Talk:Stoner film

message: Remove Hot Tub and Green Hornet, they have absolutely nothing to do with weed, despite of being "hot" and "green" hehe.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.70.97 (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete 

message: ===Half-Baked===
I've always considered HALF BAKED to be a bit of a wolf in sheep's clothing as far as being a stoner film goes.  It's heavy on negative stereotype and Chapelle chooses an uptight judgemental chick who makes him quit smoking just for the sake of doing it.  It's a bait and switch.
24.33.28.52 10:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does Grace ever taste the stuff? —Tamfang (talk) 04:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Iirc in the end the whole village including Grace is high when they burn the marihuana plants. Oh and yes Saving Grace could be seen as a Brtish version of a stoner movie--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Films to consider

message: I've always considered HALF BAKED to be a bit of a wolf in sheep's clothing as far as being a stoner film goes.  It's heavy on negative stereotype and Chapelle chooses an uptight judgemental chick who makes him quit smoking just for the sake of doing it.  It's a bait and switch.
24.33.28.52 10:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Half-Baked

message: Not sure if this is generally accepted as a 'stoner film', but cannabis is part of the main theme. Saving Grace (2000 film)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by NattyFido (talk • contribs) 23:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Does Grace ever taste the stuff? —Tamfang (talk) 04:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Iirc in the end the whole village including Grace is high when they burn the marihuana plants. Oh and yes Saving Grace could be seen as a Brtish version of a stoner movie--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Saving Grace

message: ===Baraka===
I'm removing Baraka from the list. Anyone who knows what the film is about will agree a 100 percent on my action. the movie IS nice to watch stoned, but there is not a single joint in the movie, neither a protagonist...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.25.93.162 (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed stuff from the list 

message: I'm removing Baraka from the list. Anyone who knows what the film is about will agree a 100 percent on my action. the movie IS nice to watch stoned, but there is not a single joint in the movie, neither a protagonist...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.25.93.162 (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Baraka

message: Removed. Main focus is on human hunting and not weed.--sin-man 13:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hostel

message: I removed Blow from the list.  Although there is plenty of cannabis usage in the first third or so of the movie, it's portrayal of the drug is much more realistic and lacks the over-the-topness that is essential to stoner movies. Serotrance 21:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blow

message: There is no reference to canabis in this film what so ever. It's a "America Pie" category film, cool, but does not belong here. --Galadhrim (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Superbad

message: * Pink Floyd The Wall (1982) (which should have been Pink Floyd The Wall (film))
* Over The Edge (1979)
*films starring/featuring Jay and Silent Bob (1994-2005) (which should have been View Askewniverse)
*The Big Lebowski (1998)
The Wall is quite dark and cynical and doesn't have the light-hearted, altruistic, comedic elements described in the article.  Yeah, stoners like to watch it, but they like Teletubbies, too.  
Over the Edge is no more stoner film than Better Luck Tomorrow was.  It takes an arguably dim view of drug use as something kids do as a last resort to escape a boring life.
View Askewniverse films have stoner characters, Jay and Silent Bob, but they were only central to the story in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back.  That one might count, Clerks, Dogma, Chasing Amy, etc. definitely don't, though.
The Big Lebowski is the closest, but it's more of a classic hardboiled caper film that has a stoner as the central character. — AKADriver ☎ 17:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Others

message: Removed The Breakfast Club, Dazed and Confused and The Big Lebowski from the list. Though they all feature marijuana smoking, it's not the central theme of the films.
*I'll agree with the first and third, but Dazed and Confused features marijuana heavilly enough to definitely count as a stoner film. I'm adding it back. -Josh, September 30, 2005, 4:54 AM EST
The word "Blow" has been before "See also: List of Teenage Stoner Films" dating back Febuary 5. I just thought that I'd note that, even though it doesn't matter, because there have been a number or revisions in this span of time. 65.96.98.74 00:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Others

message: seems like original research.  It's actually the disputes on this discussion page that made me notice this... the whole "this or that is or isn't a stoner film."  There's no codified definition for a stoner film.  The article however makes it out like there is such a definition and thus we get this picking-and-choosing is-or-isn't effect, all based on the "rules" in the article.  Plus, saying "this isn't a stoner film because it's _____ (science fiction, detective, etc.)" is nonsense anyway.  It's like saying that a movie can't be a mystery if it's a western... the genres are not defined by the same terms.24.33.28.52 01:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I addressed this issue by clearly defining "stoner film" as a subgenre.  I also created a page for a List of films containing frequent marijuana use in order to help others avoid the temptation of dumping their favorite movies onto this page's list.  JohnnyCalifornia 03:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: This whole page

