Talk:Kiss Kiss Bang Bang

Requested move

• Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang → Kiss Kiss Bang Bang — there is no , (comma) in the title of the film Tug201 15:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

I think the article Kiss Kiss Bang Bang should be a straight redirect here instead of a disambiguation page - the movie is far more notable. PeepP 18:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This page is wrong anyway, there is no , in the title. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang should be the film page, with a link to Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (disambiguation) at the top. Cvene64 13:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Moved. —Nightstallion (?) 11:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2000) What about the other movie? http://akas.imdb.com/title/tt0173568/

US DVD release

anyone have verifiable US DVD release info? Streamless 20:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Amazon UK has it at March 13 [1]. It doesn't look like the US release data has been announced. - Richfife 21:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

thanks! Streamless 18:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler from "The Movie Spoiler"

I wrote the spoiler that's on "The Movie Spoiler" and I am OK without it being copied in whole or in part into the article if it will solve the spoiler link debate. Is it too much detail for Wikipedia? -- Richfife 00:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I copied the spoiler over and tweaked it a bit. It could use some more slimming. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.173.147 (talk) 07:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

I withdraw this. The spoiler from "The Movie Spoiler" isn't appropriate to Wikipedia. - Richfife (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Trivia

What is meant by: The best boy credits are given to Jack Bauer. -- User:Johnny-Carmello 10 June 2006 20:45 GMT

see best boy - Nunh-huh 19:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess you'd have to know who Jack Bauer is -- I still don't get it --Spesek 22:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

See Jack Bauer, though unless someone can cite otherwise I'm willing to bet it's just a huge coincidence MarkSutton 17:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The very last lines of the film have Gay Perry taking a verbal pot shot at the Best Boy (but not by name), thus him being mentioned in the article. - Richfife 23:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Trivia...Vandals?

Perhaps it's the crude phrasing of this that makes me question it. "The actress who has allegedly been fucked more times than she's had hot meals appears in the Genaro's Beer commercial at the end of the film." We don't know who she is? And does use of the word "fuck" seem unncessary here? I don't want to be a stick in the mud, but that kind of phrasing without cause seems kind of ...well, without cause. --Spesek 22:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

That's the way she's described in the movie, so the language is certainly defensible. Whether it's a piece of a trivia that's worth including in general is a different question. - Richfife 03:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Comic Book?

While reading an old back issue of Wizard magazine, I happened upon an advert for a comic called "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang." I was wondering if the two were related. If so, there should be mention of it in the article. 141.158.219.17 06:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

Putting this here until someone can write it decently into the article. Alientraveller 13:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• The film was originally titled You'll Never Die in This Town Again
• The working title of the film was LA, P.I.
• The film's release title may have been inspired by film critic Pauline Kael's book Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (1968), a collection of her film reviews.
• In the scene where Protocop breaks into Harmony's apartment, she's wielding a bat inscribed "Wonder Girl", a reference to the famous movie The Natural, starring Robert Redford. Redford's bat, carved from a tree struck by lightning, was named "Wonder Boy".
• Gay Perry's name is a play on the phrase "Gay Paris" (pronounced peh-REE).
• Gay Perry's name also bears resemblance to Hall of Fame MLB pitcher Gaylord Perry.
• The voice of the Genaro's Bear is an uncredited Laurence Fishburne. Producer Joel Silver's connections to Fishburne were the source of him lending his voice to the character.
• The actor who plays the NYC audition cop (Bill McAdams, Jr.) later appears as an entering bar patron in the scene where Harry reconnects with Harmony in Los Angeles.
• The actress who has allegedly been "fucked more times than she's had hot meals" appears in the Genaro's Beer commercial at the end of the film.
• On the DVD commentary, Val Kilmer stated that his website will run a contest to see how many name drops he gives in the commentary. He wasn't exactly sure what the winner would receive as a prize, but later says "maybe... like, 500 bucks" followed by a chuckle.
• At the end of the DVD commentary, Shane Black mentions that he would like to make another film with Val Kilmer and Robert Downey Jr. in these roles, to which Kilmer and Downey both reply that they are willing.
• The "titles" of each of the days in the movie are also titles of classic works of Raymond Chandler: the short story Trouble is My Business; the novels The Lady in the Lake, The Little Sister and Farewell, My Lovely; and the essay The Simple Art of Murder.
• The title of the book My Friend Flicka is also embedded in dialogue spoken by Monaghan.
• Richard Grieco makes a brief cameo appearance.
• The werewolf that beheads the actress in the flashback at the pool party, is the same costume as the wolves in the movie Dog Soldiers
• When Harry enters the club during the Christmas party, you can clearly see the statue of Pazuzu, the demon from The Exorcist against the wall.
• The movie plays an important role in the third season of Veronica Mars as the alibi for two murder suspects. Veronica attempts to trip up one of the suspects by claiming Robert Downey, Jr. dies at the end.

