to the point. Anyway, this is a demonstration of the type of aggressive copyediting that's needed to pass a FAR. If such sweeping changes (and I do realize this was a big change) don't feel right to you, the primary editor of the article, then considering keeping the status as is, isn't necessarily a bad thing. If you want a featured article, I'm willing to help. But we have to take this slowly, and it would be good to freeze each section as it's copyedited. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 05:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean by "freeze"? Meaning to work through it slowly and also to not be so specific—just to get to the point as this is a television movie/pilot and should be treated like a two-part episode? Okay, that makes sense. ATC . Talk 16:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
"Freezing" a section means to freeze the changes. In other words, once edits are in place, leave as is for a while. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay...that works. ATC . Talk 18:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's do the following:

You continue in your search for a new copyeditor, which is fine with me as another set of eyes is always good.
In the meantime we communicate here so the new copyeditor (and anyone else who wishes) can follow the discussion.
When a section is copyedited, it's frozen (i.e. no changes for a set amount of time).
If you want, I'll continue (as time permits) until handing off to new copyeditor.
Regarding number 3: the following edits are problematical and should be reverted. In my view this edit creates an awkward sentence by adding two pronouns that aren't necessary. This edit is ungrammatical and needs to be fixed. Shall I fix, or do you want to wait?
How does this sound for a plan? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
It sound's like a great idea. But if you spell something wrong or forget a period, I can obviously fix that right? ATC . Talk 21:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely! I like it when you find my errors. You are very detail oriented and really good at finding the little problems I tend to overlook. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you can fix that request that you said needed fixing. ATC . Talk 21:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

When the Nat performed the 9/11 charity concert, was the band the Silver Boulders or the Naked Brothers? I think that should be mentioned. Also, if it was the Silver Boulders (which I assume is correct) when did the Silver Boulders break up and why?  I know we've discussed this, but the chronology in the article is still a little murky. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right it was the Silver Boulders. Nat, Alex, Polly, and/or Michael have not explained exactly how they broke up. The closest thing Nat & Alex mentioned about the Silver Boulders was at an KOL Press Conference, when they were taking questions from fans, someone asked why Josh (the original guitarist who was replaced by actor/ musician Qaasim Middleton for the series) was not in the show. And I'm 99% sure that Alex made a joke because Nat & Alex were laughing after he said this, which was because "[Josh] went to cooking school". Should I add that with the source or probably not? Also, you should erase the information about how Thomas, David, and Josh still were on Nat and Alex's side after The Silver Boulders broke-up because their is no reliable source or even a source stating that. I just made an inference, so its not really understood how and why the Silver Boulders broke up. ATC . Talk 21:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the first sentence to family project, though I'm not sure that's accurate. With a budget of $1 million, Draper and Wolff must have had some intention of selling the film, which brings it out of the "family project" realm. You might consider not having that sentence at all in the filming section as it's a little confusing, as Ruhrfish explains above. (BTW -- did they put up their own money, or did they have backers?) Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

