Talk:Punk'd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TV
Television Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects 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.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Mac punk'd

• Bernice Mac WAS punkd, I deleted it off the failed celebrities section. He was clearly punkd in that episode, just tried to brush it off, even of the producers and Ashton knew that!

[edit] Int'l punk'dings

"By the start of the sixth season, a total of eight non-American/non-Canadian stars had been Punk'd: Ozzy Osbourne's daughter Kelly (U.K.), actress Salma Hayek (Mexico), Dallas Mavericks' Dirk Nowitzki (Germany), singer Joss Stone (U.K.), American Idol judge Simon Cowell (U.K.), actress-model Sofia Vergara (Colombia), That '70s Show star Mila Kunis (Ukraine), and now Mischa Barton (U.K.) have also been "punk'd" by Kutcher's crew members. (For Hayek and Kunis, they were "punk'd" by Kutcher.) Michael Vartan, who was born in France, might have been another non-American/non-Canadian star to get punk'd but the tape wasn't aired. Vartan is going to sue Kutcher if he became the 9th non-American/non-Canadian star ever be on MTV."

this paragraph is terrible. While Mila Kunis was born in the Ukraine, she moved to the Us when she was quite young and is therefore full americanized. Also, that last sentence makes no sense. "the 9th non-American/non-Canadian star ever be on MTV?" surely the author meant on this program, not on MTV in general.

[edit] List issues

Is this list of "celebrities" needed? It's huge, and pretty useless. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

  • That is indeed debatable, but the list of celebrities NOT punk'd is just silly, since there's a near-inexhaustible supply of people not punk'd. I've removed it. --Biot 11:36, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

It's a good start. The problem with the list is that it's already about three quarters of the article, and it does very little useful. OK, it's more sensible than the list you've removed, but not by much. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Maybe if it was split up? Instead of a plain list of linked names, perhaps put in a per-season list with a short summary of the prank done on that person. That would make it a bit more readable, and would actually serve a purpose. --Biot 17:38, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I suppose so — though it would still essentially just be a list of names. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Should we put people born in Puerto Rico as Americans although they put in a separate nationality for global reasons?

Yes, Puerto Ricans have American citizenship, therefore are technically Americans - but certainly there's no problem with noting that they are Puetro Rican as well. Although for some purposes Puerto Rico is considered a nation (i.e., in the Olympics), I'm not sure what "global reasons" consider them a "nationality." --Alfoor 01:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Then we should separate Puerto Ricans part of non-American/non-Canadian section until further notice?

[edit] Kunis

I think Ashton failing to punk Mila Kunis the first time was intentional so she'd be unprepared for a real punk'ding. Ashton says something like that on that episode. If someone knows the details they should amend the article.

[edit] Non-American punk'd celebrities

I'll be honest, I have only seen parts of the show, but is a list of non-Americans who have been punk'd really beneficial? I don't really see why it matters if they are American or not. If there is a reason why the article has so much about celebrities who aren't American, it should be explained in the article. Is it mostly just a trivia thing? If it is, I think the flags should be removed at the very least and possibly the section about non-Americans who have been punk'd. I realize someone spent quite a deal of time going through the list and figuring out the nationalities of all the celebrities and then added the appropriate flags, but it doesn't really seem to add much to the article. Excuse my ignorance. Just to be clear, I think the list of all the celebrities who have been punk'd should stay, no matter the reason why the article makes such a big deal about nationalities. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I am going to have to bring this issue up again. Could someone do me the favor of explaining the importance of noting which non-Americans have been punk'd? I don't see significance of the "Punking foreign stars" section. A lot of the people listed now are American citizens anyway. It seems to be fancruft to me. --07:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It is not a noteworthy aspect of the shot that anyone has noted about it, and a lot of these celebrities, like Michael Vartan, are probably not even commonly known to be foreign-born. Nightscream 18:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] layout issues

Celebrities who have been "punk'd" still takes up a lot of space. Note breaks up general layout to the point that even trying to read it is very strenuous. Intinn 09:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

How about now? I think someone messed with the table, but I fixed it. -- PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice! Gonna remember that trick. Tried to fiddle with the list myself in preview but couldn't figure it out that fast :) --Intinn 10:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it just lost the closing bracket |} so the table never ended. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Terrell Owens

