Talk:Wedding Crashers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is supported by the District of Columbia WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to District of Columbia-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
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.
Comedy Portal
This article is within the scope of the Comedy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to comedy, comics, comedians, comedy movies, and the like. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

I'm concerned about the unencyclopedic description of the movie, particularly in the Plot section, which fails to SUCCINCTLY summarize the movie, instead recapping to unnecessary detail. Also, unprofessional vocabulary (including at least one use of the word "gonna") and bad grammar run rampant. This needs to be fixed. Mitchell 00:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Please mention the origin of the "official" Wedding Crashers rules. Where did these come from?

Although many rules, including the numbers, were mentioned in the movie, there were definitely not more than 100 of them mentioned (although the numbers given by the characters did exceed 100). I don't know where the interpolations to the rule list came from. --Maande10 05:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The rules came from one of the extras on the DVD and there were infact more than 100.

Who answered.Please sign. That way we'll know who looks foolish when the dust settles. "Infact" the young woman is correct, the movie did not mention nearly 100. The DVD added some. It also added a quail hunting game. Ironically, it involves drinking. Also ironically, and less-well-known, it gives extra points if you TRY to shoot the other hunters. 67.81.50.181 23:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

A cheap question: Does anyone know the names of the actresses who played the girl who are conquered by the crashers? I am especially interested in the actress that played the Asian girl!.

This film is funny yes but why all the need for all the smut and sexual stuff why does every single film have to have this stuff why need it ??? it didnt add any thing to the storyline or take away why cant directors and script writers need to put Bad language and sexual smuttyness into a film ????? typical hollywood greed for the big $$$$ or in my case being from the UK the big ££££ ....I will never watch this film again ....

And your personal view on this matter has what exactly to do with the wikipedia entry? 151.151.21.99 21:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)CostnerM

Regarding the Trivia section, the Orioles game John and Jeremy are wacthing is in color. Therefore, not all the TV's are in black and white and I have edited as such.

Contents

[edit] Plot Summary

The Plot Summary hasn't been written...And I don't own a copy of the movie for quick reference to write it...

[edit] DVD 2-pack source

Someone stated that both Wedding Crashers and The 40 Year-Old Virgin are available in a low-price 2-pack. I feel this needs a source. Both titles were released by two completely different studios- Time Warner and Universal Studios. I have searched on Amazon.com, Best Buy.com, and Circuit City.com and I have not seen this 2-pack as stated.

does anyone know who plays the wedding singer in this movie and what song he sang when he started cussing.?

I think you're referring to the movie The Wedding Singer. If my assumption is correct, you're thinking of "Total Eclipse of the Heart" by The Dan Band. -Rhrad 04:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
No, it's Old School where The Dan Band performs "Total Eclipse..." ChesterG 05:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rules

Is the list of rules really necessary? It seems NN to me. Carl.bunderson 04:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well as no one objects, I'm going through with it. Carl.bunderson 21:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmph. "see talk". See you talk to yourself? Riight. Well, they are notible. They're cited several times and serve as a key element in the character's lives. A bible, of sorts. Amd frankly, I'm getting really tired of these kind of notibility questions when have freaking list articles with a NN theme. Needless to say, I'm reverting your edit. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 15:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I think have the rules here make this article a fun, useful, accurate reference. -Rhrad 04:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed.

Anon user here, getting rid of the rules for the following reason: They are certainly not "notible" as about 80% of the rules quoted do not appear in the film at all. They are not illustrative of the characters and some seem to be unrelated to the movie. Furthermore, near the end of the movie Vince Vaughn belittles the rules and his stuttering when mentioning rule 115 suggests that there is no set of rules; they are all made up on the spot. Thus, there would be no stable list. I have a Wedding Crashers DVD, and there is no such list on my copy. I'm taking it out, if you want to revert it give me a valid reason.

Also, for the record: NOTABLE. NOTABILITY.

