Talk:Frat Pack/Archive 1

message: Why not? He's in basically everything with these guys? Show him some love maybe?
*Basically everything is two movies out of about twenty? (Bottle Rocket, The Cable Guy, Bongwater, Permanent Midnight, The Suburbans, Meet the Parents, Zoolander, Orange County, Old School, Starsky & Hutch, Envy, Dodgeball, Anchorman, Meet the Fockers, Wedding Crashers, Wendell Baker, Tenacious D, Night at the Museum, Blades of Glory, Tropic Thunder)
* You'd be able to convince folks better if you spelled Walken's name correctly.  Anyway, the whole idea of the Frat Pack is that these guys are contemporaries - Walken is a generation older. He had a sort of big role in Wedding Crashers and in the barely-a-Frat-Pack-Classic Envy. And he was in the Cowbell sketch with Will. What else???  As for the love, he's listed on the Frat Pack Circle of Trust (http://www.the-frat-pack.com/circle.html). Kevin Crossman 17:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Christopher Walken

message: I dunno maybe something....I am not going to argue or anything I just want you guys to consider them for thought not neccessarily for Wiki.
* All four are listed in the [Frat Pack Circle of Trust], and Koechner is listed as a Pledge there as well as in the Wiki article. Can you provide more info about what you're actually asking/suggesting?Kevin Crossman 19:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jackie Chan, Matt Dillon ,David Koechner, Fred Willard

message: Why isn't the Envy movie included?
::Maybe because it was horrible. Seriously, though, Jack Black and Stiller as leads; sounds like Frat Pack to me. Anyone else? Mujarimojo 01:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the reason. Frat Pack friends like Walken and Poehler don't hurt either.Kevin Crossman 04:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Envy

message: Why can animated films not be in the mix?
* For the same reason that Permanent Midnight is not considered a Frat Pack.66.129.224.36 22:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Animated Films

message: Why not a Frat Pack member, he has been in The Cable Guy, Bruce Almighty, and will be starring with Steve Carell again in the upcoming Horton Hears a Who in 2008.
* Well, let's eliminate Horton since it is an animated feature. The problem with Carrey is that he hasn't costarred with any of the Fratters (unlike Carell, who costarred in Anchorman). If Carrey had made Used Guys with Ben Stiller then this would have been an interesting argument but otherwise there's not a lot to hang you hat on for Carrey. Cable Guy was not the same kind of humor as the classic Frat Pack films, for example.Kevdo 17:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, when you think of Jim Carrey movies, you don't think of any of these guys. He's kind of a big enough star to be a stand-alone guy (not that Wilson(s) and Stiller aren't, though). MAybe he's in the 'circle of trust' though. Mujarimojo 01:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jim Carrey

message: Why is she not a Frat Pack member?She's been in movies with Ben Stiller,Vince Vaugh and Steve Carell.Isn't that enough?
User:alfredosolis
:As stated in the first line of the article, the Frat Pack is "a group of male Hollywood actors." --Miss Dark 22:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jennifer Aniston

message: Would it be too much to suggest renaming "Other people who often collaborate on the Frat Pack Films include:" as 
"Pledges"?
Also, shouldn't Jim Carey and Tim Robins get "Honorable Mentions"? Its clearly stated in the article of their contributions.
- ConradKilroy, 20 November 2005, 10:31 AM EST
Also, why was Jackie Chan removed? He's been in movies with Owen and Luke Wilson.
:Because he's only been in movies with the Wilson brothers, and never Luke alone (or for only one scene,) and never made an appearance in a Frat Pack movie.--Josh 12:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organizational Format  

message: Could The 40-Year-Old Virgin be considered a Frat Pack movie? Steve Carrell and Paul Rudd are both considered to be members and were since their roles in Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy and are stars in "Virgin..."
* According to the article, neither Steve Carell nor Paul Rudd is a member.  --LostLeviathan 02:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 40-Year-Old Virgin 

message: What about Ryan Reynolds (Van Wilder), Kal Penn (Harold & Kumar), John Cho (Harold & Kumar)?  I don't know for certain if they have been in any movies with the others of the "Frat Pack" but their humor seems to be in the same style.
I also don't think Jim Carrey should be included.  He hasn't starred in any of the more recent/prominent films of the "Pack" nor has he made one of the trademark cameos of the group in fellow packers' films.
Finally - how about a page for the old school comedians? Bill Murray, Dan Akroyd, Chris Farley, David Spade and others formed a similar group back in the day but never received a name per se.
:While the humor is similar, the article's about the actual actors that keep working together. 
:I agree with you about Jim Carrey. The main reason he is listed is because The Cable Guy is considered the first Frat Pack project. I just don't see the harm in leaving him as a friend, because that category isn't that important.
:As far as an article involving Farley and Spade, see Bad Boys of SNL.
:-Josh, October 30, 2005, 12:34 AM EST.
Eventually there may be a seperate group for Reynolds, Cho and Penn, should they keep making movies together.24.48.127.51 03:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Pledges? 

message: This paragraph in the article doesn't make sense: "With all their movies' profits ($643,816,307) added together, then subtracting by all of the budgets ($281,000,000), The Frat Pack is ahead by $362,816,307."  Is that supposed to be relative to the Rat Pack? --LostLeviathan 02:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That was what I came to the talk page for as well.  I was wondering if it's relative to the Rat Pack or the Brat Pack.  Also, is inflation taken into account?  And where did the statistic come from?  I'm going to remove it till someone can show a source... I suspect if I dig deeper I'll be able to find it in one of the references but I don't know which one.  Dismas|(talk) 10:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total profits? 

message: Snoop Dogg's not even an actor, and he's only appeared in Old School, playing himself. He's certainly not a friend of the pack. Especially if someone doesn't want to include Chris Parnell. And "40-Year-Old Virgin" only has Steve Carell, and it's not even been determined that he's official yet. The last reviser obviously had no idea what s/he was talking about -Josh, October 21, 2005, 9:15 PM EST
:No, Snoop Dogg was in Starsky and Hutch you Huggybear Hater
::You're right. I somehow totally forgot about Huggy Bear back when I made that change.--Josh 16:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I switched revised back to an older version. 

message: I removed the paragraph on how the people considered "friends" are connected. It was not well put-together, and was filled with weak connections. I left the information on Steve Carell, as he's been considered a member of the Frat Pack in some articles since the mentioned SNL appearance. I moved the information on directors, which was mixed into the paragraph, after the movies, as I thought it worked better there in the article. --Josh 23:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Clean-Up tag. 

message: Can Adam Sandler be considered member of the Frat Pack? Benzh 11:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adam Sandler? 

message: According to the article carell is a core meber of the frat pack, how? He wasn't even mentioned amongst them untill the 40 year old virgin came out. So how is he a core member? -Brodey
:He was a minor character in Anchorman as well as a few roles with Frat Pack members not mentioned as Frat Pack films (like Melinda and Melinda) and is known to have hung out and been good friends with the group outside of movies. As noted, it's debateable whether he's a core member or a good friend. Right now, the article's just working off the idea that in future movies, he'll become more an obvious part of the group. -- Viewdrix 01:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree that he's not part of the group.  Just looking at the current movie grid, he appears in 1 of the 21 movies listed.  Andy Dick has more roles in those movies than he does.  Whether or not he's a good friend with the others of the group, I think that by that criteria alone he just doesn't fit with the group.  I don't think "working off the idea" is good enough reason to include him.  Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, IMO. --Billdorr 03:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steve Carell? 

message: I considered adding this to the Movies table but hesitated because of how it was:
A) A TV show, and
B) Never publicly released.
Any objections about adding it if I do? -- Viewdrix 00:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Heat Vision and Jack]] 

message: I replaced the link to the Defamer article with a mirror of the New York Times aticle "They're in on the joke." The Defamer article was just two sarcastic paragraphs referring to the Times one, which is linked to. I linked to the mirror on Vince-Vaughn.com so that people following the link wouldn't have to register at nytimes.com. The Times article is the primary one, not the Defamer one, so it's the one that should be referenced.--Josh 15:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defamer link. 