But, in an interview Polly said that she created it as a family project and it was under $1 million. I'm actually not sure about your other question. What exactly are backers? ATC . Talk 01:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
If she said it was a family project is it okay to use that phrase? If so, let's leave in the phrase. Otherwise, I'll have to think of something else. Backers are people who "back" a project with money. In other words, did the family spend their own money, or did others help with costs? Probably not important, but I'm curious. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
If it was an indie film (and Polly said it was a family project), it probably means they used their own money. I'm almost positive it was, because Alex said jokingly that he thought it was "an expensive home-video with all of these people they didn't know." Yeah, it probably isn't important unless it was sourced. ATC . Talk 16:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper88, your recent edit in the development section is faulsely inacurate. Polly didn't create "Don't Eat Off My Plate", Nat wrote, produced, and directed it and Polly interviewed Nat and his friends. ATC . Talk 01:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I rewrote per the source. Is it more accurate now?  Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes it is, although Nat directed it too, although that part might not be so important...It's up to you. Thanx! ATC . Talk 16:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've run through the entire article, cleaning up as much as possible. I haven't really touched the Plot section as I haven't seen the film. In the other section I've clarified and reorganized for flow as much as possible; and in some cases matched the text to the source more closely.
A couple of issues I noticed: there's a "Cast & characters" section and a "Casting" section and some of material overlaps.  In the least, I'd suggest changing the name of the "Cast and characters" to "Main characters" and then leave "Casting" as is. A more comprehensive change would be to merge the two, but I'm not certain that's necessary. (Btw -- I'm aware I named the Cast and characters, but don't want to change w/out your approval).
I don't think this sentence adds much: Of the shooting process, Draper explains: "We would sneak into locations and run." The sentence makes me wonder why they had to sneak and why they had to run, and as a writer you don't want your readers to wonder, so unless the sentence can be explained, I'd suggest removing. 
Go ahead and check for typos, etc., that I may have made and fix them. Decide whether or not make the change to section header for "Cast and characters". After that, I recommend freezing this version until someone (maybe Ruhrfish) can take a look and give feedback. If good, then keep it frozen and relist as a FAC. If not, back to the drawing board. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanx for all your help! Also, sources inaccurately say they were called "The Silver Bullets" in the film. Both in the film and in real life, they were called "The Silver Boulders". So I'll go ahead and make the change, in addition to typos, and I'll think about weather or not to change the heading title from "Cast and characters" to "Characters", as it is a good idea. Also that sentence you were talking about with them sneaking into locations, I think thats a certain type of filming where you can't put up signs that you are filming, due to legal purposes. Its a type of filming, in certain types of indie films, I'll check where I found that on a Wiki article. ATC . Talk 18:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Truthkeeper88, when you get the chance (in the next week or so) I was wondering if you could help me out on one last additional text, which would be in the "Filming" section. There's no sources explaining this, but it might have the same exception that the plot and cast section has. "The Making of The Featurette" was an exclusive bonus (forgot the exact word for it) with the DVD and featured the actual making of the film. The few couple of (and important) scenes that took place are listed below:

The scene for the "Crazy Car" music video—which was shot at Coney Island—showed the band members on a car-ride and Polly was there telling them what to do. And Nat said, "Mom, this is the most embarrassing thing you've ever made me done." And Polly replies enthusiastically, "It's funny how you'll hold the wheel." Nat rolls his eyes and then replies irritatingly, "I'm not doing this if you're going to put this in the movie. I'm not doing this!" Then they ended up filming the scene anyway. (This might be better paraphrased, since some isn't 100% quoted right)
The finale scene was when the band performed "Crazy Car" on the roof of the apartment, and when they finished, Michael wearing a red, white, and blue durag shouts, "It's a wrap!" And Nat cheers and hugs Josh.
Is it against the rules to add this without a reference? Because people can only tell if they buy the DVD to watch it (just like the Plot and Cast). ATC . Talk 06:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't really know the answer here, but assume the DVD can be the primary source for the material. The bigger question is how important this material is, and whether it's worth adding. The article seems in comparatively good shape at the moment. Have you decided to relist as FAC? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
That's actually a good idea (I definitely think its worth another shot at FAC), but now that I think of it the first one about the shooting of the "Crazy Car" video and it being shot at Coney Island, might be necessary but you are right that the second one isn't necessary. ATC . Talk 02:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I had to delete some text because a more reliable source could not be found. http://www.top40-charts.com/news.php?nid=34898 for: The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie#Awards and reception with the sentence: it was placed in the top-10 spot on the Nielsen VideoScan children's non-theatrical DVD charts.[36]: "The Naked Brothers Band – Release of Their Debut CD". News Blaze. October 11, 2007. Retrieved June 15, 2009. I went to the Nielsen news release website and looked up top 10 releases in 2007 (on a PDF file) and the film was not listed. Top40 charts is the only source that comes up on Google (That and NewsBlaze). If possible, let me know, if someone finds a more reliable source. ATC . Talk 04:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on The Naked Brothers Band: The Movie. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080706161000/http://www.youngartistawards.org/noms29.html to http://www.youngartistawards.org/noms29.html
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) 18:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)