message: I don't remember 2001 "depicting the use of marijuana," as the article defines the term stoner film as requiring.  Marijuana certainly wasn't "one of the main themes, [inspiring] most of the action" as the article also describes the term.  I don't see an explanation for this on the talk page, but am hesitant to remove it in case someone who knows more about the topic than I do has kept it here for a reason.  I certainly think that any explanation ought to be kept here so that others with the same query I have can read it before they delete the reference.  What is the explanation? Ari 22:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and has it's own set of quality standards.  This article clearly defines "stoner films" in a certain way, and movies that are watched by stoners falls into a different category, one which could probably not have it's own page due to inherent neutrality issues. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or fansite.  Ambiguous, "descriptive" articles have the burden of providing references for each and every section that might be challenged.  This is not "lawyering," it is simply an effort to keep this page here so it is not deleted.  Any editor has the right to delete any unreferenced material if it is challenged and the problems aren't addressed in a reasonable time (see Wikipedia:Citing sources).  Please assume good faith on the part of the editors here and refrain from using pejorative terms in the future.  Anyone reading a discussion page for an article most likely has the article's best interests in mind. JohnnyCalifornia 23:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked out a reference listed at the bottom, and the author might say it better than I do, "Not to be confused with films like Winged Migration, Wizard of Oz, or Muppets Take Manhattan—however beloved by tokers they may be—the proper stoner movie is by, for, and about pot smokers. These are not movies where a lone joint is passed around in a party scene. Instead, the stoner film shows serious commitment to smoking and acquiring marijuana as a lifestyle choice." JohnnyCalifornia 23:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2001? 

message: * Can anyone explain why 'Idle Hands (1999)' is in the list? The boy is stoned but it's more of a thriller / horror than a stoner movie. Galadhrim
* Eventhough the Tenacious D movie contains 2 scenes with weed in it and 1 mentioning getting stoned it really does not come near being a stoner movie. Granted I had to laugh alot while being it myself but it does not fall under the category Stoner Film. Galadhrim
* Fear and Loathing isn't really a stoner film. It's not even really a stoner-friendly film. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is a bit disturbing, in fact. Great film, but dark and troubling- intended, at least, at being a criticism of the american dream circa 197x.
There are many films on the list that should be re-considered. In order to have a section like this, it needs to be bullet-proof in terms of references and neutrality issues. I am changing the list to "films credited as being stoner films."  Each film will need it's own reference for the credit.  JohnnyCalifornia 22:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. Initially, though I am pretty much into old movies, but I never really knew anything about a genre called "stoner film". All what I know now is from what the article says. But, according to the definition above, I agree that Easy Rider would not be a stoner film (it is a road film though not my favorite one). Further, Dazed and Confused would be delisted from the list too, as it mostly features high school life, not marijuana (and it should be noted that Richard Linklater is far from being a Tommy Chong-ish director!). On another hand, I don't know if Midnight Express qualifies as such genre. Chimeric Glider (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Films to unconsider 

message: Based on the criteria offered on the article itself i have removed a fair number (got up to 2005 until i started having to look up film plots and i don't have time to do that). The list was way too long for a set of examples - it should be much shorter (and perhaps taking out a lot of the comedies apart from the more successful ones to balance out the genres a bit) 86.0.64.50 (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleaning up the "examples of films" list

message: I briefly looked at the list and I noticed many movies on the list that shouldn't be there such as scooby doo, benchwarmers, 40 yr old virgin. And there are many more that shouldn't be there. Someone tell me why these are there. Only movies like Harold & Kumar and How High should be on the list.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lil' Rad (talk • contribs) 00:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Briefly skimming through the list (I was looking for some films I could watch while stoned.  LOL), I noticed several films that shouldn't be in there.  How are either Ghostbusters or Ghostbusters II considered stoner films?  Cannabis isn't a major (or even minor) plot point in either film.  It doesn't contain most of the "common elements" of stoner films, ie 2 male friends looking for pot, nor are the films about evading authority figures (granted, both films had authority figures who impeded the Ghostbusters' mission, but that had nothing to do with evasion).  As such, I have removed the two films from the list.  If anybody disagrees, feel free to reinclude the films and leave a reason why they should be included.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by N Yo FACE (talk • contribs) 09:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not stoner movies 

message: I who would like to present a comedy strip that I wrote for Redman and Method Man Bygdank (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movis script  

message: The article current says:
:Nine to Five was the first stoner film to feature a female protagonist. The men are well-meaning and usually sexually frustrated, and will usually come comically close to sexual success with exceedingly beautiful women only to have the opportunity lost due to chance or ineptitude.
There is a citation for this, but it has nothing to do with either half of this paragraph. It's basically just a list of 10 stoner movies with brief descriptions.
In fact, if anything, it contradicts the paragraph it's attached to. It doesn't include 9 to 5 in its list, or even mention it in passing, much less call it the first stoner film with a female protagonist. And most of the listed movies either have men actually succeeding with women (e.g., Harold & Kumar, or Bill & Ted) or not even trying (e.g., Spicoli); none of them are about men coming comically close to sexual success.
I've removed the whole paragraph, but left the reference attached to the previous one, where I think it originally went. --157.131.170.189 (talk) 08:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  9 to 5?