Talk:Grown Ups (film)

Actor salaries if the movie cost $80 million

When I saw the budget of $80 million for this movie I just can't imagine the film production would cost that much for this particular unless the actors are making huge payouts?

I would like to know what was the budget paid per actor in this film? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.140.176 (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The source (LA Times) says $70-80 million. It doesn't go into detail with how much each actor got. In fact, we probably won't ever know since that's usually not revealed. Mike Allen 22:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

mainly vs universally

I changed the word mainly to universally. The reviews warrant the word. :jon

The Plot

The plot section needs to be edited. It seems a middle schooler wrote some of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.16.70.244 (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Joyce Van Patten

The article states that she IS married to the film's director Dennis Dugan; however, their respective wiki pages reveal that they're divorced since1987. But worse than that, this article states that she is 30 years older than him, when their pages indicate that they were born with 12 years of difference. Please review and correct. Microamigo (talk) 10:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Junior high school team

It was their junior high school team, not high school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.253.50.238 (talk) 00:30, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Critical reception

The article incorrectly cites rotten tomatoes: "Review aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes give the film a score of 100% based on 163,984 reviews, with an average score of 8.3/10" This should read: 10% & 3.3/10 Source: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/grown_ups/

Rotten Tomatoes in the lead

A week ago, NinjaRobotPirate edited the lead to mention the score on Rotten Tomatoes. We generally don't show this in the lead, so I changed it to simply say that the film received largely negative reviews. NinjaRobotPirate reverted my edit, and when I changed it back, I was recklessly accused of "edit warring," even though I executed only one reversion. I'm fine with mentioning why it was poorly received, but the Rotten Tomatoes score should be for the reception section. Songwaters (talk) 03:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

There is no reason to avoid Rotten Tomatoes in the lead. Rotten Tomatoes is a review aggregator, which means that it tells us what critics thought. Using a review aggregator is better than guessing at what they thought – "overwhelmingly negative", "largely negative", etc. Or one could say that the film received "generally unfavorable reviews" per Metacritic. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Billing block

Names on billing blocks on further posters or home releases are pretty common in infoboxes when there is no billing block on the main poster. Joker is a prime example. Quentin X (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this here. I see your point. I see @NinjaRobotPirate: also on this talk page - do you agree with Quentin X? Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't really understand what this is about – names in the infobox? I don't think that's a big deal. I usually just go with whatever Quentin X puts in the article since all the times that I've checked his work, it was correct. The template says to use the poster from the "original theatrical release" if available, for what it's worth. If these names are from home video release or whatever, they probably don't need to be here. If there are theatrical posters that have their names, I'd say, "Why not just let it go?" NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd also be inclined to go with "original theatrical release" over every possible home release poster out there. I haven't looked into Joker's situation, but if it's based on home video posters, it may not be doing it correctly. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 14:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't like going with home release and I'm a little unsure myself about Joker. However, the other poster that I mentioned looks like a teaser as it has 'Coming Soon' on it with a full block so I tend to think these are OK to go off. Just my opinion of course! Quentin X (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Vaselineeeeeeee, are you happy to go with the poster block of the alternative poster? Quentin X (talk) 07:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I still would lean on the 'no' side given I do not know in what capacity that poster was used—if this change were to be done, I'd also like to see what posters are available for the sequel film (ie. if they do the same thing). Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 13:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The problem here is that there are plenty of posters flying around with billing blocks on them for various types of releases when the US 1 sheet doesn't (mostly international). With Grown Ups and its sequel the poster used has an actual release date on it but if you take the poster I linked to as a "teaser" as it says "Coming Soon" then it would have been used on the article beforehand and only replaced with the poster in the article once that poster was released. Which is why I tend to go with billing blocks on any kind of theatrical release. Quentin X (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like Grown Ups 2 did the same thing. If you want to add it back to both, I won't fight you on the matter. It would be good to also source this ref. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 13:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)