Talk:The Big Lebowski/Archive 1

Archive 1

Recurring Device

Wonder if this bears a mention: one of the recurring devices of Big Lebowski is having a slow-motion sequence that speeds up without a cut into real-time. This occurs three times: (1) when Jackie Treehorn is walking toward the Dude at his beach party, (2) when the Dude is running in the street after being drugged by Treehorn and (3) when Donny bowls his last frame. 69.178.122.114 (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Dubious analysis?

I hate to be rude, but, I find the 'everyone is trying to pass themselves off as something they are not' analysis to be a bit of a stretch. I'm happy to debate it if need be, but think the better case for removing it is the no original research policy (I'm assuming the analysis is original to a wikipedian). Ashmoo 03:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I found the thought mildly interesting, and I don't think it's a violation of no original research (because it's little more than a list of facts that are in plain view to anyone who watches the movie). On the other hand, the argument does seem a bit of a stretch, and the way it's phrased it might be misunderstood as something other than speculation by some 3rd party. Personally, when in doubt, I don't remove stuff from WP, but I can live with the removal. Algae 06:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Algae, mostly. It meets a straightforward reading of "nor original research", but then an awful lot of things do. I disagree with the removal because, as Algae noted, it's fairly obvious and not really disputable (even if the section as written was not very well done). I think it would be harder to do any even remotely in-depth analysis without noting that most of the characters are pretending to be something they're not, but in the absence of someone notable making that claim, it technically shouldn't be included. Tuf-Kat 07:38, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Well I guess I'm of the opposite school: 'when in doubt, take it out'. I find wiki articles on cult movies tend to accrue a lot of minor details as fans pop in an add some bit of trivia, their favourite quote etc and need to be trimmed every so often. But my main problem with the para in question is really that I don't agree with it. The Big L is obviously pretending to be something he is not, but Bunny never pretends not to be a runaway teenage from my memory, its just a bit of back story that is revealed later in the piece. The Nihilists aren't pretending to be nihilists, they consider themselves nihilists, they're just not very good at it. Jesus isn't pretending to not be a pederast, in fact, there's a scene in which he goes around telling everyone he is. And Walter doesn't pretend to be Jewish, he honestly believes he is jewish. Maybe there is some theme about identity in there, but the Big L is the only only pretending to be something he isn't. Ashmoo 07:06, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

This 'analysis' section is not NPOV and does not belong on Wikipedia. I also happen to think it's godawful. XmarkX 06:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Userbox

This user warns: If you mark that frame an 8, you're entering a world of pain.

Nice work. BabuBhatt 01:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Removed section: Kingpin

I removed the section mentioning Kingpin. Here's my reasons:

• Kingpin & TBL aren't the only 10pin movies, there are many movies about 10pin.
• TBL isn't about 10pin, it is a film noir with bowling in it. It is just as much about hippies, Calfornia & German Nihilists.
• What does mentioning Kingpin add to the understanding of the movie? Has a 3rd party source made a connection between the two?

I also removed the bit about 'poor numbers'. What does poor numbers mean and what is the source? Ashmoo 00:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Plot Based On...

Where it says:

"The plot is loosely based on Raymond Chandler's novel The Big Sleep and the subsequent Humphrey Bogart film based on it"

and soneone added " ,"

I believe that this is confirmed in the "making of" with the directors that is on the newly released edition. I will watch it again and confirm.

That was me; I forgot to sign in. I just watched The Big Sleep again last night, and if TBL is based on it in any way besides having a rich old guy in a wheelchair, I can't see it My quick search online didn't turn anything useful up. But I could well be missing something, so I added the cite tag. --Misterwindupbird 15:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Overall Critique

First off, I love this movie. It's my favorite and I usually watch it once a week.

Anyways, off to business. I think that the entire article may need a bit of a rewrite. Some parts, Hell, most parts are just taping together pieces of dialogue from this movie to form the overall descriptions of characters and other portions. I realize I can edit it myself (and will when I find the time), but I thought I'd try to see who else would be interested in a bit of an overhaul. In addition, some of the character descriptions seem to include rather frivolous details of the characters, but then again, it may just be a matter of POV concerning importance of certain parts of the story.

And I'll finish by saying this is by far the best article on The Big Lebowski I have ever read.OverlordChris 03:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say. I especially agree that the bits that try to work dialogue from the movie into regular sentences need to be removed. Unfortunately in the past when I've tried to make is a bit less in-jokey I've met with stiff resistance. Go for it, I say, but expect a bit of a fight. Ashmoo 04:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support and info. And so i have begun my editting process. The Dude's bio down, more to go. Quick thought: Was Donny part of the bowling team? On one hand, Donny did bowl a strike at the begining of the scene with Smokey (which was followed by someone, assumedly Walter, saying "Alright, way to go Donny!"), but on the other hand, Liam and Jesus only have two players on their team/pair.OverlordChris 19:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I generally disagree. I understand you guys are trying to make the article more encyclopedic, but I think most people coming to read this article are not doing to so find a an encyclopedic entry, they are doing it to remind themselves of the funny parts of a funny movie.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It's more important to analyze the movie than to quote it in an encyclopedia. Try Wikiquote for making quotes about the movie. Hell, I'd have no problem with adding a note at the top of the article that quotes can be found at TBL's Wikiquote page if it meant actually writing this article as an article. OverlordChris 19:48, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you've hit the nail on the head Moshe! Unfortunately wikipedia is an encyclopedia. People wishing to read quotes from the movie and laugh can go to one of the thousands of BL fansites on the web. As it stands, the article is very difficult to read for someone who has not seen the movie but wishes to come here to find out what the movie is about, what style of humour it employs etc. Ashmoo 23:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

While it is an encyclopedia, it can include humorous things without being obtrusive to a reader unfamiliar with the movie. For example, if I read in the Dude's character bio that he "was a roadie for Metallica's Speed of Sound tour," I would laugh because I know the film. But tidbits like that just help give a Lebowski newbie an idea of what his character is: a bowling stoner who takes it easy for all us sinners. That being said, rewrites are good, especially in this case if we could get more info outside the "spoilers" parameter. There are things that can be said abouit movies without being a spoiler! Let's find them. BabuBhatt 01:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we can include humour into the article. However, an unfamiliar reader who reads that he was a "was a roadie for Metallica's Speed of Sound tour" will probably get the idea that Metallica is somehow featured in the movie. How can the reader know that it was simply a throw-away line? Same with the toilet-seat-up line. If the Metallica mention was not in the movie, would it change The Dude's character? Not really, IMO. On the other hand, if The Dude never rolled a joint, it would certainly affect the character. This to me is the litmus test for notability. Ashmoo 02:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

That's why it's all in the wording. I.e. Summary says the movie's set in '91, line mentions he had been a Metallica roadie in his younger days or something like that. That way, it's an encyclopedia, but not a dry one. I'm not wedded to the Metallica line (though I think it's a stretch to think anyone would think the band was in the movie ...) but a line like leaving the tolet seat up definitely adds to his general character; a lazy, good-natured stoner. Sure, certain things would change the Dude's character were they left out of the film, but the Coen did include them, and thus such fact are a part of this character. BabuBhatt 08:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Beverages

In the city of Dresden, Germany, there's a bar called the Lebowski (http://www.dudes-bar.de/index2.html) in which the movie is played all the time during the opening hours (19h-5h daily). The bar has been open for a few years and is very successful. I highly recommend it to any fan of the movie, and I think it might deserve a mention in the article but I wouldn't know how to phrase it.85.28.65.75 23:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Soundtrack

Does the soundtrack section want to contain all the items as listed in the published script or just those on the released CD? There are quite a few missing from the complete list. Albinoduck 18:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I just added Gnomus from Pictures at Exhibition. I feel that it is an important piece in the film so I added it. However, the way the soundtrack section is layed it is impossible to tell which song is which when you actually watch the film if you don't know anything about the music to begin with. Since I don't know which song is which I would like to make the following suggestions: either the songs from the soundtrack be arranged by the order in which they appear in the movie, or in the summary of the plot someone should insert which song is played at each point. It's a great soundtrack and people should have some way of referencing it to the movie.

Trivia

The Jesus character is absent from some televised versions of the film.

Would anyone care to explain this? Wavy G 01:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The TV version? There's no such thing as a "televised version of The Big Lebowski". The TV version was so much edited, that it actually consitutes a new movie. Jesus missing? Not the only difference. One of the most famous quotations from the so called TV version (US) was "see what happens Larry, see what happens when you have fun with a stranger in the Alps"?

Anyway, it's maybe worth mentioning that the TV version in Europe didn't differ in any details from the DVD version. I've seen it on both private (subsctiption) and public channels, in Poland and Switzerland, and they were full versions. LMB 12:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

In the italian version of the film the character is present: it doesn't differ in any way from the english version. if the pope didn't stop the jesus character, I highly doubt it has been cut in the rest of europe.

Campaign against humor in wikipedia/Micturates controversy

Editors: Wikipedia is allowed to have humor. That humor should not come at the expense of readers. But when the word in question is a wikipedia link to the article on that word, is is not at the expense of the reader, because they can go directly there, just as they would 'any other word they do not understand.' BabuBhatt 21:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

But 'micturate' is an specialist word that very few people will know and it has a universally understood synonym 'urinate'. Making people follow links to understand what should be a simple sentence for the sole purpose of provide a pretty weak in-joke reduces readability and will just turn people off when they get the feeling the article is just an excuse for fans to quote the movie.

Is the humor of that word really worth it? Pls consider the article from the perspective of someone who hasn't seen the movie and actually wants to learn something about it.

Sorry to be such a hardcase about it, but while I think it is fine to echo some of the humour of the movie in the article itself, it should never come at the expense of comprehension or clarity. Ashmoo 23:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Urinates isn't "universally understood." What if a reader has only heard the act called peeing or pissing? To that person, urinates is not known. Nobody is "making" people follow links. Does having a link to "trophy wife" make the reader follow the link? Is "trophy wife" a universally understood term?

The humor is really worth it. Micturates is not a weak in-joke. Micturates is a word used directly in the film in question. Micturates indicates an action that takes place in the film. Micturates tells what the Chinaman (or "Asian-American" in the preferred nomenclature) did to The Dude's rug. Micturates is not "just an excuse for fans to quote the movie," but rather one single word, a word which, if clicked upon, instantly tells the reader what it means.