I see. What copy do you have? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm the anon who got rid of the rules, now no longer anon. Apparently not signing in is some major sign of disrespect, that's fine I'll sign in. Uh, I have New line platinum series Widescreen Uncorked edition I can't find what year it came out, probably 2005. Despite the fact that I am new and made this comment anonymously, I stand by it. Jfocht1 09:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't exactly agree with this, but I suppose it'd be me managable without the rules, and no one seems to be objecting. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but if you buy the poster from "http://www.beyondthewall.com", there is a poster, made by the people who produced this movie, The 115 [legitament] Rules of Wedding Crashing. So stop trying to ruin the fun of the rules and keep them on. Also on the official Wedding Crashers website, it has a link to "http://www.iamchazz.com", where it lists 50 of them.
The rules are on the DVD. End of discussion as far as I'm concerned. Mcflytrap 15:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fluff Piece

I really question the neautrality of this article. Take for example the following passage:

"It was also very well received by critics, who admired the natural chemistry between Wilson and Vaughn, comparing them in some instances to Paul Newman and Robert Redford in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (the comparisons might have been inspired by the very similar carefree bike-riding scenes found in both movies). The film also had extremely long legs, grossing over $209 million. This is quite a feat, considering most movies that made around $33 million in their opening weekend only managed about $100 million in 2005."

Could this possibly sound MORE like something written by a studio PR shill? Please! Also, I think it's downright misleading to say the movie was "very well received by critics", unless you're literally referring to the small number of critics that gave it an overwhelmingly positive reveiw. A quick scan of the most well know external reviewers on IMBD.com will quickly show a clear consensus average review of 2 stars (out of 4). I think a more accurate decription would be "received mixed, but generally positive reviews", or something similar to that. Ron Stock. 18:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving list to Wikiqoute?

Would'nt this be pretty appropriate, it seems most articles on wikipedia with long list sooner or later get them moved to wikiqoute, and then a link to the article... --Konstantin 16:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm moving it to wikiquote... If anyone objects then you can always revert... --Konstantin 14:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Production

Why are there two production headers? This is a drive-by post: I just viewed the article to find out the general plot, I haven't seen the actual film. -- Annie D 12:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved Rules

I moved the rules to Wikiquote per WP:IINFO and WP:NOTABILITY. Just because these rules are mentioned in the movie does not make them notable. Only a handful of these rules are actually mentioned in the movie, and when they are mentioned they are basic one-liners with little context in the conversation. The rules can be found at The Wedding Crashers Rules on Wikiquote.
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 07:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Judd Apatow???

Why is Apatow credited with production of this film, did he have any involvement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JTWoodsworth (talk • contribs) 23:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apatow Style

Why is Judd Apatow being associated with this film if he had nothing to do with it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JTWoodsworth (talk • contribs) 08:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About the "Trailer Crashers" link...

To the person who put that link & the instructions for it up:either explain how to do it/how you did it or the link will be removed in seven days from today. I have attempted to follow your instructions and they got me nowhere. 98.193.77.218 (talk) 08:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the link because it really has no useful information to which we should be linking. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I was actually going to wait to see if the person who posted the link & instructions was going to explain how to do whatever. But, if the majority thought is that the link is irrelevant, then I'm glad it's gone. 98.193.77.218 (talk) 05:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, if I find a link questionable I tend to delete it, because the EL sections tend to get crufty very quickly. Carl.bunderson (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plot

Someone seems to have changed the Plot section from being overly detailed to reading like something you would find on the back of the box. In fact, it looks so much like it, that I wouldn't be surprised at all if that is where it is from. 64.91.186.214 (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

These changes seem to have been made on 27 January 2008 by a user named Trident13. Now these changes aren't necessarily bad, but an overly in depth description seems to have turned into an incomplete one... that ends with a question, which is very un-wikipedia-like.64.91.186.214 (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Hungh?

A "Sex Lioness is...? A sex kitten all grown up...? A sex kitten on steroids...? Something else I'm too un-hip to get...? What...?

Basesurge (talk) 07:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)