Talk:Kiss Kiss Bang Bang

message: * Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang → Kiss Kiss Bang Bang — there is no , (comma) in the title of the film Tug201 15:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
I think the article Kiss Kiss Bang Bang should be a straight redirect here instead of a disambiguation page - the movie is far more notable. PeepP 18:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. This page is wrong anyway, there is no , in the title. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang should be the film page, with a link to Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (disambiguation) at the top. Cvene64 13:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved. —Nightstallion (?) 11:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
I think the article Kiss Kiss Bang Bang should be a straight redirect here instead of a disambiguation page - the movie is far more notable. PeepP 18:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This page is wrong anyway, there is no , in the title. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang should be the film page, with a link to Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (disambiguation) at the top. Cvene64 13:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved. —Nightstallion (?) 11:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: anyone have verifiable US DVD release info? Streamless 20:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks! Streamless 18:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: US DVD release

message: I wrote the spoiler that's on "The Movie Spoiler" and I am OK without it being copied in whole or in part into the article if it will solve the spoiler link debate.  Is it too much detail for Wikipedia?  -- Richfife 00:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I copied the spoiler over and tweaked it a bit.  It could use some more slimming. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.173.147 (talk) 07:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I withdraw this.  The spoiler from "The Movie Spoiler" isn't appropriate to Wikipedia. - Richfife (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoiler from "The Movie Spoiler" 

message: What is meant by:
The best boy credits are given to Jack Bauer. -- User:Johnny-Carmello 10 June 2006 20:45 GMT
:see best boy - Nunh-huh 19:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you'd have to know who Jack Bauer is -- I still don't get it --Spesek 22:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Jack Bauer, though unless someone can cite otherwise I'm willing to bet it's just a huge coincidence MarkSutton 17:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The very last lines of the film have Gay Perry taking a verbal pot shot at the Best Boy (but not by name), thus him being mentioned in the article. - Richfife 23:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: Perhaps it's the crude phrasing of this that makes me question it. "The actress who has allegedly been fucked more times than she's had hot meals appears in the Genaro's Beer commercial at the end of the film." We don't know who she is? And does use of the word "fuck" seem unncessary here? I don't want to be a stick in the mud, but that kind of phrasing without cause seems kind of ...well, without cause. --Spesek 22:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the way she's described in the movie, so the language is certainly defensible.  Whether it's a piece of a trivia that's worth including in general is a different question. - Richfife 03:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia...Vandals? 

message: While reading an old back issue of Wizard magazine, I happened upon an advert for a comic called "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang."  I was wondering if the two were related.  If so, there should be mention of it in the article.
141.158.219.17 06:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comic Book? 

message: Putting this here until someone can write it decently into the article. Alientraveller 13:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: There is nothing "gay" about this movie other than Val Kilmer's character claiming to be gay. My take on this film is that the character is a P.I. FIRST and only incidentally gay.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.30.13 (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay? Really? 

message: I once owned a CD called The Music of John Barry, the liner notes of which claimed that a literal English translation of the Japanese for "James Bond" is "Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang"; and the tracks on the album include one with this title (written for the Thunderball soundtrack). -- 92.40.167.143 (talk) 12:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible source of title? 

message: There's no Rotten tomatoes score for this film? 86.182.222.246 (talk) 12:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You can look it up yourself and add it to the article. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Aggregate score