In considering "the article from the perspective of someone who hasn't seen the movie and actually wants to learn something about it," I've determined that I would be intrigued by a unique lexicon that indicative of the film's unique dialogue. How many readers who haven't seen it (but planned to do so) would read a section bookended by spoilers warnings?

BabuBhatt 23:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ashmoo. In-jokes are not appropriate because they do not convey an encyclopedic tone. If the use of the word "micturates" in the movie is informative of the film's style, then that should be stated in proper encyclopedic fashion, and cited. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is. Tuf-Kat 23:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Please explain how micturates is an in-joke. Micturates is a word used in the film to convey action in the film. How then is it an in-joke to use the word in an encyclopedia article about the film to convey action in the film? BabuBhatt 00:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You said you want to use the word 'micturate' in order to have humor in the article. In order to get the humour you have to be part of the 'in-group' that has seen the movie (and remembers the line). Having to have specific knowledge in order to understand a joke is the definition of an 'in-joke'. Ashmoo 00:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia:Humour police should be considered. But, moving beyond my reason for desiring the use of the word, Is micturate an incorrect word to describe the action that happened in the movie? If you have not seen the movie to get the joke, does micturate not tell reader what happened? Urination isn't "universally understood" and neither is Micturates. So what harm if the encyclopedia uses the word that the filmmakers chose to use? BabuBhatt 00:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the crux of it is that I believe 'urination' is pretty universally understood, while 'micturates' isn't. I think most people did not know what 'micturate' meant until they saw TBL. If we can't even agree that 'urinate' is much more understood than 'micturate', I think we are going to be arguing in circles. Finally, the filmmakers choose to have the characters used 'pissed on the rug' for most of the dialog, 'micturates' is used only once. Ashmoo 00:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

We clearly will not come to an agreement, that's why I hope to have other editors weigh in on the issue. Can we agree that micturate is more encyclopedic than pissed on? BabuBhatt 00:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

If micturate links to the urination article as a quick explanation, I say leave it. All you have to do is hover over the link or click it and the meaning will be obvious. It's not like some extremely abstract specialist term, it's a synonym. I say keep it.

Also, because micturated is only used in the movie once, it's more memorable. What are you going to remember, some unemphasized phrase like "pissed on" that's said multiple times, or a heavily emphasized word like "micturated" said only once? If not the latter, than I'd say both because that certainly is what I came out of the movie remembering when I first saw it. OverlordChris 08:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly; I've seen the movie a half dozen times and never remembered "micturates", or else never took notice of it. Its use is too much of an in joke and unenc. Michael Dorosh 05:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Micturates is a notable word in that it is used to further separate the two Lebowski's, in this case in terms of education. This phrase very much does stand out in the dialogue between the two and I believe it should stay in the article with a wikilink to the urination article.--Nmajdan 13:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we can have a vote on this. Just because it is used in the movie is not a reason for its inclusion here. In fact, an encyclopedia entry is generally for people who have NOT seen the movie. If the word is to be included for the reasons presented here (ie highlighting character traits), it should be identified as a direct quote of one of the characters. You can't highlight character traits with one word unless someone has seen the movie. This is not a fan page, it's an encyclopedia. Otherwise, unless identified as a quote (and currently, there is nothing doing that) it simply confounds understanding. And on a technical note, the Wikipedia policy on "easter egg" links seems to suggest that the current format [[Urination|micturates]] may be a contravention of intended use.Michael Dorosh 17:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

An encyclopedia. For those who haven't seen the movie. Yet the page is ostensibly being created and crafted into a cohesive article by dozens who have seen the movie. When you turn it into a dry, dull affair is when it's no longer any fun for me to work on. Seems like you talents could be spent on other articles about rocket science or something else where your humourless MO can be laid forth with reckless abandon and little complaint.BabuBhatt 18:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

So you're now complaining because wikipedia isn't a fansite? Isn't that like complaining to your boss at work because you're not allowed to turn in corporate reports written in crayon? Why not just start a fansite and use wikipedia like it was intended?Michael Dorosh 18:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, as for "no longer fun for you to work on", that's unfortunate. Again, you're best to take your own talents to a more appropriate venue, as last time I checked, wikipedia wasn't set up for your personal indulgence or gratification.Michael Dorosh 18:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't make fansites. I don't even use the word fansites, as you've done a hald dozen times in the course of trying to rid a comedy film entry of any humor. My point is, the word tells the reader what happened (you may be unaware the word "urination" pops up just by hovering the mouse over "micturates" in the former configuration. And nobody needs you boss crayon bizarre garbage, so stop the personal attacks. BabuBhatt 18:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It's only "funny" if you've seen the movie, which is my entire point. Therefore, it is an "in" joke. If the word is going to be used in the article, it has to be in context - a direct quote would be good. This isn't a comedy site or a fan site, it's an encyclopedia.Michael Dorosh 19:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

In any event, the most recent edit is exactly what I'm talking about. Much better; now that it is in context, it makes more sense for the uninitiated and serves your purpose. Was that so hard? :-) Michael Dorosh 19:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks guys for resolving this long-running debate. Ashmoo 23:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Troll's mission to change "chronicles" to "follows"

A troll using 82.5.102.84 and 80.169.189.68 continued to change a word in the lede graf of this page. His edit summaries include the following.

• removed word not in the dudes volcabulary
• Like I said BabuBhatt, the dude would never use this word. Makes it easier to read for normal people, jackass.
• This is not the blair witch project, it doesn't record anything.
• This is not Schindlers List, it is not taking an account of anything!

Said troll has made very few edits of any importance anywhere else, is fixated on this issue and used a personal attack in the edit summary you see above. I explained on both of her talk pages relating the fact that the language in the article does not need to adhere to words she is assuming are in The Dude's vocabulary. I'm posting it here in order to get consensus, and keep it from that "silly edit wars" page. Thanks, BabuBhatt 19:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Update: Her next move was to revert with this edit summary "BabuBhatt, you are the troll, My version flows better, you need to accept.)", rather than to discuss it here. Anyone have any suggestions? BabuBhatt 22:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions? Like I said, maybe you should accept that my version flows better and the fact that you calling me a troll is itself a personal attack on me. User:Troll 10:20, 1 November 2006

The above comment was added by 80.169.189.68, not User:Troll. BabuBhatt 23:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Babu's version flows better, IMO. OverlordChris 11:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. User:Troll 21:40, 6 November 2006

Busby Berkeley Dreams

The dream sequence following the Treehorn drugging is an obvious homage to Director/Musical choreographer Busby Berkeley. Berkeley often uses the kaleidescope imagery and the part where el Duderino goes through the bowling pin girls' legs is directly from Berkeley's "Dames". Unfortunately, I am not well-versed enough on Berkeley to tell if his strange musical sequences were often used in dreams or if his Dudeness just happens to have Busby Berkeley-esque dreams. If this film was the most notable film to use a "Busby Berkeley Dream," could there be a possible connection between it and The Magnetic Fields' song of that title? The Magnetic Fields' song was released later, so perhaps it is a subtle reference to Lebowski as opposed to just a reference to Busby Berkeley. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.140.73.162 (talk) 07:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Notable trivia & cultural references

Reviewing the comments above, I think a section that brought together notable cultural/movie references and trivia points is worth adding. There are many allusions in the film, of varying subtlety, that are worth pointing out which, at the same time, are probably something more than outright fancruft. Eusebeus 21:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Great movie, nice plot description, spoils the article

I'm sorry to have to be the one to bring this to everyone's attention because the plot summary is very well written, it makes me want to watch the movie right now. The problem is that this type of summary is exactly what Wikipedia is not. WP:NOT#IINFO

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. While there is a continuing debate about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, current consensus is that Wikipedia articles are not simply:

7. Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.

I read this to mean that the plot should be summarized in a vague way as it is on the back of a DVD/VHS. As it is if a person who has never seen the movie reads this, the movie has been spoiled. Assuming you saw the movie with only the previews to go on, part of the enjoyment comes from what you don't know about it. Describing scene's like the Dude's dreams is especially "wrong" since those parts of the movie aren't so much about what is happening but how it looks and sounds while things happen. Anynobody 07:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

While I do not disagree with your points, an article written in "vague way as it is on the back of a DVD/VHS" is something I would WP:NOT want to read or contribute to. "As it is if a person who has never seen the movie reads this, the movie has been spoiled. " Thus ... the spoiler warnings. There should be some kind of compromise between the two. Fans/contributors to this article are passionate and a summary that reads like a movie box is not satisfactory here. BabuBhatt 16:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Please understand I am not saying it has to be word for word the same as on the back of the DVD/VHS boxes. As it is this article describes start to finish what happens. There are different degrees of spoiler; Mentioning that the Dude has a couple of dream sequences doesn't spoil their content, describing the sequence start to finish spoils the whole thing.

What's wrong with something descriptive, yet with a minimum of spoilers? As an example beginning:

• Jeff Bridges is Jeffrey Lebowski, happy with his life, who society would consider a loser. Preferring the handle The Dude he shares a given name with an elderly, handicapped, war hero, and business man. The big Lebowski, as the Dude calls calls him, has a young attractive wife who manages to accumulate debts with a man who can be very direct in attempts to collect money. When two collectors confuse The Dude with The Big Lebowski, they ruin his rug as a warning to pay up before realizing he is the wrong Lebowski. Anynobody 23:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

For one thing it would be inaccurate as the thugs realize Dude's a deadbeat and then piss the rug. I simply believe there is nothing wrong with details. What you've started here seems similar to the plot summary section. BabuBhatt 00:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually BabuBhatt Wu is urinating when the Dude says something like "Hey, not on the rug man" while the blond guy says "Your wife owes money to Jackie Treehorn, you owe money to Jackie Treehorn!" to which Dude replies "My wife? Do you see a ring on my finger, does this place look like I'm married, the toilet seat's up man!". The blond guy picks up Dude's bowling ball, asks Wu "isn't this guy supposed to be a millionaire?". Wu says he looks like a deadbeat, to which Dude replies "At least I'm housebroken." The blonde guys thanks Dude sarcastically as he slams the door and then come the opening credits.