message: One of the key policies of Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, or NPOV. This states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. What you recent editors need to understand is that I too consider Steve Carell to be in the group. However, his inclusion is widely disputed, and he was not considered to be a member in either of the original articles. His inclusion is not "absolute and non-negotiable," as Wikipedia NPOV requires. Steve Carell's not the only person outside of the original six who has been considered to be a member before. Paul Rudd, Seth Rogen, Jim Carrey, David Koechner, Snoop Dogg, and Jason Bateman have all also been considered to be a member at one point or another. However, as a Wikipedia article devoted to maintaining a neutral point of view, it would be biased to name any of these people as one of the members of the Frat Pack as if it were solid fact. That is why Steve Carell, for the sake of fairness and neutrality, must be left off of Wikipedia's list. Please do not put him on the list again. The article clearly states that Steve Carell is considered by some sources to be a member, and that is as much inclusion as he can recieve without being biased towards a certain point of view.--Josh 19:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See, what makes Steve different is his humor style and popularity. Paul Rudd, Seth Rogen, and David Koechner are still relatively unknown names. Jim and Jason hardly star with them. Snoop Dogg is hardly an actor! However, Steve is a good friend of Frat Pack members, his humor style is similar, he has appeared in Frat Pack movies and movies with Frat Pack cast or crew. He even sang a song and appeared with Will Ferrell at the Oscars. He is a Frat Pack member. Check IMDb (his biography, as well as other Frat Pack members'), check the Frat Pack tribute site, articles, and ask around. It's time for an upgrade Steve. Who's with me? - Patrick 19:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't need to "check the Frat Pack tribute site." I'm a regular visitor there, I'm on its message board every day, and I've called in to the podcast twice now. I agree with the belief of Steve being in the pack as well. But I must stress that stating it as fact is not NPOV. I'm more than fine with the paragraph about Steve Carell being included; honestly, I'm glad it's there. But the only way to keep this article with a neutral POV is to only list the original 6, as it's solid fact that those were the original members included.--Josh 00:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with the fact that the Frat Pack should stay with the 6, orginal founding members. But they didn't found anything. The fact that all of them haven't appeared in a movie together and that they did not make this up themselves proves that they didnt found it. And the point is, if everyone agreed on something, we wouldn't have war would we? I've seen many articles stating the Frat Pack to not include Jack Black. I've seen some to include even Paul Rudd. But I've seen MOST to include Steve Carell. His style suits. - Patrick 00:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maintaining a Neutral Point of View 

message: It is irrelevant whether Snoop Dogg is an actor or not. The whole reason the frat pack exist and are called as such, is because of thier similiarites to fraternity stereotypes, or being "fratty" if you will. Broaddus is a rapper and clearly trys to embody the "gansta rap" style (and he does so well). But for this reason alone he would never be considered as part if the group.--TAMU May 27, 2006, 1:25 PM MST
:It's not like he says "I can't be friends with those guys...they're referred to as a fraternity by the media, that conflicts with my reputation." They're friends, and the group doesn't refer to themselves as the Frat Pack. They just hang out, if there was some sort of image crisis going on, I doubt Snoop Dogg would star in the kinds of films these guys were in. Your argument makes no sense. -- Viewdrix 20:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Snoop Dogg

message: The chart in the Movies section has been alphabetized. I'm not quite sure if this is the best idea. I personally think it works better in chronological order, but I'm hesitant to revert it. What does everyone else think?--Josh 15:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This list is basically a filmography. Everywhere else on Wikipedia (I think?), discographies and filmographies are chronological. I have discovered this article about ten minutes ago, and was bothered by the fact that the filmography is alphabetical, as one cannot see from it how the pack evolved. --Netvor » user | talk | mail | work » 19:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movies. 

message: ...Could he be listed in "other friends..."  youngamerican (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tim Robbins... 

