Talk:Grandma's Boy (2006 film)

	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.

Film: American

	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.

The plot summary is in desperate need of a rewrite. Spelling errors and ambiguous wording galore. Ignitus 11:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you, in fact I think it might even be a good idea to revert the plot section to its initial creation. I know it is brief, I haven't seen the film, but at least it is coherent and readable. Rje 04:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've done a pretty extensive rewrite of the plot section. Although far from perfect, I think it's a good start. I've also removed the clean up tag for the time being. --Impaciente

I cleaned up a few minor comma placements and a couple of other things, but I still think that there might be a need for some changes to the plot section's layout. Several events and characters that I think are fairly important to the plot are introduced in a sort of after-the-fact manner. --Diggoryvenn

In trivia for Grandma's Boy, I'm adding that the videogame Alex makes (Demonik) is/was a real game. It was/is planned to come out along side a film of the same name.Justanothercliche 06:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I think I heard the same thing at one point, albeit quite a while ago. But given the awful box office takings - I think it made $6m in the US - I think we can take the silence as it having been cancelled. Rje 12:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it was because of the box office because they were probably going to wait until DVD so they could pack the game with the disc or wait a couple weeks/months after the initial DVD release. Either way, I'm pretty sure Majesco went bankrupt before they could even determine whether this movie was a success or not.ChesterG 15:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

What's with the "criticized for being a little too late"? Where'd they hear that? The person who added this probably just put it down because that's what they feel about the movie, but the film's not really infamous for having older games in the flick. And why's it say Allen Covert hates video games? I don't remember anything like that being said on the special features. ChesterG 15:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Missing Trivia ...

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have no clue what happened to the majority on this page. I was editing the page as anonymous and had clicked "Save Page". I realized I had forgot to log in, so I stopped the browser and signed in as myself. When I went back to edit the page I see that the trivia is mostly gone. I panicked at first untill I realized that we should have all the trivia up to immediately before I blundered in. I just thought I should alert this to people's attention.

Most trivia belongs in a well-written production/cultural references or art direction section with citations. I'll take a stab (later). --Lexein 14:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

J.P's techno song?

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Anyone know the name of it?--24.195.135.159 (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

POV content, editorial, "cult" fluff

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In this edit, I once again reverted Mansmokingacigar's introduction of content that I don't find wholly suitable for inclusion. Mansmokingcigar, please note that per WP:BRD if reverted, the onus is on you to open a discussion to seek consensus for inclusion, which I am doing for you here. Describing the box take as a "disappointment" is a subjective statement that is not directly attributed to any source, but even if it were, I don't see the value of including it, since simply reporting the budget and the gross should do just fine without editorializing about the performance. I'm not a fan of summarizing critical aggregator totals because they are already summaries and it seems ridiculous to summarize a summary. That said, I'm not staunchly against saying that the film received generally negative reviews. The statement that the film "has attracted a cult following" does not warrant inclusion for a few reasons: 1) it is a fluffy statement that has not been supported in the article by multiple reliable sources, so thus far it constitutes original research and 2) even if sourced, everything under the sun has a "cult following", because virtually every film produced, good or bad, has some kind of fan base. I just don't think this content warrants inclusion unless there's some sort of established relevance to this. The Rocky Horror Picture Show clearly has a cult following, because there is a significant fanbase devoted to attending midnight screenings, learning the lines, performing in the theaters, etc. Saying that the film has a cult following without explaining what the scope of that following is or what makes it a cult following doesn't seem to do much but come off as promotional, POV fluff. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Add topic