Talk:What About Bob?

message: I've not seen the film, and although mental illness has afflicted several of my family members in varying degrees, claims that the movie is "a mockery" or that it doesn't portray the illness "effectively" are clearly an opinion.  Similarly, claiming that the "the films (sic) stigmatize the public" violates the NPOV policy. 
If this could be reworded with appropriate citations to sources that make such claims, this may no longer violate the policy. Travisl 03:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Some folks take comedy way too seriously. There's a good chance that the diatribes posted on this page are by folks who are often quoted as saying "What's funny about that?" It reminds me of when someone posted something on the page of A Boy Named Sue complaining that an adult would be at liberty to change his name and that the song was not logical. Yeh, that's true, he could change his name, but then it wouldn't be funny! Holy Moly! What's wrong with people? Wahkeenah 03:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: What's not funny about them is that they're false, demeaning and dangerous.  Tourette's rarely involves shouting obscenities, but that's the view the public has of a very public disease because of movies like this.  Schizophrenia has nothing to do with dissociative personalities but the entire North American public seems to think it does.  Stigmatizing, mischaracterizing and mocking people is NOT funny, and you (above) are obviously an ignorant prick.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.182.55 (talk) 08:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dude? 

message: I've trimmed the overlong plot summary to a version from an older revision  --TS 00:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did the same, but for some reason anonymous IPs keep readding the extra information! It's too long! Lady Galaxy 20:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I spend a decent amount of time trying to shorten up the plot summary only to have it reverted with the message "This is better."  How is it better to have a "plot summary too long" warning?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsonasu (talk • contribs) 17:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

text: The part of the plot left out, which I feel is a very important part of Bob's phobia and how it affects any pyschologist is the beginning when Bob's ex-psychologist calls Dr. Marvin (Dreyfeus) on the phone while folding up his practice; seemingly because of Bob!!  The ex-therapist ends with the statement "I'm Free" once Dr. Marvin agrees to take him.  I think that part of the movie is critical beginning left out entirely in the "plot summary".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.72.89.105 (talk) 15:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Plot summary

message: Last time I edited a page, the pagebot flipped out on me and tried giving me crap, so I'll just comment on it:
trailer for film
In a few shots after 1:00 into the trailer, richard dreyfuss has a few cut clips of the scene where he gets mud on his pants, and in anger, thrashes a golf club against his station wagon, and around 1:30, it also shows him breaking the club against his knee. If you guys don't believe me, see for yourself. this may and/or should be added to the info page, am I right, or am I right?
Dwo shwoom (talk) 06:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleted scenes are not necessarily notable by themselves. Films trailers often include things that do not appear in the final cut. If substantial changes or reshoots were needed during production resulting in a lot of unused scenes that might be notable. If a different cut was released on home media it might be worth mentioning. -- 109.79.69.205 (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: @109.79.69.205 I swear I saw a scene in the movie theater that wasn't in the home video. It's Bob in his blue shirt at the house, looking through the screen door. It wasn't a long scene I saw it twice in theaters so I'm pretty sure I'm not imagining it. I've thought if this ever since the VHS then DBD was released. Not sure on the LaserDisk version (my parents have that). 2600:1004:A020:B6F1:490F:198F:4471:C738 (talk) 07:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted scene

message: I have deleted the information concerning Siskel and Ebert's review for the film.  There is a video of the episode of their review on this particular film but due to copyright reasons, it cannot be used it a source.  In addition, What About Bob? is apparently unlisted in the list of Bill Murray film reviews in Ebert's website.Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 04:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Although videos posted on Youtube may not be included for copyright reasons, you could have instead provided an episode citation full of relevant details. Anyone can still and restore the review so long as they add an episode citation. RogerEbert.com also includes reviews from Ebert and he usually echos the same sentiments in his print review. -- 109.79.69.205 (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Siskel and Ebert review

message: As of 2019 do we have any update on the lawsuit? The article mentions a lawsuit was filed in 2015, has it been settled or dismissed, do we even know if it is still ongoing? 
In the past cases such as these have revealed very interesting information about how movies can earn big box office grosses but also have huge expenses and never actually make a profit. -- 109.79.69.205 (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Lawsuit