message: I think that Frat Pack Fans should distance themselves from Steve Carrell's obvious pandering and longing to be part of the Frat Pack. His SNL skit was incredibly pathetic and while he may be friends with the crew he is NO FRAT PACKER! If anyone claims HIMSELF to be part of the Pack on national TV, then you know they are really not involved and only wish to be. 
The FRAT PACK should remain the original seven (even Jack Black is debatable). I think it's getting a little out of hand that so many second rate comedians (Carrell,Rudd,Heder) are dying to get into the crew. If anyone even deserves to be annointed into the crew it's Andy Dick, who has been with the crew since day one.
* Carell made a point that he was a famous comedian. He never said he was a Frat Packer. Andy Dick is not well known. Heder can't be counted, he's been in no movie. If you could Carell, he's been in 3 (Anchorman, Melinda and Melinda, and Bewitched). If you count Rudd, Carells been in 4 and Rudds been in Anchorman, Virgin, and Night at the Museum. You have to realize that new comedians will continue to appear and what happens when the other guys retire? If it's to be continued you need to add to the list. Many are now accepting Carell, and I've even seen Rudd and even Kroechner. Consider it people.
:*Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Carell may be a future Frat Packer, but with only one or two such movies under his belt, he cannot be considered one at this time. And even if he could, he cannot be considered a "core" member, which is what the movie list and main list deal with. Additionally, although I've been a fan of Carell since his first Daily Show appearance, to say that he is "famous" and Andy Dick is "not well known" is rather absurd. Dick is at least as well-known as Carell, and I could see a strong argument for him being much, much more well-known. Heck, Andy Dick is practically a legend, even if he's not exactly "mainstream". So I don't think that's the line of argument you'll be wanting to use to justify Carell's inclusion. -Silence 02:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Steve Carrell will never be a true Frat Packer 

message: Should Matt Dillon be considered as a secondary member, he has starred in There's Something About Mary with Ben Stiller and in You, Me, And Dupree with Owen Wilson.
*2 movies is not nearly enough. Probably 5 at least.
:::Says who? If a reliable source is found (ie a magazine or newspaper article) saying Dillon is in the Frat Pack then he is. It is not out place to decide an actor's status ourselves as this is entirely our own point of view. This is why wikipedia requires verifiable sources for all its articles. Please remember this when deciding who is in the pack and who isn't. It is irrelevant whether you personally agree with who the press decides is in the pack. --Super Ted 08:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Matt Dillon

message: While it could be argued that Secondary Members do exist, it's purely speculation at this point. Whoever added the "Recently, newer comedians have been added to the list" comment references themself, not an actual web article. Steve Carell is the only actor identified as a new member by most media outlets, including USA Today. Paul Rudd has also been cited as a member by a couple sources. However, this notion that Carell, Rudd, Seth Rogen & David Koechner are secondary Frat Pack members is purely someone's opinion. Until articles are printed addressing this issue, the Wikipedia page shouldn't address the "secondary members" as if it's a fact.
The seconday members section has no sourced basis for the inclusion of these supposed "seconday members" as of right now it seems all like fan speculation, with people actually discussing here who they should add next. This is highly non-encyclopedic. Duhon July 30, 2006.
* I think the secondary members section needs to cite the "Frat Pack splits" article, to describe how the original Fratters aren't co-starring with each other much anymore. The article mentions how this split allows for guys like Seth Rogen to step up to the plate. Also, this article (http://www.usatoday.com/life/people/2005-08-11-steve-carell_x.htm?POE=LIFISVA) talks about the junior varsity, acknowledged by Paul Rudd.
*While not just about the "Secondary Members", I think the entire "other" list should be reworked and give a sentence or so reason why they are included, or have most of them removed if there isn't proper siting.  Adding them because they were co-stars with a few of the actors on some movies, some not even some of their "fratty" films, just doesn't cut it. Also, (as just one example) I'm kind of interested why "Around the World in 80 Days" would even be listed here when "Swingers", is not. Radagast83 05:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the requirement is that at least 2 of the people in the "group" are part of a film, then the entire Trademark section should be striked from the page, because most, if not all of them only actually apply to 2-4 of the films at once out of 25 "Primary" films (that is about 15% accuracy at best).  Also, I propose that we should remove the entire secondary actors sction (or move to a new page) because frankly, it is very subjective and just remove Tertiary members, which is VERY subjective.  Wikipedia is not a indiscriminate collection of data.  The article either needs to be seriously cleaned up and sourced, or it needs the impossible-to-source information removed. Radagast83 23:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Secondary Members 

