Talk:Friends with Benefits (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleFriends with Benefits (film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 13, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
September 10, 2015Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 25, 2015.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the YouTube trailer of Friends with Benefits attracted over a million views in 48 hours, becoming the most viewed video in the film category?
Current status: Good article

Comparison to film No Strings Attached[edit]

There have been repeated attempts recently to edit the page by drawing comparisons of Friends with Benefits to No Strings Attached and, in effect, stating that this is a rip off of No Strings Attached, or just copying the story. I feel it is important to point out a few details. First of all, the films were shot at almost the same time. NSA began production in May of 2010 and FWB began production in July of 2010. That is very close on a film production schedule. Secondly, the fact is FWB registered the title of "Friends with Benefits" first and that is why they kept that title while the Ivan Reitman film needed to be re-named to NSA. The fact is FWB is not ripping off the other film, as they were in production at the same time. It is simply a case of NSA being released first. I think there should be a reasonable understanding that all rom-coms have a simple and similar plot line.....boy meets girl, boy gets girl. This in not exactly new stuff. The fact that both of these films share a similar theme in terms of how their relationship begins is irrelevant and does not need to be stated in the article in a way that suggests it is a rip off. Nor should a personal opinion about any comparisons to another film be used in this context. Especially when it is not part of the sourced and quoted material. In the future, especially after the film is released, if a reliable source makes a comparison of the films, such as in review discussions, that is entirely different and within reason.Fsm83 (talk) 04:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That having been said, the article *should* mention the notable similarities and release dates, with a link to the page delineating the many times this has happened. It's not a judgement, but it is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.177.145 (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other then sharing the basic theme of a relationship that begins with a non commital sexual relationship the films do not share a storyline that is notable or relevant. Both follow what is a predictable storyline for all rom coms. There is a link on both this article and the NSA article that link each film to the other with release date information. This is also explained in the production notes section that the director and studio dealt with in terms of the timing of releases.Fsm83 (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia[edit]

When Jamie picks up Dylan at the airport in the very beginning she has no name plate with his name on it. She improvises and uses the plate of another guy who is about to leave. She writes Dylans name on the back with her lipstick, but on the front side the name O. Penderghast is written. Funny to know that Emma Stone, who playes Dylans ex-girlfriend Kayla, plays the role of Olive Penderghast in the movie "Easy A" from 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.228.17.200 (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BBFC & MPAA rating[edit]

What are they and why?--88.111.116.8 (talk) 19:22, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Failed GA[edit]

I just looked at the article, and found it to be of good quality. I visited its talk page, and saw that it is a failed GAN. The reviewer didn't quite properly review it. Comparing this film to film like Avatar. Seriously? They found it "too short" to pass it, but there is no criterion that says "short articles can't pass GA". It already covers the major aspects – lead, plot, production, reviews, box-office. I think any film covering these aspects can surely meet criterion #3: "broad in coverage". I will do some work on it (not expansion as it does not need) and I am going to renominate it. -- Frankie talk 11:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 September 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus for move, despite a relisting. (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 01:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Friends with Benefits (film) → Friends with Benefits – Meets DIFFCAPS to differentiate the term from Friends with benefits. Among other works titled Friends with Benefits, the 2011 film article is far and away the most popular. It is therefore presumed that most readers searching for "Friends with Benefits" (capital B) are looking for the 2011 film. A hatnote can point the minority to the dab page. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC) — relisted by user:SSTflyer at 07:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - agree with Chase. – FrB.TG (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support by far the most likely search term out of all the subjects with a capital "B". Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Too many other things with this title, and the DIFFCAPS argument is very weak, because people have a strong tendency to capitalize sayings, Internet memes, and other stock phrases as a form of emphasis. DIFFCAPS is meant for cases like distinguishing an acronym from a plain-English word.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the most viewed topic with the capitalized title "Friends with Benefits". It has about 6x as many views as the tv series, and that should be enough to qualify for primary topic. kennethaw88 • talk 02:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Robsinden and SMcCandlish. It's a common phrase which has been used in social occasions as well as other media, so giving a film the primary negates, at a minimum, the social use. Randy Kryn 13:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • DIFFCAPS differentiates the social use from the capitalized title of a work. Chase (talk | contributions) 16:24, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Per WP:DIFFCAPS and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Clearly a large majority of people typing in the phrase are searching for the film. Station1 (talk) 03:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose no absolute topic for Friends With Benefits with or without capital W. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As SMcCandlish says, in normal people's day to day writing, (and as can be seen with a casual Google search of sources) there's no reason why "Friends with Benefits" shouldn't mean casual sex as well as any of the other entries on the dab page. DIFFCAPS only applies where there is a definite difference in capitalisation, and that difference has to meet WP:RECOGNIZE. MAVEN and Maven for example. No primary topic, so dab page it should be.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Friends with Benefits (film). 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 19:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Friends_with_Benefits_(film)&oldid=1207313516"