Talk:The Big Lebowski

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] 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

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Spoiler warnings

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

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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!

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Userbox

Bowling.jpg 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
     This is probably one of those movies that should go into the "Why the Heck Havent They Made a Sequel"

catagory, Agree? Disagree? 21 November 2006

[edit] 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 " [citation needed] ,"

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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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..."

[edit] Are the real Lebowskis the Buffetts?

There are some striking resemblances between the two Lebowski characters in the movie and Jimmy Buffett and Warren Buffett in the real world.

  • The Dude and Jimmy Buffett are both stereotypical slackers.
  • The rich Lebowski and Warren Buffett are... well very rich. But whether their personalities match, I don't know.
  • Also note that the Dude is very fond of the White Russian, while Jimmy Buffett's most famous song is Margaritaville, a song about the Margarita cocktail.
  • Jimmy Buffett and Warren Buffett actually know each other personally and tried to figure out if they were related to another, they are not (how unfortunate for Jimmy). This also reminds me of the key plot aspect of The Big Lebowski, the mistake of the names and the fact that the two Lebowskis aren't related to another, despite their name.

Anyone agree?--Pettsams 11:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Functionform 11:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC) I don't know about necessarily tying it to set of people; I've always felt the Big Lebowski was an un-analyzed piece of film making. Take the big themes, War (the mention at the beginning, Saddam sequence, the Vietnam obviously), Nihilism or anti-government (The nihilists and Walters hatred of them), Sex (Bunny, Jackie Treehorn, the liberated daughter). Maybe these are just the good elements of a comedy, but it's always seemed to me to have an undercurrent I was just missing...

[edit] "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. [1]
  • Readers of Total Film magazine voted The Big Lebowski the 20th greatest comedy film of all time. [2]
  • 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".[3]
  • The band "Autobahn" mentioned in the movie is a homage to the '70s 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 DoroshTalk 22:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Big_Lebowski_0792.html"