What I've started is indeed a plot summary, which is what is supposed to be on pages like this not a description of the entire movie from start to end. The movie has plenty of historical significance, and I'm sure we can find sources from critics explaining how important the movie is. Anynobody 02:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Then I support you finding and adding those sources. BabuBhatt 04:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

How about something like what the page used to be, with the infobox added. [1] Anynobody 07:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the sequence of events section, the summary is really all that should be said about what happens in the movie. I also feel like the list of characters is a bit too much, but I can accept it as a compromise. Anynobody 22:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the plot description is that it's ridiculously long. Nobody who hasn't seen the movie wants to read something that long and nobody who has seen it needs it to be that long. You've forgotten the part where you "summarize" the plot, rather than just regurgitating it. ThatGuamGuy 14:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)sean

Agreed. It is way too long and should be condensed greatly. --Count Ringworm 14:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I did a pass at shortening it, but I think it's still long. ThatGuamGuy 02:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)sean

Notability of the "Toys & Collectibles" section

I don't think this section belongs in the article. I don't want to be accusatory, but I suspect it was created primarily so that Bif Bang Pow! would not be an orphaned article... no offense :) --Jaysweet 22:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"Borrowed" Scenes in the Film

It is beyond dispute that the Coens borrowed freely from "The Big Sleep" when writing "Lebowski." However, I have noticed at least two scenes which are influenced by other noir classics.

The scene in which The Dude is drugged by Jackie Treehorn during his 'garden party' is lifted from "The Maltese Falcon." There is a scene in that film in which Sam Spade is given a drugged drink while visiting the corpulent Mr. Gutman (another of the many 'interested parties' pursuing the titular bejewelled raptor).

The money exchange featuring Walter's 'whites' is influenced by the money drop in Kurosawa's "High and Low." In this film, ransom money is thrown from a moving train at the end of a bridge. Needless to say, the plans of the money throwers are, in the parlance of our times, f'd up.--JJoshua33 06:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, you really uncovered a fucking plot there. Seriously they would probably admit it, those movies were done as serious film noirs this is done as comedy and satire. What's the big deal. Harvey100 00:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

ouch. I wasn't going all 'conspiracy' with that or anything if that's what you mean. All I'm pointing out is that there are a number of borrowed scenes that are worth taking note of if you want to have a deeper understanding of the movie. And yes, the Coens probably would admit it...they've said that the movie is an homage to the detective movies of the 1940's-1950's, so it's only natural that they pay tribute by quoting certain scenes. Knowing about these influences helps make a great movie even better.JJoshua33 07:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

In popular culture

At one time this article had a large section of popular culture references/trivia that was then split off into its own article, which was then deleted. Now the pop culture references are creeping back in. — WiseKwai 12:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I like the trivia section and IPC section. They should all be sourced and included in the article. Ozmaweezer 12:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The Date on the Check

Somebody didn't notice The Dude was postdating a check, as is made clear earlier in the article, and thought it intelligent to inform us of The Dude's mistake. Deleted said idiocy.

Just because you notice something and think everyone should, doesn't make it idiocy ... The Dude post-dating a check is part of his character; The fact that the dude post-dates a check with the date September 11, 1991, 10 years to the days before 9/11 is pretty damn good trivia. BabuBhatt 17:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The movie was relased in the late-90's. I doubt that the check was dated 9/11/91 as some sort of reference to the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks since they happened well after the movie was released. Although it's a somewhat interesting note, it's a mere coincidence, not exactly trivia. I'm sure a lot of other events in history have happend on 9/11, including 9/11/91, 9/11/81, etc.OverlordChris 19:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

9/11 Has nothing to do with this, other than being a coincidence. No one (should) give two flips about it.--CynicalMe 18:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The date of 9/11 on the Dude's check is not simply a coincidence. This date also appears in the "The Big Sleep" and it seems that the Coens used it as a reflexive 'wink' at the film which provided the basic plot for 'Lebowski.' For those who are curious, the 9/11 date shows up very early on in "The Big Sleep." It appears on a series of promissory notes which Carmen Sternwood has been forced to sign in an attempt to extort money from her father.--JJoshua33 05:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the Character's Section should be revamped. Too many of the character descriptions include plot revelations that should instead be included in the "plot" section of this article, because of this many of the "descriptions" are much less characterizations than they are plot revealers. I am going to work on this section, hopefully no one objects. Couppawn 23:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, first edits for "The Dude" section:

• Cleaned up and clarified the sentence about people using The Dude's other names.
• Removed redundant sentence about The Dude only driving around and smoking weed, since it was redundant to the previous statement about his ambitions.
• Moved the "post-dated check" part to the end.
• Changed the wording to "claims to be" instead of "he is" in reference to the Port Huron Statement. It was written in 1961, and although his age is not revealed, I would gauge his age to be between 35-50, and it would be anachronistic for him to have written the statement post-collegiate unless he was closer to 50-55 years old. (1991 Gulf War minus 30 years = 1961). Couppawn 23:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Not to mention that we know the names of the authors of the Port Huron statement and none of them were Jeffrey Lebowski (or perhaps he took his name off the "compromised second draft"). Calaf (talk) 11:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The other Jeffrey Lebowski

This assertion appears in the article: "He is a very vain man"

In what sense of the word is Lebowski (not the Dude) vain?

12.44.84.9 (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Not signed in

American Heritage Dictionary, definition 3 of "vain": "Excessively proud of one's appearance or accomplishments; conceited". Seems to fit the bill well enough. Also, Maude says "vanity is his weekness" to describe him, not that she's a neutral party. Would "conceited" be a better term? --Steve (talk) 05:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

In above definition, for "accomplishments," read: "achievements." To use the parlance of our times. Calaf (talk) 11:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Headlines

For additional research on the film:

• You're Entering a World of Lebowski
• A Music Maker Happy to Be Just a Conduit --J.D. (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Character list

I notice that, now that we've got the plot/story element down to a reasonable size, people have decided to start adding to the character list. I am quite sure that we don't need a list which includes Knox Harrington or the Chief of Police of Malibu. Make your own fan-site, this is Wikipedia. ThatGuamGuy 20:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)sean

Well done. Although I expect this will cause some controversy. Ashmoo 21:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Gonna have to disagree on this one. It's all well and good to dismiss such attempts with a hihg-browed "get your own fan site." But I feel that in trying to convey the theme of the movie, the article must address its huge cast of ridculous and far-fetched characters. The chief of police of Malibu, Knox Harrington, the Dude's landlord--all contribute in substantial ways to the plot. In fact, one could argue that in terms of actual plot action, they are more important than Donny or The Jesus. 69.178.122.114 (talk) 08:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"Trivia"

The following info needs to be integrated into the text of the article, in accordance with WP:TRIVIA. At present, it seems to violate WP policy.

• Variants of the word "fuck" are uttered 251 times, putting "The Big Lebowski" at No. 13 on the list of films ordered by uses of the word "fuck". The word "man" is said 174 times during the film. "Dude", including variations, is said 139 times.

• When Treehorn's thugs return to The Dude's home, each is wearing clothes the other was wearing in their first appearance.

• In the film, Jesus Quintana is a convicted sex offender, according to Walter. A man with the same name was an actual sex offender, convicted only a few years before the film's release.

• Readers of Total Film magazine voted The Big Lebowski the 20th greatest comedy film of all time.

• The date on The Dude's check he writes at the beginning of the movie is Sept. the 11th, 1991. Interestingly later in the movie, (and one would assume at a later date), The Dude's landlord states that "tomorrow is already the 10th". This is known as postdating a check, and is likely meant to establish the Lebowski character's "slacker" bonafides early in the film. This is amplified by the fact that the check in question was for less than a dollar.

• The Dude is in all but two scenes in the film. He does not appear in the flashback to Jesus going to his neighbor's in Hollywood or the restaurant scene where the German nihilists are ordering pancakes.

• This film is No. 31 on Bravo's "100 Funniest Movies".

• There are several allusions to existentialism in the movie. Among them are the name "The Stranger" (taken from the title of Albert Camus' book), and a copy of the 1977 pressing of Jean-Paul Sartre's Being and Nothingness, which is visible on a table in the Dude's bedroom after he has sex with Maude.

• The band "Autobahn" mentioned in the movie is a homage to the '1970s band Kraftwerk. The album cover of their record "Nagelbett" ("Bed of Nails") is a parody of the Kraftwerk album cover for The Man-Machine and the group name "Autobahn" is the name of a Kraftwerk song and album.

If someone could do that, it would be great.Michael Dorosh^Talk 22:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Further purge

• The Dude and the Big Lebowski are mentioned in the Almanac section of the graphic novel The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen Vol. 2.

• Walter Sobchak appears in the PC game The Hell In Vietnam by developer DTP Entertainment with his name spelled as Sobczak. In the game, he appears almost exactly the same as in the film, complete with tinted sunglasses.

• Hardcore band Evergreen Terrace has a song titled "No Donnie, These Men Are Nihilists".

• The music video for This Is for Real by pop-punk band Motion City Soundtrack is a direct reference to the bowling scenes in the movie. Several shots in the movie were also recreated for the music video.

• An episode of Foster's Home For Imaginary Friends, which centres around a bowling tournament, makes a small number of references, including the episode title (The Big Leblooski), as well as caricatures of Walter, Donny, and the Dude in the background.

Skomorokh ^incite 16:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Even more

• During the scene which introduces The Dude, walking around a food market in a bathrobe, Sam Elliot's voiceover remarks that "all this" was back in the early nineties, when "the war with I-Raq" was in progress. As the Dude pays at the cash register, President George Bush Snr. is on television describing the current state of the war, with his speech "This shall not stand". Clearly seen is Dude's chequebook. The date he has written is September 11th. --J.D. (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Rumour

I heard this movie was an absolute smash in Russia, and resulted in 10-pin bowling becoming overnight popular, with bowling alleys being vuilt all over Russia to meet the demand (kind of like gladiatoral fighting after Gladiator came out, I guess). I have no idea if this is true - the article says nothing about overseas receipts at all. If anyone can verify this claim (or some aspect of it!) it would definitely help the point that this movie is cult classic. --DreamsReign (talk) 04:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

High

On the IMDB top 250, has a large cult following and spawned several "lebowski fests" across the country. Andman8 02:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The first two paragraphs are redundant because they mention Steve Bushemi twice. He should be removed from one of them.

