Talk:Shag (film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Removal of "needs-infobox" tag[edit]

This article has had its infobox tag removed by a cleanup using AWB. Any concerns please leave me a message at my talk page. RWardy 20:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VHS and DVD Versions[edit]

The VHS version by HBO Home Video has superior audio and additional music tracks than the MGM DVD. The DVD of course, is in the original theatrical aspect ration vs the Pan & Scan HBO version. If you like this film, I suggest you purchase both home video versions. Bwmoll3 (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fanzine?[edit]

This article reads more like a fanzine piece than an encyclopedia. Does anyone else really care that some anoymous author is fascinated by the actors' relatives, who have nothing to do with the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.154.255.214 (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Title in UK[edit]

It's kind of shocking this film is a UK co-production. Was it known by a different tile in the UK? I remember reading that Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me was officially released in the UK as Austin Powers II because "shag" is considered a vulgarity in the UK. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact this film, and the Austin Powers one, were released under their original titles in the UK. The intended audiences, mainly young, were not likely to be offended. Some local councils may have had an issue with the posters, but it does not seem to have been a big problem. Khamba Tendal (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack[edit]

The tracks listed under "Songs in the originally theatrically released film, (Not on the copyright compliant home video}" are not consistent with the tracks listed by the studio as being in the original theatrical soundtrack. Instead, the tracks listed under "Songs added on the copyright-compliant home video" are the ones actually reported by the studio to be in the original theatrical version. It seems like maybe these two listings were incorrectly switched at some point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:300A:511:5900:12DD:B1FF:FECB:CA4C (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]