Talk:Clerks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Clerks article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-Importance on the importance scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot overview, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film. We are always looking for new members! Join us today!

Contents 1 Dante is Dead 2 Does the "Themes" section need to exist? 3 High 4 Comedy Central 5 Misnamed? 5.1 Clerks. → Clerks (movie) 5.2 Going to the source 6 Clerks Uncensored 7 "Firecracker dealers" 8 Black and white interpretation 9 ? 10 "Randal has all the best lines" 11 Fix/expand my plot synopsis 12 1 second of Titanic 13 Requested move 13.1 Survey 14 Trooper Clerks Plot 15 Pay

[edit] Dante is Dead

In the original cut of Clerks,Dante is shot and killed (as stated in the main article).Now the question is : How would things be without Dante?What would Randal's reaction be?More importantly,how different would Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back and Clerks II be? - R.G. 16:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does the "Themes" section need to exist?

Many of the customers buy gag items and there's only one pack of cigarettes in the film. And everything else mentioned in the section is an interpretation.

Does this section need to exist? None of the points mentioned are "themes", they are either trivia or interpretation. Pele Merengue 15:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

We could put running gags in this section("bunch of savages in this town", "what smells like shoe polish?", " I wasn't even supposed to be here today", etc.User:Die Kenny20, 26 July 2006

I took out some of the existeiitalism stuff because it did not seem relevant with the other "themes" (which really seem more like running gags than themes). Also I think stuff like that needs to have links to critical analyses of the film. This shouldn't just be stoners pontificating about movies with no basis in literature (reading Nietzsche into Smith for example).

I do want to add in that in southern NJ [Asbury park newspaper was in the intro], cigarettes are referred to as coffin nails. From personal experience [concerts and a friend's beach house in the area] it seems to be used more by the "punkish" kids, usually 18-22. 67.22.170.64 03:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)battyone, 4 November 2006

[edit] High

My reasons for listing clerks as High importance are that it launched smiths career and the viewasknewniverse, it was one of the most successful independent films of 1990s, won many awards. Andman8 02:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comedy Central

Deleted the part about the show on Comedy Central - that's not mentioned anywhere on the DVD and I didn't see it on the IMDB - is there a source of this info? Ellsworth 15:30, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comedy Central's web site currently has it's own section about Clerks, but this may have been added since August. Checking their current schedule the show doesn't appear to be on at present. Jxan3000 16:08, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Misnamed?

The name of this article is Clerks. (notice the peroid, or full stop, at the end). Is this correct? Shouldn't it just be Clerks? I'm sure its just a mistake by the original author, and if it is, the article should be moved to Clerks (and disambiguated, if necessary). — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:45, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

It was originally at Clerks but moved here - the official name has the . in it. Compare Adaptation. currently at Requested moves. violet/riga (t) 15:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When you get a chance, go to the official Clerks website and take a look around. This is operated by Kevin Smith's company, View Askew. I only see one reference to "Clerks." (with a dot), and that was on the cover of the DVD (a marketing mechanism). This is visible on this page of background movie info. I'd like to see this page moved to [[Clerks (movie)], unless someone tells me Kevin Smith doesn't know the name of his own movie. -- Netoholic @ 22:14, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

Look at the title of the page: "Clerks." The title of the official site is "Clerks." (with a period. Reverting changes. Cburnett 22:26, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I deleted "It is unusual for the title of a film to be both a single word, and a sentence." "Clerks." is not a sentence. It's just one word and a period. Adding punctuation to a word doesn't make it a sentence. Richard75 23:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clerks. → Clerks (movie)

Note the "dot" at the end of the current name. According to the official Clerks website which is operated by Kevin Smith's company, View Askew, this is not the movie's proper title. I only see one reference to "Clerks." (with a dot), and that was on the cover of the DVD (a marketing mechanism only). This is visible especially on this page of background movie info. I'd like to see this page moved to Clerks (movie), unless someone tells me Kevin Smith doesn't know the name of his own movie. -- Netoholic @ 22:24, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