Is it correct to say the Dude isn't in the scene where Bunny drives home? The car does drive right by him.

I was thinking the same thing, the shot moves from him to her in the car, but then there's a seperate shot of her foot, I believe it constitutes a scene without Lebowski (as her unharmed toe is seen by us, the viewer, but not the Dude)

Someone should without a doubt write a full review, but I just wanted to say quickly that this is one of the funniest movies that I have ever seen, and one of the few movies that I have seen more than 10 times. (I've actually lost count on this one.) --Jimbo Wales

Hurray! It's a pity my copy melted due to my stupid friend leaving it next to his radiator. (KQ, I couldn't tell what you changed in the edit conflict, so I didn't mean to revert it, whatever it was.) Tuf-Kat

Aah, I see now. I now give away the fact that Bunny was never kidnapped, so it is a spoiler. Tuf-Kat

"perennially unclear " :)-'Vert

Is that my synopsis or the actual movie? (Though I suppose if the movie is unclear, a synopsis will inherently be too, and this movie definitely makes no sense if you watch it closely sober) Tuf-Kat

What an asshole.. there are no holes in the plot. The nihilists wrote the ransom letter. Uli knew that Bunny had split town but hadn't told anyone. And he siezed the opportunity to hose Mr. L. - Liam O'B

Calling someone an asshole is not asinine for what reason, exactly? Koyaanis Qatsi

He's not an asshole, he's just wrong. 76.210.145.13 (talk) 11:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

---

How, exactly, is the Jeff Lebowski supposed to be a "Jesus Figure" in this movie? I have seen the movie no fewer than a dozen times, and there is nothing that points to that. He isn't sacrificed, he isn't portrayed in any kind of flattering light... Is it just because there is a guy named Jesus in the movie (which is not uncommon in Spanish)? Ionesco209.69.41.130

Near the end, the Stranger said ""I don't know about you but I take comfort in that. It's good knowin' he's out there. The Dude. Takin' 'er easy for all us sinners." Thats a pretty direct reference to Jesus, and wouldn't make sense if he was built up as some sort of Jesus figure which happens throughout the movie. Including the actual Jesus (pronounced GEE-ZUS, instead of HAY-SOOS) character, Walter focusing on the tradition of Judaism. Also his dress and look—long light brown hair reminisces of "Jesus figure" singers of the past (Roger Daltrey, Robert Plant, etc.) Its not that the movie is Jesus' life story, just that The Dude is a Jesus figure, more of an honest parody than an actual literary/cultural attempt. —siroχo 01:53, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

That is still just your interpretation, though; most interpretations I've heard have nothing to do with that. For NPOV's sake, that line should either be changed or removed. -- LGagnon 23:36, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Jesus was an unwitting participant in a plan concocted by powers around him. Interesting concept.--Mlprater 21:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Combination of my last edit and the edit before that have removed Brandt's reference to Lebowski as being disabled - It didn't seem to fit with the re-written first paragraph in the story section; not sure it adds much, especially when taken out of context, just thought I'd make a record here in case someone thinks it's worth adding back in. --Hooverbag 12:39, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)

I reworked that section simply because it didn't seem to flow very well. Thanks for catching the fragment -- apparently I rewrote the sentence and then neglected to remove that part. neckro 14:14, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Speaking of Brandt... The synopsis talks about "allowing Brandt to watch for a fee of $100"; but at this point, Brandt hadn't been introduced yet - the reader has no idea who he is. --24.60.168.159 05:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"Wie Glauben" and "Technopop" song(s)

I wanted to note, that "Technopop" and "Wie Glauben" are two different names for the same song (#13 on the soundtrack CD). Some websites use the first name (see [http://www.amazon.com/Big-Lebowski-Original-Soundtrack/dp/B000001EYP here] ), some - the second one ([http://www.amazon.com/Big-Lebowski-Original-Picture-Soundtrack/dp/B000001EYO here] or here). Soundtrackcollector.com even uses both names: "Techno Pop (Wie Glabuen)" (see here). Carter Burwell's (author of this song) official website list it under the title "Wie Glauben", so I guess this is the real name, and "Technopop" was made up later (maybe by the record company, so people woudn't have problems with German pronunciation?). Also, my copy of the soundtrack CD got "Wie Glauben" as the title of the 13th song, but it seems other copies got the other one. So, I deciced to list it (in the aricle) as "Technopop (Wie Glauben)", like mentioned SoundtrackCollector.com and other sites do. But maybe someone got better idea? ArCgon (talk) 15:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The Dude

In the article, it says he's called "The Dude," both capitalized. But then throughout the article, it refers to him as the Dude, with only dude capitalized. What's the correct grammar surrounding the "the" in The Dude? Fredsmith2 (talk) 10:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Allusions to classic Hollywood films

This was unsourced and in point form so I removed it and placed it here until it can be properly cited.--J.D. (talk) 14:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Palm Beach Story (Preston Sturges, 1942) Maude Lebowski's way of speaking is based on the Princess Centimillia character. The Toto character, much like Donny, is never allowed to speak, though his effeminate European character more resembles Knox Harrington.
• Rio Bravo (film) (Howard Hawkes, 1959) An alcoholic yet competant character named "The Dude", played by Dean Martin, who appears on the Lebowski soundtrack.
• The Night of the Hunter (film) (Charles Laughton, 1955) The Rachel Cooper character says at the end: "Children are man at his strongest. They abide. . . . The wind blows, and the rains are cold. Yet they abide...They abide and they endure." (“They endured” is itself a Faulkner quote).

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Big Lebowski/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This is seriously one of the best movies ever. It's definitely one of my favorites, so please forgive me if I get a little picky here and there over the course of this review. :) Overall I think the article is in very good shape; it is well written and correctly formatted, the info is verifiable throughout, it's certainly broad in its coverage (if not comprehensive) and it appears to be stable and neutral. My suggestions/comments for improvement are as follows:

Images:

• The two DVD cover images could use a stronger rationale. The other images seem to be okay.

Two? All I see in the article is one DVD cover for the upcoming 10th Anniversary. That is the one I would like to use as it will be the current DVD art for the film.--J.D. (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more clear; along with the 10th anniversary cover, I was also referring to the theatrical poster in the infobox. The fair use rationales may be seen as skimpy by some, especially if you plan on taking this to FAC in the future. María (habla conmigo) 16:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Prose:

• While The Big Lebowski is not directly based on Raymond Chandler's novel The Big Sleep... this is a great addition, but nowhere is it mentioned in the rest of the article (see WP:LEAD). Large quotes typically do not work in the lead for this very reason, so I suggest using it to build upon the Chandler info that's already in the "Origins" section and then paraphrasing it in the lead.

Done.--J.D. (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• The original score was composed by Carter Burwell, a veteran of all the Coen Brothers' films: "a veteran of all..." is somewhat confusing; although I understand what it denotes, the previous sentence mentions a war veteran, which is what confused me, I guess. Although it makes sense in the first sentence of the "Soundtrack" section, I think it needs to be reworded in the lead.

Done.--J.D. (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• has been called "the first cult film of the Internet era.": another quote not present in the body of the article.

Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Jeffrey "The Dude" Lebowski (Jeff Bridges) et al: only a suggestion, but since characters/actors are not only mentioned in the lead, but there's also a section dedicated to them, I'd remove the parenthetical attribution in the plot section. It becomes redundant otherwise.

Good call. Done.--J.D. (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• The Big Lebowski was written around the same time as Barton Fink but when the Coens wanted to make it, John Goodman was taping episodes for the Roseanne television program and Jeff Bridges was making the Walter Hill film, Wild Bill and they decided to make Fargo in the meantime: a bit clunky. Is there any way to split this into two separate sentences?

Done.--J.D. (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Bridges, Goodman, and Buscemi were trained for the bowling scenes by Barry Asher... who is Barry Asher and why is this notable?

It isn't really. More trivia. Thanks for spotting that.--J.D. (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• I suggest restructuring the last few sections. Because of its importance, the "Legacy" section should stand on its own and perhaps even include "Lebowski fest".

Done.--J.D. (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

References:

• Just a suggestion, of course, and feel free to disregard it as such, but a few months ago I read an article from EW that may be of use. It gives a little insight into the beginning of the film's cult status and I don't know if the main contributors here have seen it yet.
• The Bibliography should be formatted with the author (surname, first name) listed first per WP:CITE

Done.--J.D. (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• The newspaper/magazines in the citations should be italicized.

Done.--J.D. (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Refs 10 and 16 have extra brackets at the end of the dates.

Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• "p" is for one cited page and "pp" is for several.
• Is the Bibliography an actual bibliography? That is, are these the sources? "I'm a Lebowski, You're a Lebowski" is used as a source, but "The Big Lebowski (BFI Film Classics)" is not. I suggest moving the books/links not used as a source to a "Further reading" section and moving actual sources to the Bibliography, such as Bergan, Ronald. "The Coen Brothers", Thunder's Mouth Press, 2000.
• Specific page numbers are essential (see Wikipedia:CITE#Provide page numbers), which is why Green 2007, p. 87–111 doesn't cut it. That covers over thirty pages!

Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 01:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Are all of the currently listed external links essential?

Fixed.--J.D. (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that's all I have. My main issue is with the reference formatting, but I do not see that as being too big of a deal. I greatly enjoyed reading this article and learning about one of my favorite films; now I want to watch it! Once my above concerns have been addressed or otherwise explained away, I will be more than happy to promote this article to GA-status. Great work! The Dude Abides. María (habla conmigo) 14:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No rush, but how are the reference fixes coming along? I'm just looking for an update. Also, you may want to check some of the "fixes" lately, including the addition of some trivial info (Metallica?) and some punctuation "corrections" that may not follow the logical quotation style. María (habla conmigo) 12:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I am going to tackle the references fixes tomorrow and should have them wrapped up the same day and I'll also give the whole article a good looking at to make sure everything else is in order.--J.D. (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking good, I believe this is ready to be promoted now. There are still some "p." vs "pp." and en dash vs. regular dashes in the references, but those are too minor to hold back a perfectly good Good Article. :) Great work, J.D.! María (habla conmigo) 20:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I will clean up those minor bits and pieces.--J.D. (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead Section

I moved the lead section around a bit to make it fit a little better with the WikiProject films style guidelines. There are still some issues with presenting new information that is not addressed in the rest of the article (see above discussion), and some of it needs references. Johnny^California 08:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

F**k

i have been told that the fuck count in this film is 281 if no one objects within 10days im putting this in. Luke12345abcd (talk) 14:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, it strikes me as a rather trivial addition to the article. Do you have an appropriate source for this factoid, and, also where do you plan to put it in the article?--J.D. (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Trivia and nah the best ive got is a vid on youtube Luke12345abcd (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Trivia, again

I've removed the Trivia section as per the Tag that was applied. All of these points need to be converted to prose, cited and sourced properly and put in the appropriate sections. I've moved the section here for posterity.--J.D. (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Variants of the word "fuck" are uttered 251 times, putting "The Big Lebowski" at No. 21 on the list of films ordered by uses of the word "fuck". The word "man" is said 174 times during the film. "Dude", including variations, is said 139 times.

• When Treehorn's thugs return to The Dude's home, each is wearing clothes the other was wearing in their first appearance.

• Readers of Total Film magazine voted The Big Lebowski the 20th greatest comedy film of all time.

• The Dude is in all but two scenes in the film. He does not appear in the flashback to Jesus going to his neighbor's in Hollywood or the restaurant scene where the German nihilists are ordering pancakes.

• This film is No. 31 on Bravo's "100 Funniest Movies".

• There are several allusions to existentialism in the movie. Among them are the name "The Stranger" (taken from the title of Albert Camus' book), and a copy of the 1977 pressing of Jean-Paul Sartre's Being and Nothingness,[4] which is visible on a table in the Dude's bedroom after he has sex with Maude.

• The band "Autobahn" mentioned in the movie is a homage to the '1970s band Kraftwerk. The album cover of their record "Nagelbett" ("nail bed") is a parody of the Kraftwerk album cover for The Man-Machine and the group name "Autobahn" is the name of a Kraftwerk song and album.

• The Dude and the Big Lebowski are mentioned in the Almanac section of the graphic novel The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen Vol. 2 as being descendants of a man from Scoti Moria, the Floating Island from the Richard Head book The Floating Island. This is because the Naiads of the Island bowl and chain smoke like the Dude.

• Walter Sobchak appears in the PC game The Hell In Vietnam by developer DTP Entertainment with his name spelled as Sobczak. In the game, he appears almost exactly the same as in the film, complete with tinted sunglasses.

• Hardcore band Evergreen Terrace has a song titled "No Donnie, These Men Are Nihilists".

• The music video for This Is for Real by pop-punk band Motion City Soundtrack is a direct reference to the bowling scenes in the movie. Several shots in the movie were also recreated for the music video.

• An episode of Foster's Home For Imaginary Friends, which centres around a bowling tournament, makes a number of small references, including the episode title (The Big Leblooski), as well as caricatures of Walter, Donny, and the Dude in the background.

• An episode of The Powerpuff Girls, "Something's a Ms.", features an almost word-for-word homage to the fireside scene, where the mayor informs the girls his secretary has been kidnapped.

movie review

In the history of terrible edits, there is almost none so terrible as the ones comitted in the cable version of The Big Lebowski.

Swear words are often replaced by "Jeez". The word "dick" is replaced by "penis" and worst of all "This is what happens when you fuck a stranger in the ass!" becomes "This is what happens when you have fun with a stranger in the Alps!", "This is what happens when you feed a bird scrabled eggs" and "This is what happens when you fool stranger!". Ouch.

I thought it was "find a stranger in the alps," and I actually found it a fairly amusing form of censorship. Citizen Premier 18:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

That is hillarious! Is there a place you can watch this cable version?--Mlprater 21:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Did this actually happen? I've never seen this version and I'm wondering if it's just an urban legend. Yorkshiresky (talk) 12:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It's true. The I'm A Lebowski, You're A Lebowski book covers it. The Coens actually came up with the subtituted dialogue for the cable version themselves like the one for Repo Man.--J.D. (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Might be worthwhile working it into the article somewhere then, as it's quite notorious. Yorkshiresky (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sam Elliot - You Know My Name = The Stranger

Just watched the Western TV program 'You Know My Name" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0163913/

Sam Elliot plays the lead role in the film of Bill Tilghman. He looks and sounds exactly the same and my guess would be the basis of the character in the Big Lebowski?

Thought it might be worth mentioning / pointing out!

203.171.75.67 (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The characters look and sound the same because they are both played by Sam Elliott.--Vonbontee (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings

How many spoiler warnings does this article need? --Goblin 06:39, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

None. As this film is about character, not plot, it doesn't really matter whether the viewer knows what will happen. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 16:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Cult Classic

Can an extremely popular film (such as this one) be called a "cult classic"? Renfield 16:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

—I think so, there's a great many people out there who haven't seen it. Banpei 04:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

What is the definition of cult anyway? 1. Widely known but with a minority of loyal fans. 2. Not known to the majority but with a minority of loyal fans. 3. Widely hated but with a minority of loyal fans.

???

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.58.224 (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

One definition of a cult film is a movie that flopped in the theaters, but was a huge success on home video. Austin Powers was such a film. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Did anyone else see this?

After watching the movie several times, I still haven't completely figured out what Marty is doing in his one man show. I think he is doing the dance Caligula performed for Tiberius at the baths from the movie "Caligula". Am I right about that or did I miss something obvious?

I think the point of the movie is not really having a point at all. That's why it's so genious. I am the walrus!

My view is to show that Marty is desperate to get into show biz, the Dude is a deadbeat tenant, but Marty forgives the Dude a lot because the Dude comes to his shows and brings his friends. Also, the Dude probably knew Marty needed an audience and wanted to help him out, so the Dude does care about other people and not just himself, at least a little bit.Mtsmallwood (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Simply put, Marty sees himself as an artist, and wants attention. That's it. What could be more natural in LA? WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. And he finds it by allowing the Dude to be inconstant with his rent. And the Dude abides. So, I don't think that there is a deeper meaning to it. McMarcoP (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Categories

A Hebrew-language film? Are you serious? Is there more than 2 words of Hebrew language in the film? Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 05:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Interpretations

The detailed analysis of plot specifics in the article and in this subsequent discussion is awesome; a note is needed, however, on possible interpretations of the overall themes in the film. Mention needs to made that one might view the spiraling increase in the complexity of the plot from beginning to climax as intended to mirror the growth in paranoia one can experience while using marijuana and alcohol - as The Dude habitually demonstrates. It is possible that some if not all of the plot sequences that occur outside the bowling alley are in reality fantastical and paranoid delusions of a very stoned Dude and equally conspiratorial Walter and may exist only within the realm of their conversation. Meanwhile, a very confused Donny may be attempting to join that conversation only to be consistently shut out and reminded that he is "out of his element". A wink to this idea is given in the denouement of the film by the anonymous cowboy when he proclaims that it is good for us all to know that the Dude is out there taking it easy for all of us sinners. In the view of the cowboy, those of us who understand this sub-plot are the sinners because we feel a little guilty that we understand the weed culture so well. Its good for us to know that the Dude is out there because his holistic slacker lifestyle makes our occasional vacations with pot seem mild by comparison. The Dude is way worse that the cowboy and us, and he's just fine; so, we must be OK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogitonocredo (talk • contribs) 07:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting sources and citations for use

If anyone cares: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/22722865/behind_the_dude_steve_buscemi_on_the_big_lebowski Seegoon (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this only article of several in this issue of Rolling Stone celebrating the 10 year anniversary of the film. I've put a link to the main article in the External Links section. Thanks for pointing this out!--J.D. (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Is The Big Lebowski a cultural milestone? from BBC News Online. Alientraveller (talk) 16:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• White Russians Arise, This Time at a Bowling Alley

-- here's another one to use.--J.D. (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• And another source from the NYT (with full cite) that could be used:

Garner, Dwight (December 29, 2009). "Dissertations on His Dudeness". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-12-30. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) "The Big Lebowski" and Its Dude Get the Academic Treatment. "The movie is also the subject of an expanding shelf of books, including “The Dude Abides: The Gospel According to the Coen Brothers” and the forthcoming “The Tao of the Dude."

— Becksguy (talk) 05:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Architecture in the film?

I have removed the following from this article a number of times now, and would like to hear the opinion of other editors as to whether it is relevant or appropriate:

Bad guy Jackie Treehorn is shown to be living in an actual Los Angeles house - the Sheats/Goldstein house designed by John Lautner and built in 1963 in the Hollywood Hills (not in Malibu as described in "The Big Lebowski.") Today it is a private residence. It also figured as "Alex Munday’s" house in the film Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle. John Lautner was an apprentice of architect Frank Lloyd Wright. He also designed "Googie" restaurant architecture.

This is completely unreferenced, obviously, but, more to the point, it is simply not relevant. Who cares who built this house? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"Who cares who built this house?" Er, me for starters. The fact that it's notable architecturally and cinematically makes it worth mentioning, though the mention of the architects other work is superfluous. Would perhaps fit in better in a new section on filming locations, eg In and Out Burger, Holly Star Lanes Bowling Alley, Santa Barbara coastline etc yorkshiresky (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, creating such a section is another matter altogether, but simply sticking that paragraph, as written, into the article, randomly, is not acceptable. Frankly, I do not think the anonymous user made a case for it being notable, either. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If it is notable, it belongs in the article on the house itself, or architecture in film articles, as the exact nature of the house in TBL is a piece of trivia. Ashmoo (talk) 20:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Legacy Section addition(s) - Two Gentlemen of Lebowski

I'll defer to the editors of this article, but [Adam Bertocci], a "filmmaker" and "screenwriter", has written what can only be described as a Shakespearian, Tribute/Play-version of The Big Lebowski. I don't know if it's as socially significant as Dudism, but, DUDE, it's freaking awesome. I give you "The Two Gentlemen of Lebowski". You're welcome. - Gwopy 05:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwopy (talk • contribs)

It's a great read, quite hilarious, and I understand there are some theatre groups talking about producing it for the stage. But it's premature to add it to the article. That said, I wouldn't be surprised to see some coverage on websites that follow internet trends and memes, so maybe there will be something reliably sourced before long - especially if a proper news outlet picks up something about a local production. But we're not there yet. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

According to http://www.dm-theatrics.com/, it's going to be performed starting March 18th in New York City. Assuming some local papers review it, it might be appropriate to add a mention of it at that time. Dexeron (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Wheelchair-using vs wheelchair-bound

The article history for this article indicates that the change from "wheelchair-bound" to "wheelchair-using" has been made and reverted more than once before. "Wheelchair-bound" is considered derogatory; see List of disability-related terms with negative connotations for an explanation why. Please don't revert this change again. Aecamadi (talk) 08:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I just reverted you again and will continue to do so. Your campaign is unwelcome. The article to which you linked is almost entirely unreferenced and highly POV/non-neutral. You have never shown a single reference that indicates the term is considered derogatory. And a Wikipedia article is not a source. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

May I ask why "wheelchair-using" is POV and "wheelchair-bound" is neutral? Even if you buy RepublicanJacobite's argument that "wheelchair-bound" is inoffensive, that would lead only to the conclusion that either term is acceptable, yet he/she seems to think only "wheelchair-bound" is acceptable. 70.152.70.38 (talk) 02:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Wheelchair-bound is the accepted term, neutral or not. You have not shown any reference that indicates it is considered offensive, we are simply supposed to take your word for it. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's one, at least Aecamadi is not on a lone crusade. Certainly this would put wikipedia a bit "ahead of the times", whereas the general philosophy of wikipedia is to be exactly with the times, neither ahead nor behind. For my part, I don't quite understand why someone would feel insulted when they are described as "wheelchair-bound" by, say, a social worker or surgeon -- someone who clearly understands and cares about their disability. Isn't it enough to get offended by people who are trying to offend you?

But whatever. My own opinions and interpretation of wikipedia philosophy are not too important, and if "wheelchair using" makes a few people happier, why not make it "wheelchair using"? Both terms are clearly understandable to anyone. I vote for "wheelchair using". --Steve (talk) 05:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"Wheelchair-using" implies that the Big Lebowski has the ability to not use the wheelchair; "wheelchair-bound" correctly describes the fact that he is unable to move around otherwise, which the film demonstrates. Pregnant women are wheelchair users; paraplegics are wheelchair-bound. Offensive or not, "wheelchair-bound" is accurate and "wheelchair-using" is misleading. EAE (Holla!) 08:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The vast majority of wheelchair users can't walk. As I understand it, that's the reason wheelchairs were invented: to afford people who couldn't walk with mobility. Your comment implies that it's unusual for a wheelchair user to not be able to walk. 70.152.70.38 (talk) 12:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Not that it's unusual, just that the usage of a wheelchair does not necessarily mean the same thing as being bound to one. I'm just pointing out that on at least this one level, "wheelchair-bound" is more technically correct than "wheelchair user", because I don't think the perceived offensiveness of one term over another is as important as what the terms actually mean and which is more correct. EAE (Holla!) 18:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

As we know from the movie, Walter would vote for "wheelchair user". The Big Lebowski is just faking a handicap for sympathy. I've never been more sure of anything in my life. :-) --Steve (talk) 16:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Walter did vote for wheelchair user, but then he conducted an experiment and appeared to become convinced that wheelchair-bound is more accurate :) But that's an excellent point, the film itself establishes the distinction between the two terms, and clearly identifies which one is more correct in the case of Mr. Lebowski. EAE (Holla!) 18:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion pertaining to non-free image(s) used in article

A cleanup page has been created for WP:FILMS' spotlight articles. One element that is being checked in ensuring the quality of the articles is the non-free images. Currently, one or more non-free images being used in this article are under discussion to determine if they should be removed from the article for not complying with non-free and fair use requirements. Please comment at the corresponding section within the image cleanup listing. Before contributing the discussion, please first read WP:FILMNFI concerning non-free images. Ideally the discussions pertaining to the spotlight articles will be concluded by the end of June, so please comment soon to ensure there is clear consensus. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

financial success/flop?

Was it a box-office flop in theaters? (and later a big hit in home-video?). There is nothing about the financial success in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.134.105.66 (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Lot/Lots

The actual line in the film is "Lot of ins, lot of outs," and I've altered the sub heading to reflect this. Wangoed 23:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Coincidentally, perhaps, Bunny's "real name" - Knudson - is the name of one of the actors from The Big Sleep. Peggy Knudson who played Mona Mars.

---onticdreamer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onticdreamer (talk • contribs) 21:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011

Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:

• http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=10:ktkvikxkbb59waq

--CactusBot (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)  Fixed--Cactus26 (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible sequel

The reference to a possible sequel at the bottom of the article (which wasn't added by me) needs a citation. If it's just industry gossip then it might not be encyclopedic. I'll let the experts on the movie decide whether it should be referenced or removed. DQweny (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed it. The Coens recently said, while doing press for their new film, that they have no interest in directing a sequel even though John Turturro is keen on doing a spin-off film with his character.--J.D. (talk) 19:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This just popped up in the news. Big Lebowski 2Is it notable enough for mention in the article? Em-jay-es 02:57, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I have doubts about that source. Yes, it is linked to CNN, but it looks like a gossip blog. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Ha! Yes indeed! Tara Reid in the Big Leboski 2, not! (Which is, I'm sure, nothing but more gossip!). My take on this is that the gossip may grow, somewhat like the apocryphal Arrested Development film project. Mentioned for years, and the subject of speculation along with celebrity teasing. My question is this, at what point does the gossip itself warrent mention in the article as a part of the cultural phenomenon of the movie and its following? I have no stake here, I'm just curious. Em-jay-es 17:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting question, and I will admit I had never considered that angle. My guess is there will never be a sequel, 'cause I do not see the Coens as wanting to revisit the same story. They liked to joke about making a sequel to Barton Fink, too, which they never intended to do. But, is the speculation about a possible sequel a topic of note in and of itself? Hmmm... this merits further discussion. And, hopefully, not just between you and I. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Much Ado About Lebwoski

Any objection to mentioning the play, Much Ado About Lebwoski (2010) in the legacy section?[2] I took a photograph of this poster in a SF store window in 2010, so I don't know if we can use it or not. Viriditas (talk) 10:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Hah! That's hilarious. I have no objections but I'm not the most well versed editor when it comes to notability guidelines so I'd hold out for others to weigh in (or be bold and let them weigh in then). I'm wondering though... would it be a decent idea to also see if any reviews of the production are 1) existent and 2) make any commentary that would be usable in a sentence or two about the play? I'm not thinking like a full on reception section or anything. More like if a reviewer made a particular comparison or something like that. Basically I'm wondering if we should have more than one source to note in any material added about the production. For once I'm actually positive I'm not making any sense. Millahnna (talk) 10:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

See [3], [4], and [5] I'm sure there is quite a bit more (such as [6] I was going to add this last year, but I wanted to wait and see if it had staying power. Well, this is its second year, so I suggest we've got our answer. Viriditas (talk) 11:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Why hasn't anyone added it yet? AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 02:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Non-free images

What's the justification for the use of File:STFUD.jpg and File:The.Big.Lebowski.1998.Screenshot.2.jpg in this article? What do they illustrate that can't be illustrated by words alone? ("Illustrating what the main characters look like" is not necessary in most movie articles if there's nothing important to say about their visual appearance, and isn't in of itself justification for non-free images.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

No response in 3 days, so I went ahead and removed them. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I endorse the images' removal. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:50, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

If we're removing non-free files, soundtrack covers in articles with film posters are surplus to requirment, as the soundtrack is already identified for commentary by association with the film and its poster - separate articles are a different matter but in shared articles like this they fail fair use, GRAPPLE X 16:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree; MOS:FILM#Soundtrack says the film poster is sufficient. Have also removed the soundtrack image. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I would also say that the DVD cover does not belong. There's nothing in that section that suggests that it is worth showing. The cover or packaging should have related commentary, such as that Evil Dead film having the "Book of the Dead" packaging. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:19, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Nihilists' description

I found this line a bit lacking:

"although they don't seem to completely grasp the tenets of nihilism"

Can we add more detail to this? This sounds like an opinion if it doesn't contain any explaination of why they seem to not completely grasp it. -- LGagnon 04:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's based on one of the nihilists complaining about their failure to get the ransom money as not being 'fair' at the end of the movie. I'm not sure a single line in the movie warrants such as characterisation though. And 'tenets of nihilism' seems like contradiction in terms. Ashmoo 04:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"tenets of nihilism" was probably a wink to the line spoken by Walter upon hearing from the Dude that the Germans weren't Nazis, they were nihilist: "Nihilists? Fuck. You can say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, at least that's an ethos..."

One might argue that the line is a subtle self-referential joke. Nihilism, by definition, wouldn't have any tenets. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Chinaman

In the Cast section, a character is identified as "Philip Moon as Woo, the rug-peeing Chinaman." "Chinaman," since the early 20th century, is an offensive word and not casually used to describe someone, any more than "nigger" is. I haven't seen the movie (why I was reading this article). Is the word used here because it is used in the movie? NOT a good enough reason to use it in an encyclopedia article. At the very least, it should be in quotes, to show that it is being used as a quote from the movie, and briefly explain. The article has to be understandable to people who have not seen the movie or what's the point of having the article in here? Would you include a cast list that describes someone as "the gum-chewing nigger?" I'd dump the word entirely and replace it with a commonly accepted phrase such as "Chinese man" or whatever. Will people have a major hissyfit if I change this? Sylvia A (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, "Chinaman" is the word used in the film, and it has been changed and changed back numerous times, with no consensus ever being reached. My preference is that it remain as is, but I think we should discuss this, and I appreciate the fact that you posted here rather than just changing it. If it is left as is, though, quotation marks, as you suggest, would be a good idea. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

When!?!?

