Talk:Date Movie

message: This movie seriously cost that much?  It was just a bunch of random clips that could have been made by a high school film student.  Did it seriously cost that 
: Hollywood accounting makes it impossible to say for sure but both of the usual sources say $20 million. 
: That is only the production budget, marketing and other costs would add even more on to the final cost of the film. -- Horkana (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: $20 million budget? 

message: I'm assuming that's "Andy" and "Julia", in which case maybe the caption should say so?
HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Kill Bill spoof scene 

message: umm excuse me , i want to watch date movie but i dont know what its rated:rated r,rated PG,rated Pg13,rated PG 14????????which one?please answer someone
:the article rates it as PG-13. but in my opinion it isn't worth paying to see as it does seem to be quite a poor film with very predictable jokes and tries to earn notoriety by having disgusting scenes like waxing a hairy fat woman (i actually had to chuck my dinner away when i saw that, that's never happened before). perhaps you could watch it for curiosity's sake if it's on TV and there's nothing better to watch, that's about the only excuse for subjecting yourself to it. From the sounds of it, Epic Movie is just as poor, if not worse.--KX36 20:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: rated

message: :Image:Date movie.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 03:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Date movie.jpg

message: Why does it link straight to the original's page?  (74.215.117.153 16:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Date Movie 2 Link

message: I recently posted the scene in which Grant discovers Julia's huge underwear, which I consider as a clear spoof of a very similar scene in Shallow Hal. In fact, Julia's obesity reminds a lot of Rosemary in that film. Why was it deleted??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.175.213.4 (talk) 06:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shallow Hal spoof 

message: What on earth does "garnered a respectable bow" mean?  Is it a standard American phrase?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.79.118 (talk) 08:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Garnered" = earned, "respectable" = considerable, "bow" = debut. So "garnered a respectible bow" = a really over written way of claiming the movie made a lot of money when it opened. I don't see a source in the story for this claim, so I yanked it. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "respectable bow"? 

message: The parodies section has been tagged as unreferenced. Some of these refernces are supported by the plot or are in character names and do not actually need references but it would be better if most of them did have some kind of supporting reference. If the people who like this film can watch it agian with the DVD commentary and provide references/citations to when the film makers say they are spoofing something else that would be good enough too. The other way to improve this would be to have much more critical response in this article and then reuse those references to properly WP:VERIFY the section. 
Below I include my previous explanation from WT:MOSFILM (Wikipedia Project Film: Talk) where I explained as an example how an editor could improve this section: 
::: That section is ugly as sin - listomania gone mad - but those films are barely written at all and consist almost entirely of referencing other films and passing it off as parody. It would be doing readers and editors a disservice if we were excessively strict interpretation of the rules be used as an excuse to delete all that good faith effort instead of trying to salvage something from that mess. I guess a case like that I'd push that ugly abomination to the talk page and insist that people go through the many reviews on out there and come up with proper references for at least the main films being referenced which in the case of Date Movie would seem to be My Big Fat Greek Wedding and Meet The Fockers - even properly referencing those two is something the article fails to do. 
::: Some of those references are so obviously supported by plot, such as cases where the character name makes the intended reference blindingly obvious and insisting on citations in cases like that would be unnecessary. 
::: It's not that difficult as I said above to cram much the same information into the critical response section. (Seems like Ebert wasn't forced to review it, so moving on to the next critic whose name I remember...) Owen Gleiberman actually managed to say nice things about it in his review: 
::: That article can be improved if anyone actually cares enough to do it, didn't take me all that long to write this comment. Deleting is an easy, improving is hard but that misses the point of Wikipedia, which at its best usually does gradually improve. -- Horkana (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Asking for sources on the parodies (in my case, anyway) is not about doubting the obvious ones (though some are less certain). Really, it's about removing trivia. Compare this to other comedy films. Older comedies get a plot overview with a general idea of the style of comedy and possibly some of the larger/longer jokes in the film. More recent comedy films end up with extensive plot sections that cover the general plot and include virtually every joke that some random editor felt like saying they found funny. These need periodic cleaning out so that the plot doesn't overrun the rest of the article. Then we have recent parody films. Films like this target numerous films, often with one-shot jokes. To say we should include all of those parody references is to say that those other recent comedy films should have equally detailed plot sections. That is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parodies 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Date 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/20090928031715/http://www.rottentomatoes.com/guides/worst_of_the_worst/3/ to http://www.rottentomatoes.com/guides/worst_of_the_worst/3/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711004556/http://www.filmthreat.com/reviews/8664/ to http://www.filmthreat.com/reviews/8664/
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) 08:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified