Talk:Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (film)

Is Penny real?

No mention of Penny in either the Barris article or this one... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.94.156 (talk) 08:54, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Film

This article is written almost expressly from the POV of the film, when the title was originally an autobiogrpahy. While the facts of the autobiography may be disputed, I think that the article itself should mainly be about the book (it differs enough from what Chuck Barris was really known for and raised enough eyebrows that it should be separate from the Chuck Barris article). The fact that it was later remade into a film is swell, but that shouldn't trump the original book. I suggest that the article either begin with a summary of the book's contents and critical reaction to the book, followed by further details of the film adaptation, or else the entire article should be split in two. Wencer 19:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd recommend that the articles be split. --Robert Merkel 07:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a need for the article to be split as it is entirely about the film. If you would like an article about the book, I would create another article. Count de Ville 02:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

De-spoilerize?

Currently it's impossible to read this article without spoiling the plot. The mole and its identity are not revealed until the last 10 minutes of the movie! I think we can do better than that! brain (talk) 05:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

For anyone who is interested, please review this page: Wikipedia:Spoiler. Wordreader (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

How does one explain failure

It says in the article, "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind was a box office bomb..." then continues, "...largely due to competition from The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, Catch Me If You Can and Chicago." I don't see the point of that comment. If a film does badly there are usually others which did better. The fact that others did better doesn't explain the failure. It's a bit like suggesting that someone only came fourth because others came first, second and third. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.233.172 (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. I checked the reference, and it did not actually comment on why this film did poorly at the box office. It appears to be synthesis, and I've removed the statement. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This movie is NOT a box office bomb?

Twice in the article, it is written that this movie was a box office bomb with one of the mentions also having a citation. By wikipedia's own article on box office bombs, it is a movie where revenue earned by the film is greatly exceeded by the film's production and marketing costs. Sounds like a reasonable definition even if that article doesn't have it cited. The citation in question says that the movie earned $16 million but it appears that this is only American gross revenue. The preceding citation (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=confessionsofadangerousmind.htm) mentions the $16 million dollar takings but that overseas revenue was also $17 million. Set against the $30 million budget mentioned in the article and references, this would mean the movie made a modest profit. (Depending on if the $30 million figure includes any marketing costs)

I will happily remove the two mentions of this myself and the associated citation (http://ie.movies.ign.com/articles/434/434352p1.html) but I wanted some feedback to see if my rationale is fair and accurate first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sucksbie (talk • contribs) 21:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The "Insider's Formula" for estimating movie profit/loss is Gross Revenue / 2 - Budget (The division of gross by 2 is to factor for marketing costs, which are not typically included in production budget.)

$33M / 2 - $30M = -$13M

So, yeah, this movie LOST millions of dollars - there's no "moderate success" about it, and this Wikipedia article should articulate that clearly.

~~ DRDMovieMusings (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Confessions of a Dangerous Mind. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160428002211/http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/confessions_of_a_dangerous_mind/ to http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/confessions_of_a_dangerous_mind/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/reviews/cl-et-turan31dec31%2C0%2C4659984.story?coll=cl-mreview

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 05:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Confessions of a Dangerous Mind. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090227215636/http://movies.about.com/library/weekly/aaconfessionsintb.htm to http://movies.about.com/library/weekly/aaconfessionsintb.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 08:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Book? (also a question about the poster billing block)

Does anyone know much about the actual memoir? Surprised at first that it doesn't have an entry, but maybe it flew under the radar back in the 80s. Barris' attempt at staying relevant and controversial? Or was he still relevant in 1984? The Way of the Fewture (talk) 15:31, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Also, I noticed in the infobox that the cast billing is in alphabetical order. Went in to "correct" it to the usual most-to-least prominent players order, but noticed that the cast had been listed as such per the billing order on the poster. Is that typically how that's followed in infoboxes? The Way of the Fewture (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)