When is this movie going to be on the Main Page!? I heard it was going to happen, but then it didn't!!!!!!?!!!!!!!!! ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.93.208 (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Length of plot summary

The plot summary is currently 991 words. The Wikipedia guidelines for plot summaries give 400 to 700 as an appropriate length. The prose is a bit wordy -- I think I can trim the section down a fair bit on that basis alone. The other thing is that it is not necessary to give a blow-by-blow account of the entire film, scene by scene, even though those of us who love the film enjoy reading about it in that sort of detail. It is after all supposed to be a summary. I will see what I can do to trim it down to a more appropriate length. Invertzoo (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: Got it down some. Now it is 863 words. I will have another go at trimming it down some more later on today. One thing: the prose varied between using "The Dude" and "the Dude". For consistency I changed it all to "the Dude". A long discussion similar to this raged for years about "The Beatles" and "the Beatles", so I don't expect everyone to agree with what I did with this. Invertzoo (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

ANOTHER UPDATE: Now 774 words, nearly there. Invertzoo (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

DONE: Total now 687 words. Invertzoo (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Breaking the fourth wall

Perhaps it should be mentioned in the plot summary that the narrator "breaks the fourth wall" at the end of the film by looking directly at the camera.70.82.109.203 (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Who really is "the Big Lebowski"?

We all tend to assume that "the Big Lebowski" refers to the supposed millionaire in the story. I would contend that in reality the Dude is "big" and the other Lebowski (contrary to how he presents himself) is rather an unpleasant and mean-spirited, small-minded fellow. Which person this moniker applies to is not quite made 100% clear in the movie, even though the Dude at one point near the end uses the name to refer to the supposed millionaire. I have taken out the mentions in the plot summary of the Big Lebowski and called the millionaire simply Lebowski. The narrator at the beginning says that the Dude is "a man of his time and place" in some special and significant way, therefore I think this might be taken to imply that the Dude is the title character, not the supposed millionaire. I think the ambiguity of this might be a clever little joke on the part of the Coen Brothers. Invertzoo (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

On viewing the film's script, we see that The Dude calls the millionaire "the big Lebowski" twice.[7]

"I figure my only hope is that the big Lebowski kills me before the Germans can cut my dick off."

"I mean we totally fucked it up, man. We fucked up his pay-off. And got the kidnappers all pissed off, and the big Lebowski yelled at me a lot, but he didn't do anything. Huh?"

Also, in the script narrative the millionaire is referred to ten times as the big Lebowski. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it's clear that the title has a deliberate double meaning. —Flax5 14:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Not clear. I tried looking for the idea that the big Lebowski also refers to the Dude and I couldn't find anything. For example, check the movie reviews in this google.[8] However, I can see the reasoning that the title refers mainly to the Dude because that is who the film is mainly about. Another interpretation is that the writers use the word Lebowski in the title like the slang use of the word megillah [9]. In any case, we need a reliable source for any of these ideas before we can include them in the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

One published analysis has connected the title The Big Lebowski to the title of the Raymond Chandler story, The Big Sleep.[10]

"Chandler’s plot is driven by everyone trying to avoid 'the big sleep’. The Dude also tries to avoid suffering the Big Lebowski: like the big sleep, to have the big Lebowski visited upon you, is not, perhaps, an experience from which one returns."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Genre: black comedy, dark comedy?

I'm not trying to establish that it's exclusively black comedy, I saw screwball comedy popping up in some reviews. Genre blending is not unusual from the Coen bros.. I checked all reviews cited on Rotten Tomatoes and most didn't explicitly call it a black comedy or dark comedy, they categorized it as just "comedy". That can be understood either strictly: they're saying it's just general comedy, or pragmatically: they just didn't care to further define the subgenre. Here are sources that do call it black comedy / dark comedy:

• book: The black comedy of John Guare by Gene A. Plunka
• book: Historical Dictionary of American Cinema by Keith M. Booker
• book: The Big Lebowski: An Illustrated, Annotated History of the Greatest Cult Film of All Time by Jenny M. Jones
• Ian Nathan - Empire
• Film4 - review cited on Rotten Tomatoes
• Randy Miller III - DVD Talk
• Rotten Tomatoes
• Iain Blair - CNN
• Joe Galm - BoxOffice
• John LaRue - TDYLF
• Alexander Diminiano - Cinemaniac Reviews
• Mark Eaton - Blackwell Reference Online
• Shane Dayton - Listverse
• David Dalgleish
• Jacob Crowell
• Mike - Ninth Row Reviews Movies
• Virgin Media

DanteLectro (talk) 05:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I think farce is especially apt here. —Wiki Wikardo 22:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Treehorn and The Dude's conversation

The Dude is forcibly brought before Treehorn, who demands the whereabouts of Bunny and the ransom.

Is this accurate? Treehorn asks about Bunny's whereabouts, mentions the debt that Bunny owes him, and states that any business between The Dude and the old man is their own affair. The Dude brings up getting a collection fee for "the money," and they agree on a percentage of 10%, but in context, Jackie must think he is talking about the money that Bunny owes Jackie -- not the ransom money. In my viewing, The Dude's misunderstanding is part of the humor, and is reinforced by him both trying to deceive Treehorn about the size of "the money" ($500,000 instead of $1 million), then immediately miscalculating the size of his collection fee ($5,000 instead of $50,000). And of course the whole notion that delivering the ransom money to Treehorn (instead of keeping it for himself or giving it to Maude / The Foundation) would be a smart move. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:5F81:67:54AF:B45A:DAEB:B2C6 (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's the part of the script with the scene.[11]

script excerpt

TREEHORN: Of course you do. I can see you're anxious for me to get to the point. Well Dude, here it is. Where's Bunny?

DUDE: I thought you might know, man.

TREEHORN: Me? How would I know? The only reason she ran off was to get away from her rather sizable debt to me.

DUDE: But she hasn't run off, she's been--

Treehorn waves this off.

TREEHORN: I've heard the kidnapping story, so save it. I know you're mixed up in all this, Dude, and I don't care what you're trying to take off her husband. That's your business. All I'm saying is, I want mine.

DUDE: Yeah, well, right man, there are many facets to this, uh, you know, many interested parties. If I can find your money, man-- what's in it for the Dude?

TREEHORN: Of course, there's that to discuss. Refill?

DUDE: Does the Pope shit in the woods?

TREEHORN: Let's say a 10% finder's fee?

DUDE: Okay, Jackie, done. I like the way you do business. Your money is being held by a kid named Larry Sellers. He lives in North Hollywood, on Radford, near the In-and-Out Burger. A real fuckin' brat, but I'm sure your goons'll be able to get it off him, mean he's only fifteen and he's flunking social studies. So if you'll just write me a check for my ten per cent. . . of half a million. . . fifty grand.

It looks like Bunny owes Treehorn a half million. The Dude says, "If I can find your money, man-- what's in it for the Dude?" Treehorn isn't interested in the ransom, just the money he's owed, and the Dude tries to use the ransom money. Can't tell exactly what's in the Dude's mind here. Maybe the Dude gave up on trying to get the money back from the kid, and thinks that Treehorn's goons might be able to get it. The Dude's in a tough spot. But I think you're right that the article's text here is wrong. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

One possible improvement of the phrase is,

The Dude is forcibly brought before Treehorn, who asks about the whereabouts of Bunny and the money she owes him.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

[12] --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Spiders named after The Big Lebowski

I'm not sure if this should be incorporated in the article or not, but there are two spider species which were named after The Big Lebowski: Anelosimus biglebowski and Anelosimus dude. --TeaDrinker (talk) 06:48, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

TeaDrinker, I just saw your message today. After checking it out, I added the spiders.[13] --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

The time period in which the movie is set

The summary states the film takes place in 1991. I have repeatedly edited that to 1990, and had it reverted every time. This is likely due to the Dude making out the date on the check for 9-11-91.

There is confusion over whether he is viewing the World Order speech, which is said to be delivered on September 11, 1991. However, that speech was actually delivered on September 11, 1990, and the one that is playing on the television is from August 5, 1990 (http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/110704). As has been noted elsewhere, the Dude is postdating a check a year and a month ahead of time, thus the film takes place in 1990. If you intend to revert the edit again, please give solid evidence for why this is not the case. --184.58.31.41 (talk) 00:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

First off, per WP:NOR I wasn't going by my own analysis. I was using reliable sources that state that the film was set in 1991:

From The Atlantic

"Though the movie is set in 1991, both the Dude and Walter are obsessed with their experiences in the late ‘60s and early 70s (political activism and Vietnam, respectively)."

From The Coen Brothers: Interviews, p. 88 (scroll down to the bottom of the page):

IW: What's the attraction of setting the film specifically in 1991?

ETHAN: Well, setting the film during the Gulf War was an opportunity to have Walter gas about something....

JOEL: That's the main reason.

ETHAN: And it's more attractive to make something time specific than just present day, because....

JOEL: ...because just what is present day?

Regarding the analysis that you are presenting, which I have seen elsewhere on the internet but not in reliable sources, it's fallacious. What was on the TV was not live, since Bush's statement was made at 3:05PM and the supermarket scene takes place at night. That video of Bush could have been shown on TV at anytime after August 5, 1990, including September 11, 1991.

But none of this analysis really matters because the film makers are telling a fictional story, not making a documentary, so everything doesn't have to be precise on these very subtle points that the vast majority of filmgoers don't notice. In any case, we try to go by reliable sources when they are available, as is the case here regarding the story taking place in 1991. --Bob K31416 (talk) 04:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

The movie was not an immediate commercial success (its budget was about US$15 million, and the film grossed US$17 million in the United States), but it received generally positive reviews from critics.