message: * From the Wiki page: "will reunite for the comedy Step Brothers, which will not be the third movie in Ferrell/McKay's mediocre man trilogy, according to McKay." Can someone confirm this statement (that it won't be the third film in the trilogy). The article referenced doesn't say anything about the trilogy.Kevdo 23:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Step Brothers 

message: To end these almost daily edit wars that seem to occur on this page, the article needed to be reformatted.  It was discussed a few days ago, but I think I should bring this to the attention more clearly. Here are some of the changes I made:
* The lists needed to go.  They may be easy to look at, but the format lends to people adding (or removing) anyone they see fit.  I rewrote them into prose, and I feel the whole issue could be greatly diminished ths way.
* The section should be re-named "members" into something more general (Perhaps "The Pack" for the time being, this is the only issue I had with the edit). This allowed the director's section in the "appearances" section to become part of this new section, as it is in keeping with the various connections the films have with eachother over the list of films, of which the second paragraph in that section does all the work.
* The "Appearances" section should be re-named "Filmography" with a sub-section for "Secondary Filmography".
* Are the TV appearances notable?  I've never heard anyone talk about the group in terms of TV, so I removed them.
I have all of this pretty much ready to go online if everyone thinks it's a good idea, it needs to be fleshed out, but it's a start. I hope no one reverts it without giving an explanation why. Please give your thoughts and we can work this out. Radagast83 07:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, make any changes you feel would benefit from this, and looking at it, I do agree it's a little difficult to see exactly who is a main Frat Pack member (so a list might help with just the main members). Radagast83 02:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: Colbert should be considered a pledge.
He's been with Carell(The Ambigusly Gay Duo,Bewitched,The Daily Show) and Ferrell(Bewitched,Strangers with candy(guest star))
* Colbert is a perfect example of someone who definitely belongs in the Frat Pack Circle of Trust (as a friend of Steve mainly, but also Will as noted). But he's definitely not a Pledge has he's never been in a classic Frat Pack movie.Kevdo 04:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stephen Colbert

message: The content on the site, especially as it relates to Frat Pack "membership" seems to have stabilized. If y'all agree, how do we remove the big "in dispute" banner from the top of the page?Kevdo 20:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say keep it up until you get a few responses.  The amount of edit-warring that took place is virtually gone.  While I would feel better with more sourcing of minor 'members', I'd say that most of the "dispute" occured based on Steve Carrell's inclusion/exclusion.  I believe it's been firmly shown that he is a member, and thusly, the dispute is over. Radagast83 20:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the subject of minor members, perhaps a link section should be added highlighting such noteworthy links. Like you said, keeping with the encyclopedic nature, proper sourcing would make things better. See me let go 02:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See "External Links" at the bottom of the Frat Pack page.--Patesta 21:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy dispute over? 

message: Does anyone still dispute the relevance of any of this information or oppose removing the 'relevance disputed' tag at this point? User:Pedant 21:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance 

message: It was mentioned in the Frat Pack article that Will said in a interview with a UK magazine, that he was the leader of the frat pack.  Can the person who put that into the wiki, please put the source?  Would love to see it  Yearsago 19:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would anyone disagree with moving this quote about Will being the leader of the frat pack?  There still has been no source. Yearsago 18:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleting it is a good idea for two reasons. 1) it's not attributed. 2) Ben Stiller is the leader of the Frat Pack (as noted in numerous quotes by Vince, Luke, Owen, and Jack) (see www.the-frat-pack.com)Kevdo 04:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Interview with Will Ferrell 

message: I suggest taking this off the list since it's not a comedy. It's a drama. It's the adaptation of Jerry Stahl's memoir of the same name. And Melinda and Melinda is a Woodey Allen movie. Shouldn't be in this list either. I would say the Tenacious D shorts should be removed as well.
* The heading at the top of the chart describes what "Frat Pack" movies are vs. related projects. I say keep it.Kevdo 01:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Permanant Midnight 

