Talk:Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story

message: It has to be at least 2003 because Lance Armstrong says he's already won the Tour de France 5 times in a row when he sees Peter in the airport. Lance Armstrong won 7 consecutive Tour de France races from 1999-2005.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:80:C002:C86C:70D1:BAB0:B492:FA4C (talk) 11:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: it wasn't a mistake, fools.  White Goodman was such a dumbass, it was to show how stupid he was. The movie takes place in 2003-2004. phhh! watch the movie people, it doesn't exactly credit the White Goodman character with intelligence...he has a PHD in down symdrome, just like the person who wrote the goof section(whoever wrote the goof section wont get this joke either.) NewGod KingKirby 25 February 2006 08:28
one explaination is that he is either 2 lazy or cheap to  up date his commerical and had been running the same one for the may yearsRanul 17:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also at the beginning they say he has an overdue video renting fee for “Mona Lisa Smile” which was released in 2003.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:183:8480:4ecc:6170:a0b5:671a:f489 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: 1993 or 2000's

message: I was wondering if we should perhaps put in some information on the impact the film has had. I know that in numerous areas across the USA, Dodgeball leages popped up after this film became popular. Zytch 21:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Legacy?

message: Who plays the role of Average Joe's coach ? Jay 19:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're talking about Patches, that's Rip Torn.
Who played Patches? In the body it says Hank Azaria but elsewhere it says Rip Torn. I am confused and don't know what to believe.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.197.214.88 (talk) 06:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Coach

message: What is the name of the bizarre song that plays as Ben Siller walks up Christine Taylor's house? Who performs it? I looked for it on the internet, but without me being able to check up on them I'm runnin blind. Can someone help?--Clyde Miller 00:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Apache" by The Sugarhill Gang. Wavy G 00:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A certain song in the film 

message: The entirety of the section could be explained by White Goodman playing the same commercial since 1993. Thanks to commercials for Tom Emanski's Baseball Training videos, which have been playing since 1991, and White's level of not-smartness, it is most likely the case. See Fred McGriff. --MJR 19:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goofs section 

message: *During the commentary for the DVD, Thurbur is verbally attacked by Vaughn and Stiller and leaves in anger. The two actors then leave half way through, and the booth guys (who had been rather badly verablly attacked themselves by a beer-swilling Vaughn) panic about endangering their jobs and eventually put on a different commentary, borrowed from the DVD for "There's Something About Mary". Somehow this was issued to the DVD uncensored.
I removed this entry because I have listened to the entire commentary track and no such thing ever happened.  "Verablly attacked themselves by a beer-swilling Vaughn"?  Come on.  If there is some alternate track that I am unaware of, it was more than likely done for a joke (in the same vain as the commentary for Anchorman) and is not noteworthy. Wavy G 00:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted trivia entry 

message: just curious... is it an actualy true story?
yes just like anchorman. It was based on true events. only the names, locations and events have been changed.
:The title is a play on the viewer's expectations. Movies in this genre always have the protagonists win, so although they are presented as underdogs, they are actually favored to win. The true underdog is Globogym and White Goodman. Although he is a jerk and his shady and unsportsmanlike tactics seem to give him the edge, there is little doubt that he will lose and get his comeuppance. 
:In the original ending, though, Globogym wins. They are the true underdogs, hence the title. The studio changed the ending, so the title lost its bite. It was actually a brilliant concept and I'm sad they weren't allowed to use the original ending. 
:131.96.47.17 (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it isn't based on a true story. It's just a subtitle. Don't be ridiculous. (It's meant to read as "truly an underdog story", not "a true story of underdogs"). --IllaZilla (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A True Underdog Story? 

message: There was originally a trivia point in the article stating that because the film took place in 1993 it was therefore innacurate to reference the 2003 film "Mona Lisa Smile". However the problem with this is "Mona Lisa Smile" was not the film mentioned. If you listen carefully and/or run the subtitle on the DVD the film named is actually "Mona Lisa's Smile". This is likely a fictional pornographic film since the other two listed were of pornographic nature. This would also make sense as a pornographic play-on-words given that her name is "Mona". --Matt72986 00:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm gonna jump in here and point out that there actually IS a porn star called Mona Lisa, which supports it being Mona Lisa's Smile. The Kinslayer 16.54 GMT 11th August 2006
Yeah, I think it might be a joke. The two porn films followed by the completely out-of-context Mona Lisa Smile. BTW, the DVD commentary puts it as *Mona Lisa Smile*. The films not set in 1993, it's not a pun on 'moan', it's just a funny.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.195.178 (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mona Lisa Smile trivia removal 

message: This entry in the trivia section was attributed to Office Space. This movie did not invent the term. Office Space, a film made in 1999, was long after the phrase was coined. The earliest source I know of (though I'm sure it isn't the earliest) was the 1979 Walter Hill filmThe Warriors where a gang member Ajax is heard muttering it after defeating a rival group of thugs.
Office Space also featured Stephen Root. --91.106.134.43 (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fuckin A 

message: Why is there no section on box office/critical reception like there is on most film entries on Wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.31.173.139 (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception? 