This is an inaccurate representation of the history of the film given the extensive source material on the subject. According to an author (anonymous by choice) published in The Year's Work in Lebowski Studies (2009), the film "sank like a bowling ball after just a few short weeks, having racked up a paltry domestic gross...a largely unsympathetic reaction from critics and indifference from a mass audience...might very well have settled into its designated slot in the home video graveyard..."[14] This appears to be an accurate appraisal of the film. The best one could say is that the film failed at the box office and it received mixed reviews when it was released. The "generally positive reviews" came years later. The lead needs to be rewritten. Viriditas (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I've made temporary fixes to rectify the problem. More could be added to explain the differences in critical and audience reaction from the time of its release to the development of its cult following. Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The intro table for the article states that it grossed $46 million in worldwide revenue on a budget of $15 million. That sounds like more of a modest success than a "failure" to me. --Jleon (talk) 02:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Source? Viriditas (talk) 07:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The Numbers has a breakdown of the B.O. of The Big Lebowski, ~17.5 million US and 28.7 million rest of the world with a total of about 46.2 million. I know there were some rave reviews in the UK, 5 stars from Empire Magazine and Film of the month in Sight and Sound for example. yorkshiresky (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's a related account from Ryan P. Doom, who has written an academic treatment of the Coen brothers work:

Released in March of 1998, The Big Lebowski quicklly followed the path of all great cult movies by fizzling at the box office. With a budget of $15 million, it barely broke even, earning just over 17 million domestically. At the time of release, no fanfare existed for the Dude and his men. Typically, critics weren't sure what to make of it. One stated, "it all doesn't yield anything more than that the Coens are just messing around. And they are much funnier when they are being serious." Another wrote, "Since nearly every plot twist is stupidly motivated, the audience stops following the story qua story and is reduced to watching Stupid Human Tricks." Roger Ebert, usually a Coen detractor, found praise for the brothers for the second straight film, hailing it as "weirdly engaging, like its hero." Regardless, when the film hit video and DVD later tha year, it slowly developed an audience as fans connected with Dude's sensibilities and the chaos he encounters.[15]

At the time of the release, the film made little money, and few critics liked it. Other authors have speculated that because the film was released at the height of an economic boom, it went mostly unnoticed until the dot-bomb. As far as the receipts go, I'm still looking for a good secondary source on the subject. Variety is where I would usually look, but I haven't found anything yet. Viriditas (talk) 12:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Calling it a failure becuase of its domestic box office is pretty silly. The movie still made a profit, which is something only about 1 in 10 films actually accomplish. Also, calling it a critical failure is inaccurate. Metacritic shows it with a score of 69, including positive reviews from the NY Times, Chicago Tribune, and the Washington Post. --Jleon (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not calling it anything. I'm saying that source after source calls it a failure at the box office during its initial release, and they all say the majority of critics either dismissed it or disliked it upon release. The lead currently says that "it received mixed reviews at the time of release". This is accurate. Obviously, things changed much later. I guess you're not seeing the clear pattern, which is consistent with most cult films. For only one of many examples, here's a portion of the lead section from the featured article on Blade Runner:

Blade Runner initially polarized critics: some were displeased with the pacing, while others enjoyed its thematic complexity. The film performed poorly in North American theaters. Despite the box office failure of the film, it has since become a cult classic, and is now widely regarded as one of the best movies ever made.

Do you see The Big Lebowski that much differently than a cult film like Blade Runner? Most cult films 1) perform poorly at the box office upon initial release, and 2) receive poor or mixed critical reviews at the time of release. For more information on this topic, please read cult film. Viriditas (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

From Edward P. Comentale and Aaron Jaffe's The Year's Work in Lebowski Studies (2009):

Lebowski does not meet standard criteria as a commodity. Its initial box-office returns proved disappointing for producers, and, to this day, despite repackaging efforts on the part of its distributors, it remains a losing prospect.[16]

Variety Power Players 2000 (2009) uses The Big Lebowski as an example of a "box office disappointment".

According to Richard Edwards and Drew Casper's Introduction to Film (1999): "Coming after the critical lauded and Oscar nominated Fargo, most critics saw The Big Lebowski as a let-down..."

In The films of Joel and Ethan Coen (2001), Carolyn R. Russell claims that The Big Lebowski was a "profitable film", but I am unable to determine if she is speaking literally or figuratively, as I don't have access to the text, only the snippet.

R. Barton Palme in Joel and Ethan Coen (2004), says "the film was mildly profitable", although I cannot confirm if he is actually talking about The Big Lebowski, but it appears that he is.

Barbara Klinger in "Becoming cult: The Big Lebowski, replay culture and male fans" (2010) writes: "Like many other cult films, The Big Lebowski's theatrical release was a disappointment; it amassed an avid following when it was rereleased on VHS and DVD, cable and satellite TV, and at midnight venues."[17] -- unsigned post, earlier

I too dislike the usage of "failure at the box office" in this context. I think we can reach a compromise with a simple semantic change: "was a disappointment at the box office" seems more accurate and encyclopedic. Furthermore, any such judgements should be fleshed out in the Reception section before taking such a strong tone in the lead. -Anon98.92.. 98.92.187.11 (talk) 04:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

As of January 15, 2016, the following sentence fragment is in this article: "The Big Lebowski was a disappointment at the U.S. box office." I disagree with this statement. The film was financially profitable in the U.S. So how could it be a box office "disappointment"? The film cost $15 million. The U.S. box office was $17 million (source: The Big Lebowski, Box Office Mojo, http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=biglebowski.htm). How can $2 million be a "disappointment"? Just imagine that you're in a room with $2 million in cash lying on the floor in front of you. And all of the cash is yours. Would you be disappointed? And what profit does this film — or any film — have to make for it not to be a "disappointment"? $5 million? $10 million? Sure, it's safe to assume that the people who made and financed this film would have preferred greater profits, but such financial desires hardly suggest that what it earned in the U.S. was disappointing. Or am I missing something? Does the $15 million spent perhaps exclude, say, marketing and promotion costs? Where millions of additional dollars spent on making the film (other than than the $15 million)? LeeBobBlack (talk) 10:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

You See What Happens Larry

When You Fuck A Stranger In The Ass--81.158.200.114 (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Film Plot changes

In the interest of not extending an edit war, I'm putting this up here. I need to know what parts of my previous additions were nonconstructive or overly detailed, and see if we can reach some kind of compromise. 2602:30A:2E7F:2170:9509:E23F:8C98:E497 (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC) and Orthacanthus (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

A category.

There is a category that says it is a "British" film. But i cant find any evidence to prove that. And it doesn't go with what the rest of the page says. Should i remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.142.147 (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

The film was co-produced by Working Title Films, a British company, as stated in the infobox and the production section. You obviously did not look very closely. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 17:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

American, British-American, or neither?

Mark in wiki and Pablo X both suggest in good faith that the film is "British-American" since Working Title Film is a British film company and was involved in the production.

I find this somewhat counterintuitive. The same logic would make "Monty Python's Meaning of Life" a "British-American" film (imdb lists Universal as a production company) and "The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly" an "Italo-American" film (imdb lists United Artists as a production company). Wikipedia lists "MP&MoL" as "British" and "TGTB&TU" as "Italian".

Currently the labels "American" and "British-American" have been removed from the Big Lebowski page. I suppose this is an acceptable solution. But one has to ask - are the other films incorrectly attributed? Is there a standard here? Riprowan (talk) 17:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea how films in Wikipedia in general are to be attributed. I assumed it was on the basis of the production companies. But you make a good point. I'd guess there's not much more of a guideline than there is in WP:FILMLEAD. I would have no objection against explicitly calling The Big Lebowski an American film. Mark in wiki (talk) 09:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Any more info here? The page has since reverted to calling this a British-American film, but this is pretty silly. Though it was produced by a British production company, it was written, directed, and fully cast with American people, and it was set and filmed in America. The minor input Working Title may have had on the actual final product does not, in my opinion, make this a "British-American" film. There is not a whiff of Britain in it. If anything it should be listed as an American film, failing that an American film funded by Brits, failing that it shouldn't say anything about its nationality of origin. 208.91.239.10 (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Your opinion as to the film's "Britishness" is irrelevant. The film was produced by a British company, by WP's standards (the only standards that matter) that makes it a British film. Everything else is rubbish. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 02:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Off-topic chat

chat
Arthur Digby Sellers Who the f*** is Arthur Digby Sellers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.119.101.19 (talk) 06:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC) This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article's topic - SummerPhDv2.0 12:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

British-American?

Revisiting this inconclusive discussion from September, it seems rather silly to label Lebowski a "British-American" film because its production company, Working Title, is based in London. All the more so considering its parent is Universal, a company founded in the U.S., with a somewhat confusing ownership history around the time this film was produced, which as of 2017 is American-owned again, by publicly-traded U.S. company Comcast. So, I'm going to mark it zero... I mean, "American", and if someone disagrees they should explain their reasoning here. WWB (talk) 09:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

List of films featuring miniature people

Yes, a brief dream sequence includes a miniature Lebowski being chased by a regular-sized bowling ball. Or a regular-sized Lebowski and a giant bowling ball, I guess. In that sense, this film features miniature people. Or a miniature person. Or not. Whatever.

When I first reverted this, I did not recall this minor detail in the film. Looking at the target article, this is tangential. Does it "feature" a miniature person? Maybe (maybe not). Judgement and common sense are the issue.

This film "features" lots of things. Some of them are meaningful parts of the film and even make it into the plot summary. "Miniature people" is not one of these things. Home invasions, domestic violence, drugs, Los Angeles, kidnapping, fake kidnapping, severed body parts, pornography, ransom, modern art, bridges, area rugs, mistaken identity, fictional movies, briefcases, bowling and a thousand other things. Of the extensive list of things "featured" (or possibly featured) in this movie that someone reading this article might want more information about to better understand this topic, I would not have selected miniature people, giant sports equipment or dreams about nearly being crushed by normally irrelevant objects.

We could proceed to link to all of these things. We could write List of films featuring bridges and add a link to it here, finally creating the long-lost connection between "The Bridges of Madison County" and bowling. We could, but, IMO, we shouldn't. The miniature person in this film is a trivial detail. That someone wrote something about the subject and mentioned this movie shows that someone will mention every detail about a cult film somewhere, nothing more. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The Toe

The plot summary currently states that Lebowski shows the Dude a toe, allegedly belonging to Bunny. It goes on to describe Bunny driving with all her toes intact. However it never explains who the severed toe really belonged to. I would like to see a short sentence added to wrap up the toe issue, after "driving with all her toes intact." Something like: "It is later revealed that the severed toe belonged to the girlfriend of one of the nihilists." Jmvannoy (talk) 08:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

"Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man." listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. 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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 30 § Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)