message: This article provides no coverage of the prior attempt to christen the cast of the film School Ties  (along with a few others) as the "Frat Pack". As one can see from this Entertainment Weekly article reprinted at NewsAskew.com, this version of the "Frat Pack" featured the likes of Leonardo DiCaprio, Ben Affleck, Matt Damon, and Edward Norton. How should this information be handled? It invalidates several claims in this article, particularly the one about who coined the term. Erechtheus 02:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * That would explain why I thought there was no coverage. I expected the information to be much deeper into the article, so I didn't even bother to skim the lead paragraph. I wouldn't think such prior use information would be so important it should be in what is supposed to be a summary. Erechtheus 06:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: ** It wouldn't bother me to see it lower on the page.Kevdo 18:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An earlier Frat Pack 

message: Night at the Musueum is a family/children's film based on a popular children's short i think it hardly qualifies as a frat pack film. The defintion we have here is way too overly simplistic, simply becuse a few of the actors are working toghether on a film does that automatically warrant reffereing to it as a frat pack film? To most people the the frat pack label refers a to a genre of somewhat sophmoric buddy comdedies that have emmerged the last 5 years or so. In my opinion there needs to be an overhaul of what exactly a frat pack movie is here i.e more of a genre than a strict set defenition, otherwise films like this suddenly are reffered here and nowhere else as a "frat pack film".
---Duhon December 22nd 2006.
* NATM was certainly family friendly, but I'm not sure I would call it a kid's film. There was definitely a lot of humor aimed at adults. Where the film does fit well with other Frat Pack fare is the large roles by Stiller and Wilson, along with recurring friends (e.g. Paul Rudd). And it's a fantasy/farce not too different from something like Bruce/Evan Almighty, Pick of Destiny.  It's not "classic Frat Pack" storyline ala Old School or Wedding Crashers, but it's certainly more the kind of humor we're used to than, say, The Royal Tenenbaums.Kevdo 16:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do think it should be a frat packer, but i must agree some movies should not be in there, When i think of the movies i think Owen, Ben and Will as %100 With luke and vince at %95, However, with me and most people i know Jack Black is a %0 and Steve onlt about %50 (even tho i love him). The description does need to be changed, . The movies: Bewitched, Around the World in 80 Days, Meet the Parents, should not be in there. I Mean 80 days, has two camoes and NO secondary how is that a Fratter?IAmTheCoinMan 18:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the Frat Pack Tribute site we took care of this issue by noting which films were "classic" Frat Pack films (e.g. Old School) and which ones weren't (e.g. 80 days). Of course, we also created tight (at least two Fratters in starring roles, farce elements) and loose (one Fratter, similar humor style) definitions of what a Frat Pack film really is. For Wikipedia, I'm not sure you can use any other source except The Frat Pack Tribute for that, and as noted in other threads that may not be enough source material to go on. The chart on the Wiki page does say "filmography" and it's certainly accurate. But I understand the want to highlight the "canon" films,.Kevdo 21:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Night at the Musueum a frat pack movie? 

message: Ian Roberts (of Upright Citizen's Brigade) has appeared in minor roles in both Anchorman and Talladega Nights (the latter of which is listed as a secondary movie). Anchorman includes all but one core member, while TN features one core member (Will Ferrell) and several secondary members including Adam McKay and David Koechner. With this in mind, might Roberts qualify as a secondary member of the Frat Pack?
* Maybe someday. His role in Anchorman was really small, and in Talladega it was larger (more so on the extended version). He gets no props from me for his (and Adam McKay's) awful Talladega Nights DVD commentary. It's true that Koechner's role was no larger, but Koechner gets credit for earlier work (incl. work with other Fratters besides Ferrell).Kevdo 22:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ian Roberts a secondary member? 