message: I have a problem with this passage:
:"Thurber's disapproval is further reinforced by the treasure chest filled with money that Peter wins saying "Deus Ex Machina" (literally: "God out of a machine") which is Latin for a nonsensical plot device used to resolve a story with no regard to its logic."
If "Deus Ex Machina" is literally "God out of a machine," then how could it possibly be Latin for a nonsensical plot device?  I understand what the writer was going for here, but it needs to be cleaned up.  Also, I don't think it's necessary to explain what Deus Ex Machina is when there's a link to its entry.24.124.49.71 19:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deus Ex Machina 

message: I have a problem with this passage:
:"Suddenly, Lance Armstrong takes a seat next to him and inadvertently motivates him to return to the game and play."
Who writes this crap?  I think that Armstrong is speaking ironically. I also think that this is obvious to anyone over the age of about 6.  But otherwise great wicki-editing!  Keep it up guys! Dr Spam (MD) 12:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: inadvertently

message: I haven't heard the DVD commentary, so I don't know if they address this, but has anybody else noticed the fact that it's pretty obvious that the scene where Justin runs into the cheerleader and her boyfriend in the hallway was actually meant to take place the night before the dodgeball finals?  First off, the three team members who go missing the night before the finals aren't seen with the rest of the group in the hallway scene, and those who are there are dressed exactly as they were the night before the finals.  Second, Amber mentions that she's in the cheerleading finals the next day when a longer period of time passes between that conversation and the actual finals in the final cut of the movie.  Does anybody have/know anything that can verify this and if so, would it be relevant to mention?--MythicFox 16:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rearranged scenes 

message: Ok, people, has the director or actors said ANYTHING to support that there was, in fact, an original ending?  Yes, I know they say it on the DVD commentary, but that was clearly a joke (see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0364725/board/nest/84935654) for reasons as to why it had to be).  So do we really need sayings like "Its purpose was to show how much the director disliked the new "happy" ending" or "Also, the part where Ben Stiller's character criticizes the ending could also be Thurber getting out his opinion to the viewers."  This, unless otherwise proven, is COMPLETE speculation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.25.121 (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed... the 'original ending' is almost certainly a joke poking fun at the Hollywood revision process.  As such, I'm removing it; if someone can find a citation showing that it actual *is* the original ending, please do. Macboots 00:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: his original ending had the joes lossing, he was not able to film the rest with steve the pirets return but he still wanted the joes to loss the final game   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafff18 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Ending 

message: Apparently, there are people that are against this.  Can anyone explain why we should retain a list of dodgeball teams mentioned in the movie, but never shown?  Or the fake "real" ending misinformation?  Or the entirey of the rules of dodgeball as given in the movie?  All of this stuff should go.  -Chunky Rice 18:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoooaaa man, why not give Inclusionism a try? D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 19:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually lean towards inclusionism, but most of this stuff is just pointless and detracts from the article.  Further, the guidelines that we have for plot details call for its removal.  -Chunky Rice 19:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing pointless trivia and plot details 

message: :Image:AverageJoes.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 06:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:AverageJoes.jpg

message: :Image:PeterandWhite.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:PeterandWhite.JPG

message: :Image:WhiteandKate.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:WhiteandKate.jpg

message: In the introduction, it says that reviews were generally positive. In the "Reception" section, it says reviews were mixed. Can someone clear this up? --71.31.130.35 (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: In the paragraph with White offering Peter $100,000 for the gym, should we say there that Peter accepted the cash, because it's not revealed to the viewers that he did until the movie's conclusion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaydude1992 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not pertinent when it's revealed to the viewer. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Afraid I don't really get what you're saying.--Jaydude1992 (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean the exact moment at which Peter's decision is revealed to viewers of the film isn't very relevant to a summary of the plot. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: White's offer

message: An editor has repeatedly inserted claims about new edits being done to remove the Lance Armstrong material. This claim is not in the source given, nor is it in any news source I can locate. Such a claim is of WP:BLP concern as it depicts the actions of the film's director. Do not reinsert this until there is a source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The source repeatedly used by this anon does not say anything whatsoever about the scene being removed or re-shot. It is merely a comment by the author that the scene now appears ironic and hollow in light of Armstrong's doping scandal. It does not support any of the claims made in the anon's text. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armstrong-related edits 

message: Can we mention that the movie has a cult following?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.77.147 (talk) 09:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reliable third party source for that statement? If so, sounds good to me. -Nat Gertler (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cult Following 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on DodgeBall: A True Underdog Story. 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/20040622064559/http://www.dodgeballmovie.com:80/ to http://www.dodgeballmovie.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on DodgeBall: A True Underdog Story. 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/20090324164207/http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=1074 to http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=1074
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What are the 5 rules of dodgeball 97.122.161.21 (talk) 01:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  5 Rules of DodgeBall 

message: I propose that ESPN 8: The Ocho be split off from this article. It is a programming segment on ESPN over many years now, and is separate from the movie which inspired it. -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this proposal. There is enough significant coverage from secondary sources to create a separate article about the programming block. Let'srun (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split off ESPN 8 

message: The redirect The American Dodgeball Association of America has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  jlwoodwa (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:The American Dodgeball Association of America]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The redirect American Dodgeball Association of America has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  signed, Rosguill talk 17:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:American Dodgeball Association of America]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]