Talk:Date Movie

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

United States: Cinema Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force.

Romance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romance, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional romance in literature and romantic fiction writers. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.RomanceWikipedia:WikiProject RomanceTemplate:WikiProject Romanceromance articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Comedy

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

$20 million budget?[edit]

This movie seriously cost that much? It was just a bunch of random clips that could have been made by a high school film student. Did it seriously cost that

Hollywood accounting makes it impossible to say for sure but both of the usual sources say $20 million [1].

That is only the production budget, marketing and other costs would add even more on to the final cost of the film. -- Horkana (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kill Bill spoof scene[edit]

I'm assuming that's "Andy" and "Julia", in which case maybe the caption should say so? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

rated[edit]

umm excuse me , i want to watch date movie but i dont know what its rated:rated r,rated PG,rated Pg13,rated PG 14????????which one?please answer someone

the article rates it as PG-13. but in my opinion it isn't worth paying to see as it does seem to be quite a poor film with very predictable jokes and tries to earn notoriety by having disgusting scenes like waxing a hairy fat woman (i actually had to chuck my dinner away when i saw that, that's never happened before). perhaps you could watch it for curiosity's sake if it's on TV and there's nothing better to watch, that's about the only excuse for subjecting yourself to it. From the sounds of it, Epic Movie is just as poor, if not worse.--KX36 20:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music[edit]

What was the music be played in the part that was making fun of Kill Bill?

I think your talking about the "alarm" which would be the first part of Ironside by Quincy Jones

Twin Peaks[edit]

I know it's not as if it was made up for the show but isn’t the whole cherry stalk carousel thing a reference to the character Audrey Horne (Sherilyn Fenn) tying a knot in a cherry stalk on the TV show Twin Peaks? If so, it should be added to the list of TV shows parodied.

Movies being spoofed[edit]

How does one know which movies are exactly being spoofed (For example, where were the parodies to A Lot Like Love and Shallow Hal?)? Having a similarity with another movie does not constitute a parody. Irk _(talk) 04:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen A Lot Like Love, but as for Shallow Hal I only noticed one main part (excluding the fat issue!). There is a scene in Shallow Hal in which the main character shows her compassion for homeless people by giving them her food. There is a scene in Date Movie where Julia starts beating up a homeless person. Bubble bunny

The scene in which Grant discovers Julia's underwear is also a spoof IMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.175.213.4 (talk) 06:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A list of these films would be very helpful. I think King Kong is one of the films spoofed, isn't it? Scorpionman 12:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and LOTR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.85.209 (talk) 17:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xmen 2[edit]

I don't remember and Xmen 2 spoof. What part was that? Bubble bunny

Fair use rationale for Image:Date movie.jpg[edit]

Image:Date movie.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 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 03:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date Movie 2 Link[edit]

Why does it link straight to the original's page? (74.215.117.153 16:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Shallow Hal spoof[edit]

I recently posted the scene in which Grant discovers Julia's huge underwear, which I consider as a clear spoof of a very similar scene in Shallow Hal. In fact, Julia's obesity reminds a lot of Rosemary in that film. Why was it deleted?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.175.213.4 (talk) 06:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"respectable bow"?[edit]

Resolved

What on earth does "garnered a respectable bow" mean? Is it a standard American phrase? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.79.118 (talk) 08:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Garnered" = earned, "respectable" = considerable, "bow" = debut. So "garnered a respectible bow" = a really over written way of claiming the movie made a lot of money when it opened. I don't see a source in the story for this claim, so I yanked it. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parodies[edit]

The parodies section has been tagged as unreferenced. Some of these refernces are supported by the plot or are in character names and do not actually need references but it would be better if most of them did have some kind of supporting reference. If the people who like this film can watch it agian with the DVD commentary and provide references/citations to when the film makers say they are spoofing something else that would be good enough too. The other way to improve this would be to have much more critical response in this article and then reuse those references to properly WP:VERIFY the section.

Below I include my previous explanation from WT:MOSFILM (Wikipedia Project Film: Talk) where I explained as an example how an editor could improve this section:

That section is ugly as sin - listomania gone mad - but those films are barely written at all and consist almost entirely of referencing other films and passing it off as parody. It would be doing readers and editors a disservice if we were excessively strict interpretation of the rules be used as an excuse to delete all that good faith effort instead of trying to salvage something from that mess. I guess a case like that I'd push that ugly abomination to the talk page and insist that people go through the many reviews on out there and come up with proper references for at least the main films being referenced which in the case of Date Movie would seem to be My Big Fat Greek Wedding and Meet The Fockers - even properly referencing those two is something the article fails to do.

Some of those references are so obviously supported by plot, such as cases where the character name makes the intended reference blindingly obvious and insisting on citations in cases like that would be unnecessary.

It's not that difficult as I said above to cram much the same information into the critical response section. (Seems like Ebert wasn't forced to review it, so moving on to the next critic whose name I remember...) Owen Gleiberman actually managed to say nice things about it in his review: Owen Gleiberman (2006-02-22). "Date Movie (2006)". Entertainment Weekly. Time Inc. hodgepodge of My Big Fat Greek Wedding, Bridget Jones's Diary, Meet the Fockers, Hitch, and Sleepless in Seattle

That article can be improved if anyone actually cares enough to do it, didn't take me all that long to write this comment. Deleting is an easy, improving is hard but that misses the point of Wikipedia, which at its best usually does gradually improve. -- Horkana (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of potential to both expand the critical reponse section of this article and verify the Parodies setion at the same time. The wiki source of this comment even includes a properly formatted {{cite web}} from critic Owen Glieberman, for any editor interested in improving the Critical response section of this article with a critic who has almost postive things to say about the film. -- Horkana (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for sources on the parodies (in my case, anyway) is not about doubting the obvious ones (though some are less certain). Really, it's about removing trivia. Compare this to other comedy films. Older comedies get a plot overview with a general idea of the style of comedy and possibly some of the larger/longer jokes in the film. More recent comedy films end up with extensive plot sections that cover the general plot and include virtually every joke that some random editor felt like saying they found funny. These need periodic cleaning out so that the plot doesn't overrun the rest of the article. Then we have recent parody films. Films like this target numerous films, often with one-shot jokes. To say we should include all of those parody references is to say that those other recent comedy films should have equally detailed plot sections. That is not what Wikipedia is supposed to be. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List has been trimmed back again [2] but I'm fairly sure many of those listed could be added back if anyone actually cares enough to find proper sources. -- 109.77.211.63 (talk) 20:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Date Movie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]