There's a segment in this article dealing with Terrell Owens that is absolutely incoherent. I have no idea if it's based on factual material or not since I have no idea what it's trying to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterBadIdea (talk • contribs)

Amen, could someone who knows anything about this episode please fix the piece? --Allycat (Talk - Contribs) 20:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tre Cool

Can Tre Cool really be considered a German celebrity? --^pirate 02:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

What does this mean? The Germans haven't never heard of him. On the other hand, he is considered German.
By whom? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm almost certain the Germans -will- have heard of him, they don't have a big wall blocking foreign cultures infiltrating them, and Greenday are regularly on MTV Central and VIVA. However, the flags are COMPLETELY POINTLESS. So theres no need to care what he's considered or not. --Kiand 21:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Having heard of him, and considering him German, are two entirely different things. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Theres that, too. But they have at least heard of him ;). The Irish media thinks Mischa Barton is "Irish", she's on the list (before the flags were removed) as "English", and she probably thinks she's American herself. Its all completely pointless. --Kiand 22:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creating a new article

I think we should create a new article titled "List of Celebrities who got punk'd" to clean up this article.

Whatever you do, stop posting the silly flags. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terrible sentences

I'm not really sure how to fix these, cause I can't tell what they're trying to say: "Alex Rodriguez was Punk'd by Kutcher but, according to some people, he told Kutcher to destroy that tape although Rodriguez thought it was a good idea." -He thought what was a good idea? Destroying the tape? Keeping the tape?

"Some people said Grazielle got nervous at Kutcher, and he gave up." -Granted, you don't get nervous AT someone, but my mind is blank at the moment about how to fix it. Polyhymnia

"As the show is usually set in Los Angeles, the pranks often take place in common locations such as parking lots, restaurants, hotel rooms, residences, Universal Studios Hollywood, a school or a bowling alley." -What the heck does this mean? There are parking lots, restaurants, etc. everywhere; other than Universal Studios, none of the things in this sentence are unique to LA. Is the writer trying to say that, because so many celebs live in LA, they can film in everyday venues (as opposed to movie or TV sets)? Is he trying to say that, because LA is very suburban, celebrities are often out in open, public places, whereas in NY they tend to spend more time in private spaces? As it stands, the first part of the sentence is a non sequitur. Essex9999 68.83.140.156 02:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flags

Could someone please explain what the purpose of the flags is? Besides the fact that trying to put a German flag on Tre Cool and an Italian flag on Danny DeVito is ridiculous, just what purpose do they serve? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Those are the nationalities of the following celebrities they have now. BigBang19 16:06, PST 14 April 2006

And they were completely, and utterly pointless. Which is why they were removed. --Kiand 23:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

This article has a terrible standard of writing, and severely needs to be edited. The sentence structure and syntax has been commented on before, and it's definetly time to fix it.

Agreed. To add, this article has way too much fancruft that needs to be cleansed. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 05:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I've added ({cleanup}} to bring attention to this. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 05:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attempted Kutcher Punk?

Am I just crazy in remembering wrong, or wasn't another "Failed Punk" against Kutcher himself? I seem to remember something with Britney Spears.. --SnakeSeries 21:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it was a punk against Britney and Dax and one of the other prodcuers, IIRC. It was essentially a "Long Con". Kutcher had informed his crew that he would not tolerate anyone attempting to punk him, but engineered it so that they would try, and then blew a gasket when they did so, telling Dax and the others that the show was over. He then revealed that he was punking them. Nightscream 18:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop it with the Intro and "Traditions"

To User BigBang 19, first, there is no need to detail every single type of celebrity punk'd on the show, and when during the series run they began to be targeted. The Intro is a general summary of the show, and should only include details that are the most noteworthy about the subject. Detailing the different seasons' targets, and every category thein, is not necessary.

