Talk:Pretty Woman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pretty Woman article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics 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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority 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 summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

Contents 1 Red Hot Chili Peppers 2 Trivia 3 The Story 4 3,000 5 "To Hell with you, bitch!" 6 No criticisms included? 7 Is there an error? 8 Chappelle (sp?) Show Parody

[edit] Red Hot Chili Peppers

Why isn't Red Hot Chili Peppers listed in the music section of this article?

[edit] Trivia

regarding the body double discussions, there's actually an entry on the wikipedia page for actress Andrea Parker, that it was in fact her who doubled J Roberts in Pretty Woman

[edit] The Story

I absolutely HATED this movie. The only thing I like about it is the plot, which is similar to Aladdin, only with the sexes changed. But what makes this movie so shitty is when a rich Businessman falls in love with a Prostitute and begs her to stay with him for a week by bribing her with $3000!! What kind of multimillionaire businessman would change his whole life for a prostitute, give up a $1.000.000.000 deal and even sell his own lawyer/ten year close friend over one little mishap. This movie is the worst in the world. I think Cinderella II was a million times better!!

--Can it be verified as the highest grossing romantic comedy?

It must have gotten mixed up with a REAL romantic comedy. This film is too shitty to be the highest grossing romantic comedy. The romance only came when the rich man bribed the poor prostitute with $3000 so that she would stay with him. The man even sells his business plans and his closest friend (I may be exaggerating, because Edward doesn't fire Phil) just to make the prostitute happy. You call THAT a romantic film? It's more like anilingus.

I agree. This movie just makes a prostitute into a princess. The scenes with Vivian trying the clothes on are really stupid, especially the part where the employees give her a free tie solely because she said Edward would love it, and they even order her a pizza. In another scene, Edward mercilessly punches his ten-year best friend across the nose over a little mishap with a woman Edward has only known for six days (that's not even a week!!) instead of calming him down like a human being. Even so, Edward agrees to pay the "beautiful" Vivian $20 just for directions when any normal man would say"To Hell with you, bitch!" The whole story of the movie is shit. They shouldn't have wasted time with filming the scenes with Edward and Vivian. It would have made more sense if it just showed Edward poking his tongue up Vivian's anus. The only scenes that make sense are when the women at the clothes shop shun Vivian because she is a prostitute. The other shop just sucks up to her. This is not a good example of a romantic film, and I think Garry Marshall really made up for this mess with a REAL romantic comedy like Runaway Bride.

Do these opinions really matter?

--Only to the person saying them, and even then probably not much.

[edit] 3,000

For what it's worth, apparently this film was initially known as "3,000". May not be worthy of inclusion though. violet/riga (t) 22:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It should have been known as "$3000 Down the Shithole".

[edit] "To Hell with you, bitch!"

There's a section in this article that says:

Instead of saying "To Hell with you, bitch!" like any normal man would, Edward agrees to pay her $20 for her to guide him to the Hotel

.

To me, this doesn't look like it should be in an encyclopedia (something about NPOV), I was gonna ask permission or something, but I'm just gonna change it to:

Instead, Edward agrees to pay her $20 for her to guide him to the Hotel

.

If anyone has any problems... I don't know, I can't be bothered with any of these "edit wars" I've read about. And I don't know how to sign comments on here.

It's just a way of saying how ridiculous their meeting was. I mean, what would you say if you asked a woman for directions and she tried to charge you for them? Jienum 20:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

True, but was it encyclopedic/wikipedic(?) to have that on an article? Personally, I think it was against the rules of Wikipedia... this isn't about what you or I would say in that situation, that doesn't matter, the article should be about the film and events in the film, that's all, and Richard Gere never said "To Hell with you, bitch" in the film (BTW it was me who made the initial comment and edit to the page, but before I became a registered user, so I don't know if I should sign it now).--PigManDan 21:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No criticisms included?

I came to the article expecting a paragraph on common criticisms of the film, and didn't see any. This seems surprising, considering that while many love it, others detest it ... and not just, as the article's author(s) seem to imply, because they are prudes who consider it inappropriate to make any prostitute seem to be a decent human being. There have been many published critiques over the years; here's one I found with just a quick Google Advanced Search:

Pretty Woman (Washington Post review), March 1990: "You could sit through Touchstone Pictures' "Pretty Woman" and just enjoy it as a slick, instantly and entertainingly digestible Cinderella fable in which sweet little hooker Julia Roberts falls for lonely-at-the-top corporate raider Richard Gere. But that would be ignoring the movie's capitalistically lurid aspects, its unconsciously corrupt, anything-but-uplifting message about success. It's a movie at odds with its feel-good purposes and it doesn't seem to realize it."

I think that's one reason we're having to deal with POV edits and people writing all over the Talk page about how they hate the movie, even though both behaviors fail to improve the article. I don't have time to do it right now (as I was supposed to be elsewhere half an hour ago), but what the article needs is an NPOV section summarizing the critiques. It also could note that the movie is not "groundbreaking" (as the article at one point claims) in showing a prostitute as a decent human being — in fact, elsewhere in the article, it links to an article on the idea that the "hooker with a heart of gold" is a stock character. Less than 10 years before Pretty Woman, you have Ron Howard's 1981 Night Shift, with Shelley Long as the HWaHoG and Henry Winkler as the mild-mannered guy who becomes a pimp in order to assure the women a more equitable share of the profits and better treatment. That was a helluva lot more groundbreaking in my opinion, but unless we find a published source that makes the comparison, it would just be original research on my part and not permissible in the article. --Lawikitejana 18:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC) P.S. FYI, Here's my Google Advanced Search, which was designed to rule out or reduce (a) reviews of the DVD quality and (b) reviews from the angle of whether prostitutes can ever be decent people; I wanted to prove those aren't the only reviews that had a problem with the content of the film. (http://www.google.com/search?as_q=%22Julia+Roberts%22&num=30&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=pretty+woman&as_oq=criticism&as_eq=Christian+decent+DVD+purchase+buy+order+Brockovich&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&as_rights=&safe=images)

[edit] Is there an error?

This articles says: "The company supplied a Silver 1989.5 Esprit SE, which was later sold." I believe there must be an error here. Should it be "Silver 1989 Esprit SE"? I do not understand what that ".5" means.

ICE77 --81.104.129.226 23:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the car came out half-way through 1989? --PigManDan 23:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chappelle (sp?) Show Parody

I noticed the Chappelle Show was credited with a parody of Pretty Woman. I am not sure this is correct. I believe it was "In Living Color" that did the parody. Or maybe both. Anybody have any comments on this?--Remark knights (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)