Talk:A Christmas Story

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.

Er... latest revision has a character named Heidi Parker. There was no such character in the movie. Anyone know if she was in the book? (article is labeled as being about the movie, still...) Fuzzy 20:03, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ah, checking contributions by this IP address, it seems they have a history of doing this to various pages; they recently got the SImpons Character page. Reverting changes. Fuzzy 20:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Quick question - it says in the credits that Grover Dill was promoted to main bully in A Summer Story. I could have sworn that the main bully there was someone who had moved into town after Christmas Story, and that you could see Grover with Skut and the new guy. What's the deal?

Contents

[edit] Darren McGavin website addition

Someone posting anonymously keeps adding a line in the external links, "www.darrenmcgavin.net" As it barely even mentions A Christmas Story, I've been deleting it. He keeps re-adding it. Looking around, it seems he's posted it on several other entries, including the Darren McGavin site. He seems to have been doing this for Jack Grinnage too. *shrug* The Kolchak entry just cleaned up his link code and let it be. Personally, I think the link really only belongs on McGavin's entry. Some of the other shows, one could arguably link the secton of McGavin's page which deals with it, but he doesn't even have A Chistmas Story as a linked page on there. Am I in the right here or am I the (tragically misguided) villain? -Fuzzy 21:23, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the current version. I guess, as much as anything, the crude nature of the link and the fact that it was spammed across several articles bothered me. I still think it's more apropos on the Darren McGavin entry than here, but I'll live. -Fuzzy 17:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Plot Synopsis

I haven't seen this movie since last Christmas (and I don't own a DVD player, alas), but it occurred to me that this article could benefit from a brief synopsis of the movie's plot. Any takers?--Marysunshine 18:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia to popular culture?

I'm a little miffed that the entire Trivia section is gone with no discussion and, unless I messed something, no merging in of that material. (Good job on the cleanup otherwise, though.) What say you to a brief "In popular culture" section in line with other articles, for those items that fit this description? It's not as it this article is overly long. Karen | Talk | contribs 15:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. The only problem with trivia sections is that they become a dumping ground for random information, but if it's an "in popular culture" section, we might get away with it. Mike 16:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What of Messy Marvin?

I have always thought the original marketing of the film, and its style, were greatly influenced by Peter's popular 'Messy Marvin' commercials for Hershey's. As a kid, I expected the film to be little more than a feature-length treatment of that quirky-kid and droll-narrator 'gag' which had been so effective in those ads. Of course, the movie is much better than that, but, I still think there was an intentional connection there, and its probably worth including in the wiki page, except, I suppose someone needs to do a little more research on the subject beyond my mere speculation. Examples: Commercial1 Commercial2 Shane 22 November 2006

[edit] Time period?

What time period is the movie supposed to have been set in? I know it was made in the 1980s but the settings in the move certainly makes it feel like it's a bit older than that. This info should probably be in the article. --69.138.178.196 21:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of the pop culture references place the film as taking place in 1939 to 1942. I've added a paragraph about this. Karen | Talk | contribs 00:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

A couple of points as to the time period - the Look magazine that Ralphie hides his Red Ryder ad in is the December 21, 1937 issue. But, the Old Man seems to be reading the Sunday comics on Christmas morning (they are in color) and Christmas was on a Sunday in 1938. But, I do agree it is supposed to be ambiguous when it is set.

[edit] Trivia Section

I have added the trivia section back to this article. Remember... this is a community article and most of the community members like the trivia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bamassippi (talk • contribs) 22:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Trivia sections should be avoided, per WP:TRIVIA. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Trivia sections, by definition, are unencyclopedic. "Fun facts" are unencyclopedic. Fancruft is unencyclopedic. Take a look at section Wikipedia:What is a good article?, particularly 3b. The JPStalk to me 23:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. Trivia sections are nothing but facts in a non-paragraph form. They are so for the fact that it is hard to build paragraphs around the short tid bits of information. And besides... who died and made you WikiGod? Trivia sections exist in thousands of Wikipedia articles. Why should this article be any different simply because you deem it "unimportant." Let's take a vote. User:Bamassippi

If you would like to amend the polict, go to WP:TRIVIA's talk page and give it a try, but edit warring about it here is not going to help matters. - Mike (Talk) 03:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oh, fudge!