• Oppose: Official title of the website is "Clerks." (with a period). Wikipedia article should match. And note, Netholic has taken pre-emptive name changes [1] despite putting it up for a vote. Cburnett 22:28, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Why poison the well? Your zealousness is overwhelming. It was you who intentionally locked up the alternate page name at Clerks (movie) by double-editing it, which you know prevents someone from moving this themselves. Your tactics don't elicit respect. -- Netoholic @ 22:32, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
    • You originally moved it despite "Adaptation." being under vote for the same naming convention, which you've voiced in. You moved this film earlier in full knowledge that the naming convention was under dispute. I reverted your change until end of the "Adaptation." vote and, now, the "Clerks." vote. Cburnett 22:40, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • We should continute this on respective talk pages. Your accusatory mode of conversation is not condusive here. I do not see this and "Adaptation" as the same "convention". These cannot be decided as a group. -- Netoholic @ 22:51, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)
        • I disagree - the question is whether we should try to maintain the exact name or the common name and they are both the same in that regard. violet/riga (t) 22:54, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • Netholic, if you were interested in conversation then strike it up before taking action like you did several times in renaming this film (links to it, etc.). Netholic, if you were interested in non-accusatory conversation, then don't strike first with Poisoning the well remarks. Pot, meet kettle. Cburnett 22:59, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose: Official title is with the full stop and so it should remain. It's natural for it to be refered to without because it looks typographically ugly when mid-sentence. violet/riga (t) 22:54, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Now you're just trolling. Clerks. is the name of the film as registered with all the appropriate guilds and associations; the title of the View Askew page you reference reflects this. Yes, it looks bad in running text, but we are, after all, talking about the article's title. ADH (t&m) 23:09, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Moving clerks. to clerks (movie) would be almost as pointless as moving adaptation (movie) to adaptation.. Let both stay where they are, warts and all. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:17, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons given above. Neutrality^talk 23:18, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose My understanding is that the name of the UK or US release should be the title, "(movie)" only needs to be added to disambiguate, which is not the case if you use the period. Keep Clerks (movie) as a redirect. I also think Adaptation SHOULD be moved to "Adaptation." I also think that there is no point creating a controversy when policy that can decide the issue already exists. Especially when redirects will get everyone to where they want to end up. --Samuel Wantman 09:55, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons variously cited above. If Wikipedia is capable of rendering the correct title for something, we should use that as the title for the article: only in extreme cases should we tolerate an incorrect title, and labelling thereof should be ruthless. --Phil | Talk 10:20, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Actually "Clerks" is a correct title for this movie. The proposed location would be correct according to established policy even this were misinterpreted as to require an official title rather than the popular name. However the movie is at clerks. now and there's no real point in moving it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:10, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Didn't we just put the dot on the end recently? SECProto 15:17, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Support The dot is just added decoration on the movie poster. The marketing folks used it in their press releases to enhance "brand recognition", and now some film industry promotion organizations have taken up this affectation. But the word clerks is "clerks", whether it's also a title, or capitalized, or spoken out loud (you don't say "clerks dot"). Perhaps Hamlet was at one time only seen with fleurons and cherubs around it, but it's still just "Hamlet". —Michael Z. 16:54, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
• Michael Z. makes a pursuasive case to support. Jonathunder 07:51, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
• Support. Michael Z. is the rabbi on this. — Ford 19:28, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)
• Support. Cookiecaper 20:11, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. -Sean Curtin 00:45, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Whatever the outcome of this discussion, shouldn't the movie title disambig from Clerks (note lack of period)? I had to come here via Kevin Smith, as the disambig page didn't give me a link. -- SwissCelt 08:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Support. If you look at the movie poster you can clearly see that the true title of this movie is actually closer to “CLeRks,” so I would rather suggest a move to CLeRks. (Frankly, this whole discussion seems a bit silly to me: of course the title of the movie is “Clerks” and not “Clerks.” – why would it be Clerks with a period?) – Daniel Brockman 05:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. The IMDb page lists it with a full stop. - Hbdragon88 07:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. The title card for the film is "Clerks." But I really don't think it matters what the title of the article is just as long as you can reach it by either name. - Pele Merengue 20:20, 20 January 2006

[edit] Going to the source

If anyone cares, I sent the following e-mail to the address at the bottom of the above-mentioned page:

There is currently a debate raging on Wikipedia as to whether or not the page about this movie should be "clerks" or "clerks." While the debate seems to be at least in part about common usage versus official usage, I have a feeling the official opinion would help settle the issue, hence any help you could give would be great.

You can see the article page here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerks.

And the debate about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Clerks.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Whether they answer or not (or if anyone accepts their ruling as binding) remains to be seen, but I love throwing fuel on a fire. --Ntg

After seeing the period at the end of the title, I was a bit confused. Then, after seeing this spelling in other articles about Kevin Smith stuff, I realized that it wasn't just a typo. However, I wasn't able to find anything about this unusual spelling in the article. May I suggest that someone add a sentence or two explaining why the period is there? I realize that it isn't exactly clear whether it belongs there or not, but I found it a bit strange that it wasn't addressed at all in the article (unless I missed it).

