 | This article was nominated for deletion on 9 January 2015. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
(Untitled)
editThis is titled/modeled after Not Another Teen Movie and Scary Movie, no? --Galaxiaad 15:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
My friend said that this appears to be a Gay remake of American Pie. Worth a mention? --JaffaCakeLover 16:18, 17 September 2006 (GMT)
- What is the 'first movie' that the opening paragraph refers to?
The majority of the "Synopsis" section is cut from an advert for the film, and probably should be rewritten with a more factual and NPOV take?
Overly-long plot synopsis
editThat there plot synopsis is way long. There's some guidelines for Wikipedia plot synopses somewhere. Go look it up. --192.68.228.4 23:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Scene
editI removed the following paragraph due to a lack of citations. If anyone has the citations it could possible be put back but as it now is I see it as nothing more than trivia.
An original part of the plot which is in the deleted scenes section of the DVD involves a rather adventurous piece where Jarod and Nico are "comparing sizes" in the shower room at their local gym. A certain brand of penis pump is predominately shown in the scene leading the audience to believe one or both are using it in this bizarre contest. The scene was pulled after several hundred Heterosexual users of the pump complained about the unwanted publicity. Ironically the lawsuit that eventually ensued was dropped when the scene was cut from the main movie and several questions were raised with why these alleged "heterosexuals" were watching "Another Gay Movie" in the first place.
Quick question
editWhy didn't they just fuck each other? Seems pretty simple. Is this resolved in the film somehow?
- Probably because they were friends, not necessarily attracted to each other. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 11:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
This isn't a messageboard, but in fact 2 of the characters choose this option. 12.162.122.5 (talk) 18:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
American Pie
editI don't understand how the film isn't mentioned in this article at all.12.162.122.5 (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- Do you have a source that links the two? If not, there's your answer... Doniago (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Sources that could be useful but don't seem appropriate how they were used
edit(According to external links and further reading guidelines). --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Padva, Gilad. Boys Want to Have Fun! Carnivalesque Adolescence and Nostalgic Resorts in Another Gay Movie and Another Gay Sequel. In Padva, Gilad, Queer Nostalgia in Cinema and Pop Culture, pp. 98–122 (Palgrave Macmillan, 2014, ISBN 978-1-137-26633-0).
Follow-up: removed the other three sources (didn't notice they were deadlinks). --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Reviews
editIn looking for sources for the AfD it looked to me that the consensus was something like mixed-to-negative. Was adding that along with these two refs[1][2] but there was an edit conflict with the addition of a positive review. I'm frankly not sure how best to balance it, having not seen the film and not read all of the reviews. Will leave them here. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:58, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
References
- ^ Lee, Nathan (28 July 2006). "Skewering the Status Quo in "Another Gay Movie"". New York Times.
- ^ Hardy, Michael (1 September 2006). "Gross 'Gay Movie' is just jumbled 'Pie'". Boston Globe.
- Consensus at WP:FILM has been that it's generally preferable not to use ranges such as mixed-to-negative in film articles. Additionally, it's somewhat original research to make such a claim. I'd recommend using the RottenTomatoes and Metacritic scores and then including excerpts from specific reviews where it seems appropriate. If the reviews are contradictory then it may be best to simply not make any sort of summary statement. Or just say "reviews were mixed" or something along those lines. DonIago (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Aha. Didn't know that, thanks. My only concern is that it seemed to pass WP:NF but the article when I saw it was in relatively tough shape. Didn't seem useful to use a rotten tomatoes templates given only a few reviews there, so yes, it was indeed OR. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- The film was definitely mixed to negative as a whole, but The Advocate in its niche role is more positive for its audience and the "it needs to be done" rather than its artistic merits. The film is usually at 2 1/2 stars from most niche reviewers, but 1 or none for more general reviewers. By all means, add to this. The film does have some redeeming aspects, but I just came to this because I saw the AFD by chance. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Aha. Didn't know that, thanks. My only concern is that it seemed to pass WP:NF but the article when I saw it was in relatively tough shape. Didn't seem useful to use a rotten tomatoes templates given only a few reviews there, so yes, it was indeed OR. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Consensus at WP:FILM has been that it's generally preferable not to use ranges such as mixed-to-negative in film articles. Additionally, it's somewhat original research to make such a claim. I'd recommend using the RottenTomatoes and Metacritic scores and then including excerpts from specific reviews where it seems appropriate. If the reviews are contradictory then it may be best to simply not make any sort of summary statement. Or just say "reviews were mixed" or something along those lines. DonIago (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)