message: I am sorry, but this page is utter garbage. There is a time to be nice, and this is not it. It is not encyclopedic, it is incoherent, there is no organization, there is irrelevant information, sources are not cited, and opinion and original research is everywhere. Most of the "research" comes from a self-proclaimed "superfan" website, and I am sure the authors of said website are also the ones editing this article. 
All of the arguments about whether a given member is or isn't in the Frat Pack are not only juvenile but irrelevent: Wikipedia is not supposed to make such judgement calls, but should simply note that such controversy exists. 
"Frat Pack Pledges" are a fiction created by the fansite and, as such, do not deserve any recognition in the article whatsoever.
"According to the Frat Pack Tribute website, "to 'strictly' qualify as a Frat Pack movie, a movie must have at least two Frat Pack members involved." -- nobody cares what a fansite thinks. You have to ask what the press thinks. Here's a hint: they don't think Woody Allen films like "Melinda and Melinda" qualify as Frat Pack movies, Will Ferrell or no.
I am not trying to be mean, only frank. This page is an excellent example of what Wikipedia is not. It is unsalvagable. It's time for a rewrite.
24.74.148.61 20:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I am not sure about a rewrite.  I think the presentation of the sources for the article could be better, and I have started work on improving this.  The original anonymous criticaster may want to see User_talk:StudyAndBeWise/HarvardHowTo for simple instructions on one way to improve the article.  StudyAndBeWise 06:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a complete rewrite 

message: I removed a citation to http://www.ew.com/ew/features/980424/fratpack/ which does not exist.  StudyAndBeWise 05:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed citations 

message: I am considering removing the following as a reference:
:http://www.the-frat-pack.com/circle.html
Becuase:
:1.  It is an unsigned.  (The graphics and comments are attributed, but the text is not).  E.g., from the article:
:2.  It does not cite its sources.
I moved it here in case anybody disaggress that such a source is not a reliable source. 
* Retrieved on 2007-02-09
See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources and Wikipedia:Verifiablity.  StudyAndBeWise 05:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be removed. That site is an understandable related link, but not an actual reference. There is a growing number of articles with similar content to that site, so it's becoming more common to find some more concrete reference links. See me let go 05:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable source 

message: If you want to continue harvardizing the references (which will improve the article by allowing people to know more details about the sources without having to go the the sources, some of which launch annoying pop-up adds), see User_talk:StudyAndBeWise/HarvardHowTo.  I hope the work I have done has helped.  Please continue it.  StudyAndBeWise 06:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm done for now 

message: The secondary filmography seems to complicate the article, mixing and matching actors that just happened to be cast in the same film. Some listings are notable (The 40 Year Old Virgin, The Break Up), but does Bruce Almighty really warrant listing? When you take a group of people (almost 20 in the case of this article), it's not unfamiliar for their paths to cross. Does each case really fit in with the Wikipedia guidelines? Not saying to delete the list, but it does seem to need some kind of clarity. See me let go 07:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Secondary Filmography

message: I think he is quickly gaining approval as a frat pack member.
Outings in School of Scoundrels and the upcoming Blades of Glory.
I think he should be listed, maybe as a primary member. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Teerev (talk • contribs) 03:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: School for Scoundrels isn't a Frat Pack movie. And even if it was, two movies with the Frat Pack would have barely qualified him as a pledge. -- Viewdrix 04:30, 4 March 2007 (
But saying that..wait for Blades of Glory Teerev 17:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Despite how big a part someone gets in one movie, it doesn't change the act that it was one movie. Heder can't be considered a pledge, or even anywhere near a total member, for sharring top billing with Will Ferrell. The precedented criteria makes this clear. -- Viewdrix 22:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jon Heder? 

message: The group of guys that make up Happy Madison are they just the "happy Madison Pack?"
you know like grandma's boy, rob snieder is...something unusual, big daddy, the wedding singer, etc.
* There was a Wiki article about the "Bad Boys of SNL" but for some reason it is no longer around. They are definitely a distinct "pack" from the Frat Pack, despite some overlap. Same for Kevin Smith's View Askew crew.Kevin Crossman 19:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: what about???

message: James Carville appeared in both Old School and Wedding Crashers, two of the most central Frat Pack movies of all time. I think he should be given honorary member status. Aznlaxboy 20:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  James Carville? 

