Talk:Wedding Crashers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fluff Piece[edit]

I really question the neautrality of this article. Take for example the following passage:

"It was also very well received by critics, who admired the natural chemistry between Wilson and Vaughn, comparing them in some instances to Paul Newman and Robert Redford in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (the comparisons might have been inspired by the very similar carefree bike-riding scenes found in both movies). The film also had extremely long legs, grossing over $209 million. This is quite a feat, considering most movies that made around $33 million in their opening weekend only managed about $100 million in 2005."

Could this possibly sound MORE like something written by a studio PR shill? Please! Also, I think it's downright misleading to say the movie was "very well received by critics", unless you're literally referring to the small number of critics that gave it an overwhelmingly positive reveiw. A quick scan of the most well know external reviewers on IMBD.com will quickly show a clear consensus average review of 2 stars (out of 4). I think a more accurate decription would be "received mixed, but generally positive reviews", or something similar to that. Ron Stock. 18:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving list to Wikiqoute?[edit]

Would'nt this be pretty appropriate, it seems most articles on wikipedia with long list sooner or later get them moved to wikiqoute, and then a link to the article... --Konstantin 16:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving it to wikiquote... If anyone objects then you can always revert... --Konstantin 14:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Production[edit]

Why are there two production headers? This is a drive-by post: I just viewed the article to find out the general plot, I haven't seen the actual film. -- Annie D 12:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved Rules of Wedding Crashing[edit]

I moved the rules to Wikiquote per WP:IINFO and WP:NOTABILITY. Just because these rules are mentioned in the movie does not make them notable. Only a handful of these rules are actually mentioned in the movie, and when they are mentioned they are basic one-liners with little context in the conversation. The rules can be found at The Wedding Crashers Rules on Wikiquote.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 07:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Rules of Wedding Crashing list is from the official DVD. It is from an official source and should be included on the page. - 67.41.85.95 (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I Have No Idea To Rules 2806:109F:15:6127:60C8:E175:8B62:93F2 (talk) 10:36, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judd Apatow?[edit]

Why is Apatow credited with production of this film, did he have any involvement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JTWoodsworth (talk • contribs) 23:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apatow Style[edit]

Why is Judd Apatow being associated with this film if he had nothing to do with it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JTWoodsworth (talk • contribs) 08:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the "Trailer Crashers" link...[edit]

To the person who put that link & the instructions for it up:either explain how to do it/how you did it or the link will be removed in seven days from today. I have attempted to follow your instructions and they got me nowhere. 98.193.77.218 (talk) 08:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the link because it really has no useful information to which we should be linking. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was actually going to wait to see if the person who posted the link & instructions was going to explain how to do whatever. But, if the majority thought is that the link is irrelevant, then I'm glad it's gone. 98.193.77.218 (talk) 05:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if I find a link questionable I tend to delete it, because the EL sections tend to get crufty very quickly. Carl.bunderson (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot[edit]

Someone seems to have changed the Plot section from being overly detailed to reading like something you would find on the back of the box. In fact, it looks so much like it, that I wouldn't be surprised at all if that is where it is from. 64.91.186.214 (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These changes seem to have been made on 27 January 2008 by a user named Trident13. Now these changes aren't necessarily bad, but an overly in depth description seems to have turned into an incomplete one... that ends with a question, which is very un-wikipedia-like.64.91.186.214 (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hungh?[edit]

A "Sex Lioness is...? A sex kitten all grown up...? A sex kitten on steroids...? Something else I'm too un-hip to get...? What...?

Cameos?[edit]

Dwight Yoakam and Rebecca De Mornay have short roles, no cameos.--77.180.62.40 (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I´m not sure, but if you look at the guys when wedding of the older sister starts. Aren´t those guests who greet the bride`s father John McCain and James Carville? If not, that must be some very authentic doubles. Just look at 0:17:03! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.27.231.63 (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Purple Hearts[edit]

The film was criticized for their use of the Purple Hearts in the plot and promotional marketing and it received a lot of news coverage. It is a shame this has not been mentioned in the reception/reaction. Don't have time to add it with sources, hope someone has the time to add it. -- Horkana (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Founds some sources to confirm this was controversial at the time:
It seems the complaints lead to the Stolen Valor Act of 2005! -- 109.79.169.24 (talk) 03:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's Nice? 2806:109F:15:6127:60C8:E175:8B62:93F2 (talk) 10:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Rape contoversy"[edit]