Second, there is really no need for these sections, and they're very inconsistent. You keeps focusing on these things, but they're not "traditions". Athletes and wrestlers are simply one of the many type of targets of punks. That's it. If you're going to group together different categories of celebrities as "traditions", when it's really just standard operating procedure for the show to target diverse types of celebs, then why not place catgeories on singers or actors? It makes no sense to emphasize one type of group and not the other. Please stop re-inserting these things. Nightscream 18:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

BigBang continues to revert sections with his poorly-written and irrelevant passages. Today reverted the Intro with the clunky, Although some segments during the first season depicted unknown random people being punk'd, from season 2 and on, the show has focused almost entirely on celebrities but they're only focusing on actors and singers. From season 3 and on, NBA players, NFL players, NHL players, MLB players, professional wrestlers, reality TV stars, supermodels, and other personalities were also been focused, not just actors and singers. First of all, if you're talking about something that occurred in Season 2, then you can't mix the past tense "has focused" and the present tense gerund "they're only focusing". Second, the phrase "not just actors and singers" is superfluous. The prior sentence already explains that the targets were expanded to other types of celebrities, and even that is overly detailed. The more streamlined version I keep changing it back to: Although some segments during the first season depicted unknown random people being punk'd, the latter seasons of the show has focused almost entirely celebrities such as actors and singers, athletes, professional wrestlers, and other entertainment personalities gets the point across in a far more succint and neater manner. Please stop reverting it.
Second, this passages under Format: "Another segment during the fourth season had the then seventeen-year-old Rob Pinkston pretending to cause more trouble against celebrities, and the most disatrous prank was when Rob and his gang menber spray painted on Zach Braff's prized brand new Porsche worth $100,000 just for not letting Braff and Donald Faison buy them some beer" has nothing to do with that section, or with the passage on Ryan Pinkston that preceded it. Ryan's segment was an recurring segment, which makes it relevant to Format. Rob's spray painting Braff's Porche had nothing to do with this. In addition, why was it "disastrous"? I saw that prank; It went off without a hitch. Lastly, I would respectfully suggest to BigBang that he proofread his writing a bit more. For one thing, saying, "just for not letting Braff and Donald Faison buy them some beer' is incorrect. Even if we were to have left in that passage, It should've read "for refusing to buy them beer." The phrase "his gang member" should be "fellow gang member". (Much in the same way that the phrase "his Be Cool co-star" should be used in the Accomplices section, and not "his Be Cool castmember".) And whether they were portrayed as a "gang" is questionable itself, so "friend" might've been more accurate. The word "just" as in "just for not buying them beer" is also questionable, as it is not NPOV. Nightscream 05:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Nightscream and have been meaning to bring this up for some time. Please be careful with the amount of fancruft that keeps getting into the article. Also please remember that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of data. While I appreciate the time and effort that BigBang 19 has put into the article, remember above all, the article must remain encyclopedic. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 08:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I have now read everything Nightscream has said here, as well as going back through the recent edits, and I agree with Nightscream too, and I would reinforce what PS2pcGAMER has said. I think the traditions section is obsolete, since it was pretty much a list of every kind of person who was punk'd. As for the intro, it should be thought of as a brief eye catcher, making the reader want to find out more information, and shouldn't be overloaded with specific details. --SnakeSeries 10:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree as well. Some of BigBang's revisions are just grammatical errors which keep getting reinserted, and some of them are simply odd. While this might not qualify as outright vandalism, it is very tedious. Polyhymnia 19:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Violating WP policy by refusing to participate in a dialogue with other contributors who point out problems with your edits could be construed vandalism when prolonged, and looking at BigBang's User Page, I see he's been given several warnings for vandalizing other pages. I've explained the problems in my Edit Summary's, on his User Page, and here, and his only response is to claim the authority to delete or merge articles "permanently", and to make the vague comment that the article has "gone too far". Many of his edits are not grammatical, but violate factual accuracy or issues of relevance and encyclopedic wording. In his most recent edit, he again put details about the targets in the Intro that were not necessary, his mention of the opening title change, while possibly noteworthy, doesn't belong in the Intro, and was poorly worded. His most specious edit was stating that Kutcher moved to the show to Mondays. While the timeslot of a show is arguably appropriate for the Intro (which is I left it in---kudos to Big Bang for finally coming up with something for that section), he provides no source that it was Kutcher who did this, as it is networks who move timeslots, not the producers of shows. This indicates that BigBang has a profound ignorance of the most basic fundamentals of how TV works. He also insists on saying that the Accomplices "co-pranked" the targets, when there is no such word, he insists on including Rob Pinkston's prank on Zack Braff in the Format section, insists that it was "disastrous" (even though it went off without a hitch and he provides no evidence to the contrary), and even capitalizes the word "brand-new" for some reason.