Compare IMDB's trivia page[1] with text in this article. The "trivia" I've tried to merge into other sections of the article started off as an almost word for word match of the IMDB page.[2] For all I know both may have come from a common source, but either way, we'll need to do some rewriting to avoid copyvio issues. Karen | Talk | contribs 05:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Perfectly understandable. I double-dog dare you to keep it in. User:Bamassippi

Which is why there are many articles with trivia sections! It's much easier to add stuff, including copy and pastes from other sites, than it is no clean them up. There is a selection of what the community has judged as the best articles on film at Category:FA-Class film articles. The couple I've randomly clicked on do not have trivia sections.
As for copyvio issues, I believe Mavarin has integrated some of the trivia into the other sections? If we cite at the appropriate places we can avoid charges of plagiarism, if they are sufficiently notable pieces of information. The JPStalk to me 08:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Basically I've gone through and done my best to rephrase all the merged material in different words, expand or cut it down as needed, and cite sources for underlying facts. There's a long way to go on citations, but I don't think there are any whole sentences left that match IMDB. Karen | Talk | contribs 08:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ralphie's Mom and the 'Battle of the Lamp"

Whats the deal with the bit about turning the leg lamp off and leaving all other lights on having a spot in the trivia section? Isn't that just... story? If we're putting that in for trivia one might as well ad "Everyone tells Ralphie he'll shoot his eye out but he gets a BB gun away." Perhaps I'm missing the point here but it doesn't seem like trivia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.235.156.163 (talk • contribs) 15:51, 25 December 2006.

I think someone was trying to make a point that this was either a mistake, a gag, or an interesting bit of character development, and didn't know where else to put the observation. Considering that Trivia sections are deprecated on Wikipedia in favor of working such items in elsewhere, I deleted it. Better still would be a Character section describing each of the Parkers (and others) in more detail. Then Mrs. Parker's disingenuous excuse could be placed in the context of her tactics in dealing with her husband, not to mention her attitude toward the lamp. There are a few good quotes to be had about this from the commentary and so on - but it's a lot more work than a one-sentence observation marked "trivia". Karen | Talk | contribs 04:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandals

Some people are attempting to place inappropriate titles and images on this page. Given the season and the popularity of the film, such material would probably gather a large audience. Maybe the page should be locked? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ulairix (talk • contribs) 21:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

That is disgusting what was just posted! I'm not experienced enough w/ Wiki to fix what was just posted but could someone take this on?-Teofil Bartlomiej 21:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Seriously its really messed up. I'm not even a member of wikipedia and I just tried to look up this movie...-_- 71.224.251.160 21:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

See WP:REVERT. I put the page on my watchlist. Grandmasterka 01:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not an Air Rifle

The gun sought by the young boy is a spring fired BB gun. A BB gun is very different from an air rifle. An air rifle uses compressed air to propel the projectile and has a much higher, and possibly lethal, muzzle velocity. The use of the term rifle should be removed from this article. The Red Ryder is NOT and air rifle. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.14.172.51 (talk) 13:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

To the extent that the term "air rifle" is a direct quote from the film, that needs to be retained as an accurate description of what Ralphie called it at (if memory serves) at least two points in the film. When the Red Ryder BB Gun is referred to outside of such quotations, it is already correctly referred to as a BB gun. Thanks for the information, though. Karen | Talk | contribs 19:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, all BB guns/pellet rifles that are non-ignition propelled (meaning do not use fire to propel) are classified as air rifles. The spring in the BB gun on the old Daisy models did, in fact, serve to compress enough air to propel the BB. No, these were not the same as high velocity and, as you say, 'possibly lethal,' air rifles available today, but the Daisy model in the film is still an air rifle. Even though there is no pumping, or using a CO2 cartridge, there is some air compression. I had one when I was a kid, before graduating to a Daisy Power-line series which was a pump action. You're right, there is a big difference, but it's still air propelled... and in any case, Ralphie calls it an air rifle in the film. Ryecatcher773 00:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of info irrelevant to main article