I have to say that the source for the controversy section is pretty weak. It is a fairly subjective statement, and on the website that it came from, it has only gained one out of five stars for credibility. My point is: does this section need to be there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.120.18 (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since this discussion has come up again here's a link to the version of this article from January 2011. The single source provided at that was from a site called allvoices.com (dead but archived).
A version of the section from December 2018 was discussed on the project film page (that link will probably be archived, the section heading was "Help_on_Wedding_Crashers_article" if you have to search the archives for it).
If this information was to be included in the article then more work is needed to avoid WP:UNDUE emphasis, possibly by also discussing the more general criticism of the misogyny and homophobia. -- 109.76.143.176 (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Slightlymad, Et0048, please discuss the "Controversies" content here. Slightlymad posted about this at WT:FILM, and some comments can be seen here, but the discussion should continue here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:28, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment (pasting the bulk of my comment from the discussion thread above) I wouldn't create a unique section for controversy, as many editors (like myself) feel that Controversy sections place undue emphasis on negative events. If critics have complained about the rape comedy, that seems like it belongs in the Critical response/reception section without needing to label it any further. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wouldn't object to copy/pasting the content into the "critical response" section. I would be opposed to simply blanking the section AND its contents, which is what was initially done. But as to the above suggestion, to put it into the "critical response" section, that sounds good to me. Et0048 (talk) 22:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Saw invitation for comment at WT:FILM#Help on Wedding Crashers article. I wouldn't create a unique section for controversy, as many editors (like myself) feel that Controversy sections place undue emphasis on negative events. If critics have complained about the rape comedy, that seems like it belongs in the Critical response/reception section without needing to label it any further. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


The section has many problems: "The film was criticized[17][18] for depicting the forcible rape of Vince Vaughn's character in a humorous light. The film has been accused of "turn(ing) graphic sexual assault into a punchline".[19]"

  • [17] A GQ magazine article from 2018 ...
    1. objects to a date-rape joke, early in the film
    2. includes the sentences "In the morning, Vaughn tells Wilson he was raped and compares himself to Jodie Foster in The Accused." followed by "Even beyond the gender and sexual dynamics that have aged rather poorly", which is fairly faint criticism compared to when the article ...
    3. objects to the sassy racist grandma trope
    4. strongly objects to the "inexcusably unfunny riff on the old "predatory gay man" trope"
  • [18] is a Thought Catalog article by Anonymous, from 2014
    • it is not about Wedding Crashers, and mentions it only in passing: this is it entirely: "Take a look at movies like Wedding Crashers, and Get Him to the Greek. Rape is simply a comedic tool when it’s placed upon men. More disturbingly, maybe society doesn’t believe men can be raped at all. "
    • I think WP:SELFPUB may apply, Thought Catalog is probably not an acceptable source
  • [19] 2013 Huffpost article, by "Ashkuff", a mononymous person described as: American Anthropological Association Contributor
    • the article says "blockbuster comedies like Wedding Crashers turn graphic sexual assault into a punchline", so again the article isn't about Wedding Crashers it is merely being used as an specific example
    • so it makes the wording "The film has been accused" more than bit weasly, certainly not as objective as "The Huffington Post accused the film" or "Ashkuff of the American Anthropological Association accused the film"

The extremely selective way these sources are used feels far too like WP:COATRACK and WP:UNDUE. I agree with the comments about the section heading, Controversy is too loaded a term, Criticism would be a fairer description. Only the GQ article is really about this film. To fix the section I would delete [18] and [19] entirely, and keep only the GQ article, and instead use it in the Critical response section, to mention not one problem but the all 4 problems I have listed above. (Various contemporary reviews also addressed point 4, and I think point 3, which could be used to give more weight to those bigger criticisms. Alternatively if newer more recent sources can be found that look at the film retrospectively a Legacy section might be possible.) -- 109.76.149.91 (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've given it a shot. To avoid WP:UNDUE the main thing I did was to expand on the comments from contemporary critics, to make it clearer that most of the problems were noticed at the time, but critics were wiling to forgive since they liked the film as a whole. Then I moved the GQ article into the critical response section but made it clear in the text that it was a review from 2018 and that the reviewer had many complaints, and few positives about the film. I doubt this will please everyone but I think it represents what the discussions suggested was needed. -- 109.79.169.118 (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can't please everyone.[1] -- 109.79.89.22 (talk) 07:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wedding_Crashers&oldid=1209584386"