message: User:TheOldJacobite is insisting on keeping incorrect producer credits in the lead, calling an executive producer a co-producer, despite what the film's titles and the poster (which is easily seen on the page itself) credits show. And he further wants to keep a company in the lead which only had peripheral involvement at best. It is false to say it "produced" the film. It's a Silver Pictures production. There is no link for the source, and I doubt it even said this. It's an article called "Bernsen goes DVD premiere". Variety often announces small companies, but a piece on an actor going to a premiere is not a proper source for credits. Very unlikely the Variety KKBB film review listed this company. WP policy is not to list every little company, especially when it's contradicted by the film's credits, and the actual functioning production company is not mentioned in the lead. No other source I saw listed Bernsen's company for this film. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I just spent some time on this and I'm going to have to go with GothicFilm.  I can't find any reference to "Public Media Works" that doesn't eventually come back to Wikipedia.  The link supplied is dead and I'm not sure the reporter didn't make a mistake when headlining the article.  "Public Media Works" does not appear here at all.  This isn't something should be in the article at all, let alone in the lede. - Richfife (talk) 03:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  The headline and first two paragraphs of the Variety article are here.  The DVD premiere is for "Carpool Guy", not "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang".  The editor that wrote the headline screwed up. - Richfife (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  p.s. The inter tubes are now chock full of unreferenced passing mentions of Public Media Works' role in "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang".  And probably will be forever.  Oh my head. - Richfife (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your research on this. I have also removed KKBB from the Public Media Works page where Find Articles search for Bernsen goes DVD premiere. Public Media Works premiere its first movie Kiss Kiss Bang Bang was used as a ref. Only the grammatically awkward headline, which was obviously a mistake, refers to KKBB as coming from this company. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it looks like the information in that article was flawed.  But, the source is good, and it was a good faith error on my part to take it at face value.  And the fact that the article was mistaken is not relevant to your deletions, Gothicfilm, and you removed it twice before posting here on talk.  It's a wash, and the error has been corrected.  Can we move on? ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 00:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't appreciate being twice accused of dubious reasoning by you in your edit summaries. I explained why I was deleting it and correcting the producer credits. You did no research, but instead put back the wrong credits and made uncivil remarks. And now you claim the fact that the article was mistaken is not relevant to your deletions...? You obviously see nothing wrong with your behavior. But I'll move on, as I don't want to spend more time on this. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Producer credits 

message: This RfC concerns two revisions of the plot summary in this article. Which revision is preferable?
It is not disputed that the newer version is more accurate.
:1. Newer Version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kiss_Kiss_Bang_Bang&oldid=556961969
:2. Older Version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kiss_Kiss_Bang_Bang&oldid=555719888
Here's a diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kiss_Kiss_Bang_Bang&diff=556961969&oldid=555719888
 Richardhod (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Some guy (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

text: *comments 
* I wrote the newer version. I don't mind about my words, but I do care about accuracy and readability. It's possible the new version's words are a little informal, and I'm happy to take advice from experienced third parties on what's style for Wikipedia. Richardhod (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

text: I have this film and have seen it many times; I'll be bold and take a stab at revising the plot summary myself. Some guy (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I rewrote and trimmed the plot. It is currently 493 words, which should be well within acceptable length. Some guy (talk) 02:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Response to third opinion request: The second version, while a little more colloquial, is more detailed and complete. Keep the second version. TheOneSean [ U | T | C ]  12:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your (excellent!) opinion ;) In the end we've gone with the rewriting that SomeGuy started, for the sake of peace and pragmatism and outcomes! 
I think this particular stage of the Plot discussion can be closed for now, given no other objections. Richardhod (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: Which plot summary revision is preferable?

message: Please sign where you agree (or add a category if none fits) and add a brief comment:
 
*1. Newer Version better 
*2. Older version better (if corrected)
*Both are very good (if accurate)
*Neither is good enough 
:Some guy (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Should you like to make detailed comments and discussions, please do below.
*comments   
:*comments 
* I wrote the newer version. I don't mind about my words, but I do care about accuracy and readability. It's possible the new version's words are a little informal, and I'm happy to take advice from experienced third parties on what's style for Wikipedia. Richardhod (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have this film and have seen it many times; I'll be bold and take a stab at revising the plot summary myself. Some guy (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I rewrote and trimmed the plot. It is currently 493 words, which should be well within acceptable length. Some guy (talk) 02:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Response to third opinion request: The second version, while a little more colloquial, is more detailed and complete. Keep the second version. TheOneSean [ U | T | C ]  12:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your (excellent!) opinion ;) In the end we've gone with the rewriting that SomeGuy started, for the sake of peace and pragmatism and outcomes! 
I think this particular stage of the Plot discussion can be closed for now, given no other objections. Richardhod (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Threaded discussion

message: I don't know why this part of the plot summary was taken out it's literally true. 108.41.98.222 (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it isn't true. The scene in question is available here. This hoax has been added and removed twice now. -- Scott Burley (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  " While Perry implies that the two of them are also engaged."