[edit] Punk'd is now on BigBang19's watchlist

I put this page on my watchlist and possibly, I'm going to delete this article permanently because we're going too far with this article. BigBang19 02:45 PST 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Erm, you're not an admin, you have no ability to delete pages. Additionally, nobody is going to support merging the article with an entirely different show -which is what you originally proposed then changed. --Kiand 09:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't going to merge with another article at any circumstances but still thinking about deleting the whole article because we're going too far. At a mean time, I'm going to delete any punk'd related notes in all articles, permanently. 02:52 PST 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again, you're not an admin. You don't have any ABILITY to delete stuff permanently. And if anyones brought this article "too far", its you, nobody else. And you originally suggested merging the article with Candid Camera, as anyone can see in the history. --Kiand 09:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I decided to not merge with any other article for now but we could delete some parts of the article.

Well, I've deleted or merged several portions of the article, much of which was added by you. In any case, the decision not to merge the article with any other isn't yours to begin with, let alone deleting it. With all due respect, BigBang, you need to learn how to work with others here. Nightscream 16:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Needed to get the new opening of punk'd

The opening has been changed, please get the new opening but you guys need to get past the copyright examination first. BigBang19 04:00 PST 12 April 2006 (UTC)

If you're referring to a screenshot of the show's title card, I believe the screenshot tag can be used as part of Fair Use.  :-) Nightscream 16:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3 Revert Rule Warning for User:BigBang19

BigBang19, You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. One more you WILL be blocked - Glen T C 18:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parts of this article are too narrow

The word "Other Celebrity Personalities" is too narrow because Kutcher never punk'd any authors, talk show hosts (ex: Jerry Springer, David Letterman, and Jay Leno), business moguls (ex: Donald Trump, Martha Stewart, and George Steinbrenner), and comedians (ex:Wayne Brady, Drew Carey).

Also, the word "Atheletes" is too narrow because Kutcher never punk'd any Golfers, NHL Players, MLS Players, and any NCAA Basketball and Football Standouts (Matt Leinart has already been punk'd on March 14, 2006, according to Sports Illustrated April 17, 2006 issue, but the prank is scheduled to air somewhere around April or May on MTV).

I'm very serious because I really hate to keep this page under my watch list pemanantly!!-BigBang19 13:33 PST 14 April 2006

Regarding the "other celebrity personalities" comment, I think you are incorrect here, firsly the specifics of your comments are incorrect, for example Simon Cowell - he is a businessman (running his own record label) and record producer, perhaps not a 'mogul' but he is not an entertainer or sports personality; as for the talk show host thing I think if you look into that list carefully enough you will find one or more person who has presented a talk show at one time (Kelly Osbourne I know has guest presented a celebrity talk show over here in England - so I would guess there are others, it's a pretty common thing for celebs to do). My point is that "celebrity personality" is a general term, and as you would know from watching the show they do not concentrate on any particular group of celebrities; many celebrities do more than one thing (act, sing, dance, present shows), so I think it is a perfectly acceptable term.
The same goes pretty much for "Atheletes", if we were to include a list of the different types of atheletes or sports personalities they punk on the show, it would be a pretty long list. Far too long especially for the intro. (equally to include a list of who they did not punk, would be crazy, it would be so long). --SnakeSeries 21:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
(EC) How is the term athletes too narrow? It doesn't say all types of athletes. Same deal for "other celebrity personalities." --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

"The word "Other Celebrity Personalities" is too narrow because Kutcher never punk'd any authors, talk show hosts" No, the opposite is true. The phrase "other entertainment personalities" is a general term; it is therefore the exact opposite of "narrow", because all those other occupations fall under that umbrella. An author or talk show host, for example, is an entertainment personality. Nightscream 05:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starting over