message: I don't think the Pledge Film section should be there, esp. with Shrek3 as the example.  Please comment on including this in the article.Kevin Crossman 22:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pledge Films" section 

message: Anyone have an opinion regarding the removal of the scorecard and just a straight list. It seems the scorecard table provided more examples of how these guys work together.Kevin Crossman 16:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the old format but if you're going to use a list why not at least list the Frat Pack actors for each film (similar to the the list below where you see the primary fratter with the secondary fratters).Kevin Crossman 22:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scorecard removal 

message: does anyone else agree that this article should be deleatedUser:Harry Weasley14:58 5 june 07
:Well, it does not contain any citations, that's for sure. And, there's quite a bit of uncertainty regarding the "common themes" since the third movie hasn't even started pre-production.Kevin Crossman 22:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediocre American Man Trilogy 

message: does anyone disagree with this order User:Harry Weasley15:32 5 june 07
1) ben stiller
2) owen wilson
3) will ferrell
4) vince vaughn
5) luke wilson
6) jack black
7) steve carell
:Not sure what the purpose of this list is. There are a myriad of quotes indicating that Stiller is the acknowledged leader. And I think a look at the films TO DATE would put Black and Carell at the bottom in that order. On the other hand, Black is going to do a movie produced by Owen (The Year One) and his role in Tropic Thunder certainly puts him, arguably, with more in-group work than Luke Wilson. You could easily argue for Ferrell or Vaughn as #2 instead of Owen (any any those guys could be 2-3-4). Not sure we need this list. Something about Ben being the leader might be interesting, if you can dig up the quotes. There's a certain related, external Frat Pack website that has a bunch of those. But if I mention the site the administrators think I'm spamming.Kevin Crossman 22:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Leader of the Frat Pack  

message: Why is there a big issue about external links to the frat pack tribute site.  That site offers a detailed analysis of the frat pack members, films, and news (which is much more than wikipedia can offer). Kevin crossman should be applauded for his tireless work towards the frat pack and not accused of spamming or trying to promote his own site(which if its was full of rubbish and biased views would not come up first on google or yahoo searches). User:Harry Weasley 11:22 6 june 2007
:DreamGuy's notable for his bold editing, which sometimes can be excessively bold. He found a guideline that approved, not demanded, for the deletion of links that were added by the authors of their respective websites. I took the liberty of looking at the website and deemed it worthy of mention, so the 'self-promotion' bit is out the window now. If it is edited out again without further discussion/mediation/general consensus, flag the editor for vandalism. Kerrow 20:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point was not that I "added" the links but "undeleted" them after they had been there for a year (technically an "addition" to the page but definitely not the same as adding it in the first place.)  Most of the Wiki admins/editors seem to think all "fansites" have no redeeming quality so they should not be included, which was actually DreamGuy's major gripe.Kevin Crossman 00:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: High rank in Google should definitely not be considered as a great reason to deem anyone as an authority on anything. It might be a factor but far from the only one, FWIW.Kevin Crossman 00:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Frat Pack Tribute  

message: I'm leaning toward thinking that the Apatow-group "Back Pack" reference should be removed from the page. I think it would be better as its own Wiki article with a crosslink from the Frat Pack page. What do the rest of you think?Kevin Crossman 20:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mentioning the Back Pack? 

message: Why have school of rock and elf been removed from the table.
* All of the films with only one Frat Pack member have been removed (see also: Along Came Polly, The 40 Year-Old Virgin). The listing below that, for better or for worse, is only for films with a single Fratter and at least one "pledge" costar. Neither Elf nor School of Rock would qualify under that criteria.Kevin Crossman 21:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal Of Films 

message: Jack Black isn't in the Frat Pack.  Secondly, it isnt a Frat pack movie if only one or two of them are in it, it has to have a bunch of them.  I'll give this article a week to change, after that I'm setting it straight.
* Threats aren't a good way to make friends and influence people. Thinking constructively, Jack Black has been included in virtually every article about the group, and he's made reference to the group as well. Kevin Crossman 04:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Article is a Disgrace