Gay? Really?

There is nothing "gay" about this movie other than Val Kilmer's character claiming to be gay. My take on this film is that the character is a P.I. FIRST and only incidentally gay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.30.13 (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

• Hmmm... You've got a point. Marking every movie that has a gay character in it as an "LGBT film" is over the top. I know Harlan Ellison hates it when people refer to everything he writes as science fiction just because it has science fiction details here and there. However, since it's a hot button issue, I say we leave it up for, say, three days of comment before pulling it. The only real defense I can see is someone could make the case that it shows that gay men's lives are not dominated by their sexual orientation, which is pretty weak. One could also refer to it as a "car chase" movie or a "torture" movie or a "carnival" movie. -Richfife (talk) 02:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Ding! It's outta here. - Richfife (talk) 03:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible source of title?

I once owned a CD called The Music of John Barry, the liner notes of which claimed that a literal English translation of the Japanese for "James Bond" is "Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang"; and the tracks on the album include one with this title (written for the Thunderball soundtrack). -- 92.40.167.143 (talk) 12:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Laurence Fishburne

My feeling is that the cast member list should be restricted to people that made significant personal commitments of their time to the movie. Fishburne probably spent half an hour recording voice lines. It's a trivia point, inclusion of which is discouraged, not a full blown "member of the cast" situation. Also, during voice over recording, people really have to struggle to come up with material to cover 90 minutes. You should hear some of the boring crap that results. - Richfife (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you guys really think we're breaking new ground here?

If a leading man is in the cast, he gets a mention. Cast, Production Notes, whatever, your choice.

How much time does the director spend discussing the contribution of "Ali Hillis", whoever that might be? Zero.

But Fishburne? Bla bla bla. Why wouldn't you mention someone everyone knows well using a weird voice that doesn't sound anything like this normal voice?

And did you notice that the bear is the final scene of the movie, excluding the weird epilogue?

Varlaam (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

And, as with many WP articles, the best part of the article is the deleted Trivia section (see above).

The main article states the obvious and only the obvious. The Trivia section has the things you actually didn't catch, like every section being a Chandler title.

Varlaam (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

And now I have to watch it again to see whether Pazuzu is really in that scene. Varlaam (talk)

He's not part of the cast, it's a cameo appearance. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 07:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Aggregate score

There's no Rotten tomatoes score for this film? 86.182.222.246 (talk) 12:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

You can look it up yourself and add it to the article. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Producer credits

User:TheOldJacobite is insisting on keeping incorrect producer credits in the lead, calling an executive producer a co-producer, despite what the film's titles and the poster (which is easily seen on the page itself) credits show. And he further wants to keep a company in the lead which only had peripheral involvement at best. It is false to say it "produced" the film. It's a Silver Pictures production. There is no link for the source, and I doubt it even said this. It's an article called "Bernsen goes DVD premiere". Variety often announces small companies, but a piece on an actor going to a premiere is not a proper source for credits. Very unlikely the Variety KKBB film review listed this company. WP policy is not to list every little company, especially when it's contradicted by the film's credits, and the actual functioning production company is not mentioned in the lead. No other source I saw listed Bernsen's company for this film. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC).