BigBang, blanking the page is not the way to start over. If you want to start the article over, do it in a separate place and move it over. If it is a community thing, do it on Punk'd/new version. If you are do on your own, create it on a person subpage (AKA sandbox). --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead, why don't you guys edit what ever you guys want! At a mean time, I'm going ahead to built another article about the same thing! BigBang19 16:22 PST 14 April 2006

First of all, it's "in the mean time" not "at a mean time" and it's "build", not "built". Second, what reason is there to start anything over from scratch? Do you not understand how WP works? You don't create multiple copies of the same article for your own enjoyment; you discuss these matters with others because Wikipedia is supposed to serve everyone, and thus, articles have to conform to a certain standard. This site isn't your personal playground. Nightscream 05:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

As goes editing whatever we want... erm, thats the entire point of the Wikipedia. Beneath the edit box, every time you make an edit:
"If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it."
--Kiand 10:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "premier" and "finale"

In the "Celebrity Accomplices" section, I see that some episodes are labeled "premier" or "finale". Wouldn't it make more sense, and be more informative to label them by their episode number?

Considering that Punk'd isn't a serial show that follows a storyline from one episode to the next, or that the pranks are shown in any logical order, chronological or otherwise, that an episode is the first or the last in a season doesn't hold any significance. Especially with season finales, how are we supposed to know how many episodes are in a season?

Plus, networks label their episodes S3E9, as in Season Three, Episode Nine, so it makes sense to follow that convention.

Now, the section is getting awfully long and its usefulness is quite debatable, but would anyone have objections if "premier" and "finale" were replaced with simple episode numbers? Ytny 15:17, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There is not much I can add, I personally have no pref of Series # Episode # or S#E#, but S#E# is a pretty widly accepted format amongst fans sites (of tv shows in general) too. --SnakeSeries 19:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

In the "Celebrity Accomplices" section, "premier" is equivalent to "Episode 1" and "finale" is equivalent to "Episode 8." BigBang19 22:23, 19 April 2006 (PST)

I think the point is that these words are not really appropriate as they have connotations connected with them, things more associated with drama, premier and finale do not simply mean the same thing as episode 1 and episode 8. Since the order of the episodes do not really hold any significance within a season, the 'premier' and 'fanale' names do not really apply. --SnakeSeries 20:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minimal corrections

Currently Kutcher cannot reveal himself for the most of the time since season 6, so stop erasing it.

Also in the last section, some stars were uncredited (mostly when Kutcher's crewmembers set up The Rock). And to make it simple, some stars were just Punk'd victim's accomplice, not pranksters. BigBang19 22:27, 19 April 2006 (PST)

I think you misunderstand the definition of "accomplice" - if you are an accomplice to a prank, you are indirectly taking part in the prank. By definition, one can be an accomplice to a crime or mischief, but not to a victim. For the sake of this article and given the nature of the pranks, it's probably the least confusing to say "(name of accomplice) pranked (name of victim) in Season X Episode Y". Ytny 05:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. Adam Goldstein, for example, was not the accomplice of Nicole Richie, because he helped play the prank on her. Being "the accomplice of" her would've meant that he was helping her to pull a prank on someone else. And whether some accomplices were uncredited is not noteworthy for inclusion in the article.

[edit] Pinkston Segment

Now BigBang19 is vandalizing the passage under Format that mentions Ryan Pinkston's segment, arguing that it "doesn't count as a prank." First of all, whether his segment constituted a "prank" depends on one's view of the definition of the word. The American Heritage Dictionary defines the word as "a mischevous trick", and it's pretty subjective to argue that Pinkston's segment absolutely could not be defined as such. I also question whether BigBang, given the poor diction and grammar he has displayed, really has any solid ground on which to argue against this definition. Second, the section isn't "Pranks". It's "Format". Because that section describes the format of the show, then mentioning aspects of it that are distinct from the elaborate pranks Kutcher plays on celebrities invovling big set-ups and actors playing parts is appropriate for that section. Please stop vandalizing it.