[edit] Clerks Uncensored

I've noticed that the TV series Clerks has no page and many pages link to this one under pretences of linking to the TV series' page.

It has a page now. I've merged some of the information here with that article. --Misterwindupbird 04:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Firecracker dealers"

I often read the comment that Jay and Silent Bob were changed from drug dealers to firecracker dealers in the animated series. They only dealt firecrackers in the first episode! It was a one-off thing; in my understanding they'd be doing something different (and just generally causing trouble) in each episode. So I wouldn't put "firecracker dealers" down as their occupation. - furrykef (Talk at me) 13:00, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Black and white interpretation

I added the following to the article, but it was reverted by Misterwindupbird:

" A possible interpretation for the black-and-white footage is that it resembles the footage captured by security cameras in convenience stores, which, at the time, usually did not record in color."

This was not "original research"; it is in fact a very popular interpretation as can be seen by this google search:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22black-and-white%22%20clerks%20%22kevin%20smith%22%20security%20camera

In fact, this makes me suspect that the decision to shoot in B&W wasn't entirely due to budget concerns. Does anyone have a reference with Kevin Smith saying that it was only due to budget concerns?

I'm adding the comment back with one change: it's now called a popular interpretation. Penismightierthanthesword 05:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed it because it was unsourced, not because I disagree. It may or may not be right, but if it can't be verified it shouldn't be here. Also, I listened to the DVD commentary track not too long ago, and if I recall correctly, Smith says that if he had more money during the shoot, he would have shot the film in color. I'm moving it to trivia, because it doesn't really seem to be part of the history of the project. --Misterwindupbird 05:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. That seems like the best place for it. However, it somehow ended up in the Related Projects section, so I moved it to Trivia. Penismightierthanthesword 02:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit]  ?

Are you people serious?!?! How can you have a period after clerks and then have a poster of the movie right next to the title WITHOUT the period? Opponents of fixing the article are wrong but are too stubborn, for some odd reason, to let it change. The movie came out as "Clerks" presumably with Smiths authorization. Why take heed to anything the IMDb states, they didn't make the movie... The final authority ultimatelt rests on Smith and, unless people are suggesting that he incorrectly named his movie, the article should reflect HIS title of HIS movie. feel free to comment Lue3378 04:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Randal has all the best lines"

The character Randal Graves was originally supposed to be played by Kevin Smith. According to Smith himself, this is why Randal has all the best lines.

Kevin Smith did say this, but it's possible he was half-joking and that it really happened more like the other way around (Randal had all the best lines, so Kevin wanted to play him). Should the sentence stay as it is? - furrykef (Talk at me) 15:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I think he really was serious. - furrykef (Talk at me) 05:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fix/expand my plot synopsis

I overhauled the article today and added the plot synopsis but I know the gammar's off and the spelling isn't perfect to please feel free to fix it. Also, I left out some parts of the movie like Jay and Silent bob, some memorable conversations, etc. so please add if you could. One more thing, i've been working on An Evening with Kevin Smith for a while and am kind of burned out, if you could add to that as well it would be much appreciated. thanks!

Andman8 00:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This project kicks ass you gonna get one of those barnstar things i saw on this guys user page Celebritydeathmatch 15:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1 second of Titanic

The article says:

When Miramax took the film to post-production, the budget rose to $127,575. The combined cost of the film's entire production and its soundtrack would only have paid for about one second of filming the 1997 blockbuster Titanic.

Let's do the math. For just one month (and I guess Titanic was shot for more than one month), it appears that 127575*60*60*24*30 (about $300 billion) have been spent. Hell, *today* *Bill Gates* couldn't back such an operation. I'll remove the statement if nobody objects. --logixoul 21:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the notion was that it would pay for 1 second of the film, itself. The sentence is pretty poorly phrased. 194 minutes = 11640 seconds. $200,000,000/11640 = $17182.13 per second of Titanic. So, it's incorrect, but not too far off the point. The pre-production cost would have bought 1.5 seconds of Titanic. Full production costs would have paid for 13.4 seconds of Titanic. Bilious 05:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

[edit] Trooper Clerks Plot

Needs to be re-written. I don't know enough about it. Poorly written and not entirely objective. Azrayl 19:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pay

If the budget was 27,575 then how much did each person get paided?