While it is interesting that the movie has reached a point where a museum has been opened to commemorate it, and also that the Chinese restaurant is taking part in the hype, certain details (such as C&Y's resultant business gains), are irrelevant to the main article and should not be included. The title of the article is, A Christmas Story. Before editing it again, you may want to look into the Wikipedia guidelines on indiscriminate information. Ryecatcher773 16:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, although personally I would consider the cleaver renactment notable. I did change the citation, though, on the basis that a news article in a major newspaper is a better source than a press release on a tourism site. Also, the full name of the attraction is "A Christmas Story House", per their website and other sources. Karen | Talk | contribs 17:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Good call. Including the chopping off of the duck's head is acceptable since it is a reference to the movie scene, so long as it is cited.Ryecatcher773 17:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

That local businesses have taken advantage of the film's popularity to increase their own profits definitely is relevant. That a restaurant would double its business solely due to linking itself to a cult film is a sign of the film's impact on popular culture and worthy of mention. Furthermore, it's not necessary to have so many different citations in this section, since my citation of the New York Times article covers everything mentioned. SFTVLGUY2 15:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I have pointed you to the link (indiscriminate information) so that you might see what is being objected to here. The article is not about the house, it's about the movie. The house has been mentioned because it is a current event. Even the mention of the Chinese restaurant is there. But outside of that, however, the info you're posting (business figures, revenue numbers, package deals at a hotel, etc.) borders on something akin to a tourism-guide, which also goes against Wikipedia policy. Please do not keep reverting it back. If you want to start another article strictly about the house and the tourism industry in Cleveland that revolves around it, by all means, feel free. Thank you. Ryecatcher773 13:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
You are choosing to interpret indiscriminate information one way, and I am choosing to interpret it another. That the Radisson Hotel is offering packages in conjunction with the film does not constitute travel guide information, it is an example of how local businesses have jumped on the bandwagon now that the house and museum have opened as tourist attractions, which is a direct link to the film. That a bit player in the movie is using her connection to the film to promote a home business also is significant. Furthermore, you keep adding multiple citations to outside sources when one is sufficient. If the article isn't about the house, as you allege, then the section pertaining to it shouldn't be included at all. I didn't add it, it was already there - I simply enhanced it. Just because it's not to your liking doesn't make it wrong. Suggesting a separate article be written is ludicrous - Wikipedia is already overloaded with too many articles about one subject, for example, one article for a play, another for its film version, a third for the film's remake, a fourth for the remake's Broadway musical adaptation, etc., etc. Anything and everything pertaining to a subject should be included in ONE article. Happy Holidays! SFTVLGUY2 19:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

If the article isn't about the house, as you allege, then the section pertaining to it shouldn't be included at all.

Good point. I have saved you the trouble and gone ahead making it into its own article. Merry Christmas. Ryecatcher773 19:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photograph added

I added a couple of recents photographs I had from the cast of Christmas Story that I took myself and I hope they help to enhance the article (hopefully no one has a problem with it) and I hope to be able to add some more of the cast in the future. Let me know if I formatted them correctly ?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Berniethomas68 02:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yano Anaya
Ian Petrella played Randy Parker in the Christmas Story of 1983 and this is a photograph of him as an adult in November of 2006
To be honest, I think they overwhelm that section of the article, and are kind of peripheral to the subject. It's great to have them in the actors' articles, but here they detract. I tried formatting them smaller, but I couldn't keep them from hiding text and other problems. By the way, the captions (which are a bit long anyway) only show up if you have |thumb| in the image format. I won't delete them for now; perhaps someone else will have some thoughts about this. Regards.... Karen | Talk | contribs 07:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If someone wants to start articles on the actors, then go for it. Otherwise, this is inconsistent with the article title. After all, this isn't a VH-1 segment of Where Are They Now... ya know? Ryecatcher773 01:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur. If you create articles for the notable actors, then the images are definitely of use. But this is about the film, and only imagery from the film, or its production, is the primary relevance. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 02:08, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/_/c/Talk%7EA_Christmas_Story_0cff.html"