I really hate to erase this and the format section even if you guys continued to improve this article. Also, I really hate to kill this article one by one! BigBang19 02:08 PST, 26 April 2006

I pulled the plug out from the format section, so don't revert it. BigBang19

You guys better read this clearly: The celebrities who were interviewed in season 1 by Ryan Pinkston are not official Punk'd segments, so the only celebrities who got Punk'd are the three in each episode.16:02 PST, 26 April 2006

Where are you getting this information from? If it was a part of the show then it should be mentioned. --SnakeSeries 23:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
"The celebrities who were interviewed in season 1 by Ryan Pinkston are not official Punk'd segments"
Says who? I didn't realize there were "official" and "unofficial" Punk'd segments. Unless you can cite an official source saying they aren't "official", Ryan Pinkston segments should stay, because "official" or not, they were part of the Season 1 episodes. You have to give a more convincing reasoning than "Because I said so". Ytny 01:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You have no authority to "erase" or "pull the plug" on anything (and it is pulling the plug "on" it, not "out from" or "out of"), let alone tell us not to revert it. Your activity is clearly vandalism. Any segment seen in Punk'd is therefore, a Punk'd segment. You have no basis to assert that they are not "official". What you mean is that they are distinct from more elaborate set-up pranks invovling multiple actors and detailed individual settings and scenarios, which has nothing to do with officiality. Because those segments are distinct from those other pranks, they bear mention as to the show's Format. I have also removed the above quote about them not being "official" from the List of celebrities who have been Punk'd article.

[edit] Deleting the article on List of Punk'd Celebrities

Now BigBang is trying to lobby to get the List of celebrities who have been Punk'd article deleted by posting it [1] on the Articles for Deletion Page. Naturally, Glen has declined the request on BigBang's Talk Page. Nightscream 06:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Celebrity Accomplices

[edit] General Discussion

I brought back the "Celebritiy Accomplices" list for a while. But for everytime, when the following people have been punk'd by Kutcher or his crewmembers, their names will be removed from the list and their names will be relocated to List of celebrities who have been Punk'd article. BigBang19 23:33 PST 1 May, 2006

That seems a bit crazy, just because someone has been punk'd doesn't mean they weren't an accomplice at one time. They're not mutually exclusive conditions. --SnakeSeries 19:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Such a decision is completely arbitrary. Whether a celeb has been punk'd themselves has no bearing on whether they were an accomplice on another prank. Nightscream 09:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Celebrity Accomplices (merge discussion)

This section is pretty large and cluttered looking. I think since the people who have been punk'd section has been moved into a new article that we could merge them together, perhaps a new table header Celebrity Accomplices for each person who's been punk'd, and put who they are in there. --SnakeSeries 20:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on merging with the victim article. There's no order or uniformity to it, and it's not all that useful to understanding the show. Ytny 05:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title

I think the title of the section should really be kept as Celebrity Accomplices rather than Celebrity Accomplices still not yet been punkd. Because the latter doesn't really flow as well as the original title, it doesn't seem like correct/nice English wording, and it is not really applicable as discussed above. --SnakeSeries 23:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies

I have deleted the last line of Controversies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Grazielle_Oganna#Grazielle_didn.27t_threat_Kutcher.


[edit] Get Ashton?

After Kaley Cuoco was tricked by Ashton Kutcher's crew members back in Season 3 Episode 3, Cuoco has announced that she will team up with 186 victims (as of season 7 episode 7, including Yankees' Third Baseman/2005 American League MVP Alex Rodriguez and Alias star Michael Vartan), and other non-victims threatened to get punk'd by Kutcher or his crew members (including The Apprentice's Donald Trump, New York Yankees' outfielder Johnny Damon, Detroit Tigers' Pitcher Kenny Rogers, Chicago White Sox Catcher A. J. Pierzynski, Sacramento Kings' small forward Ron Artest to name some), in order to spoof Kutcher by creating a new show called Get Ashton. [2]

Besides the incredible amount of bloat, did any reasonable person come away from reading the linked article and think Cuoco was being serious? Seriously. Ytny 22:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remodified the page

I remodified the Celebrities who have been Punk'd section. User:BigBang19 22:10 PST, 6-11-2006

[edit] Merge tag

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Celebrities who denied their Punk'd Broadcasting Rights. Petros471 19:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge completed, tag removed. --Mitglied von die Elektronischenzyklopädie Schriftleitung 20:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Britney Spears and Busta Rhymes?

Under "Failed Punks", it states, "Spears tried to punk Busta Rhymes in New York City but Kutcher told her to not punk Rhymes." Where and when did this happen? If she "tried" to punk Rhymes, and Kutcher stopped her, does this mean he showed up in the middle of the operation to sabotage it? Or does it just mean that Spears intended to punk Rhymes, and decided against doing so because Kutcher asked her not to?

The latter. This was the final punk in the last episode of the First season.

[edit] Does Justin Timberlake need to be wikilinked over a dozen times?

I think you know the answer. BabuBhatt 16:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Facts

Some info are true since most of the source came by watching the episodes of Punk'd.

For Example

  • JoJo and Juliette Lewis did get punk'd and was on the opening of the Season 4 Premiere, but both of the pranks did not air for unclear reasons. JoJo's Appearence
  • Back in Season 6, Kutcher also admitted on TV that he failed to prank Neve Campbell twice. [3]

User:BigBang19 11:57 PST 9/27/2006

[edit] silly

Juts checked back in after a month or so, and the Bang editor is still up to0 his hi-jinks. "then-wife" is more appropriate than "ex-wife" as they were married at the time and he was punking his wife, not his ex-wife. I hope some right-minded people are keeping an eye on this, because the above punk'd-obsessive is making a mess of things. BabuBhatt 17:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

BigBang19 created the following article with a poorly worded, misspelled title: List of Accomplises appeared on Punk'd. BabuBhatt 17:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About Unaired Pranks

There were at least 8 pranks unaired including Alex Rodriguez, who asked Kutcher to destroy the tape. Could you go to Punk'd site at ifilm.com to watch the credits all over again because I founded more victims at the credits. User:BigBang19 12:27 PST 12/1/2006

[edit] Failed Punk on Andre 3000

On Punk'd, when they pranked Outkast, a phony police officer asked Andre 3000 his name, and he responded with Bill Bixby. Did this essential cause the prank to screw up? Because I would think so, that would mean Andre had caught on, or that he really does have MPD. FinalWish 16:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hall of Shame

I watch the show (have seen every ep) but I can't, for the life of me, ever remember anything relating to a "Hall of Shame" or "Hall of Shame Standard" or "Hall of Shame Inductee" yet these terms are used on all the punk'd pages. What gives? At minimum we need to define what those terms mean. We cannot assume that people who have no prior knowledge of the show will know what that term means, especially if someone who has been watching it doesn't know what it means!

And yes, I can figure out that "Hall of Shame" means they were the worst or shame on them for being punk'd again, or something along those lines. But we do have a responsibility to make this clear on the appropriate pages. Thanks!

Diemunkiesdie 02:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I completely agree I really isn't very clear at all and if you have seen every episode and have no idea what this is about then it could be wrong or at least not sourced properly. thats a big problem with the celebrity list, it doesn't come from any given source. Mad onion 17:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Sequencing

I noticed in the episode featuring Chamillionaire, his hat repeatedly turns from forward to backward between cuts. To me, this suggests either reshoots or editing to improve the show, and not accurate portrayals of the situation(s). I have not looked at any other clips to find any more evidence of this but I question whether the article should mention this inconsistency. J. Achilles Troy 00:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If you recall, in one of the shots he is clearly seen changing the position of the hat himself. I would assume that it is like a nervous tick and he changed the position of the hat himself when he was out of the frame. In any case, if you have a link to a clip of that prank we could properly verify whether it was multiple takes or if it was all in one shot.Diemunkiesdie 01:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Punk'd logo.jpg

Image:Punk'd logo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Princess Diana

Yeah, the reference to Princess Diana being punk'd (Entertainment Weekly Red Carpet list) should probably be removed shouldn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.223.43 (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] off topic

I know this is not the purpose of disc pages, but does anyone know who the russian speaking woman in s1E6 (bmw towed) is? I think I recognize her from somewhere, but her name's not given. Is she a celeb? --84.159.176.191 (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)