I just spent some time on this and I'm going to have to go with GothicFilm. I can't find any reference to "Public Media Works" that doesn't eventually come back to Wikipedia. The link supplied is dead and I'm not sure the reporter didn't make a mistake when headlining the article. "Public Media Works" does not appear here at all. This isn't something should be in the article at all, let alone in the lede. - Richfife (talk) 03:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The headline and first two paragraphs of the Variety article are here. The DVD premiere is for "Carpool Guy", not "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang". The editor that wrote the headline screwed up. - Richfife (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

p.s. The inter tubes are now chock full of unreferenced passing mentions of Public Media Works' role in "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang". And probably will be forever. Oh my head. - Richfife (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your research on this. I have also removed KKBB from the Public Media Works page where Find Articles search for Bernsen goes DVD premiere. Public Media Works premiere its first movie Kiss Kiss Bang Bang was used as a ref. Only the grammatically awkward headline, which was obviously a mistake, refers to KKBB as coming from this company. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like the information in that article was flawed. But, the source is good, and it was a good faith error on my part to take it at face value. And the fact that the article was mistaken is not relevant to your deletions, Gothicfilm, and you removed it twice before posting here on talk. It's a wash, and the error has been corrected. Can we move on? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't appreciate being twice accused of dubious reasoning by you in your edit summaries. I explained why I was deleting it and correcting the producer credits. You did no research, but instead put back the wrong credits and made uncivil remarks. And now you claim the fact that the article was mistaken is not relevant to your deletions...? You obviously see nothing wrong with your behavior. But I'll move on, as I don't want to spend more time on this. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Plot

I'm trying to edit the plot, which is grossly inaccurate, from watching the film live) and with help from notes. It's getting reverted for length by one user. However: 1. My version is not a line by line retelling: every element I mention is essential for understanding the story: it's a convuluted plot, and a lot more convoluted than I at first realised. Even my first re-edit wasn't entirely accurate. 2. The previous version was terrible and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Rather than revert, I submit strongly that you should edit my version (as I am currently doing), or write your own new version to replace the existing one. 3 My version was only 830 lines which isn't a lot longer than the max 700, and this film is definitely convoluted enough for that. See the imdb version, and even that isn't by any means complete (eg is missed out the important video part). http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0373469/synopsis

So, I'd say, please either edit it down, or let it stand as a slightly longer version than the guidelines (guidelines explicitly allow for longer plot summaries for convoluted plots. I'm using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:FILM#Plot and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_plot_summary as the guidelines here.

But whatever the result, the badly-written, inaccurate prior version really doesn't need to be there, even as a placeholder for editing. Rather edit a longer, accurate one than one that is wildy-misleading. Richardhod (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Now Done. It's under 700 words, and a vast improvement. Further improvements by others of course welcome, but at least it's now accurate!

EDITING NOTE: In general there are few grounds for reversion of decent content without doing some basic research. Indeed, reverting for length on a major but uncontroversial content edit - rather than re-editing it yourself - is a little too warlike. Why not send a talk page message to the editor with the appropriate guidelines and friendly suggestion? Editors please note http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring Flat reversion is usually not the best approach. Richardhod (talk) 04:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• No, actually, that was not a vast improvement. Your claim that this is a quirky, complicated comedy is meaningless when it comes to policy regarding how plot summaries should be written. Your version was not written in an encyclopedic manner, using phrasing like "he hotfoots it", which is inappropriate slang. The summary should be a straight recitation of events, avoiding extraneous details. And, frankly, this film is not so complex that it requires a long or detailed summary. If there are mistakes of fact, correct them, but this did not require a complete rewrite. And per BRD, you are supposed to discuss before you revert again to your preferred version. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• You are complaining about style and minor points of language, while reverting this article to an inaccurate and poorly-written version. There is nothing unencyclopaedic about the entry. I don't claim it to be perfect, but your desire to own the editing of this page outstrips your desire actually to engage with the content itself. I've done the work: you clearly haven't. Why are you engaging in Edit Warring and reverting (to inaccurate version) rather than making constructive edit improvements?

If you think it's not perfect, make it better by doing work yourself! This is not your personal fiefdom, and I'm just trying to improve this page, having come here while watching the film itself, and consequently making notes because the prior version was entirely unhelpful.

You have been warned for warring before: please leave your ego behind. This attitude is not constructive. I'm putting it back to that, and please, edit it t what you consider a better style from there. Reverting is not the answer.

Again, I refer you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardhod (talk • contribs) 01:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, If you're going to refer to BRD, please follow your own advice and actually use the Talk page. It took you THREE reverts to do this, and none of your comments have dealt with the issues substantively. Furthermore this is really not a bold edit, but a universally verifiable edit for accuracy. This is not a debate about, say, Palestine, and you really shouldn't get to proprietorial about this page. The facts are not up for debate when anyone can see this film, and the prior version was hugely inadeuate. These are all simple fact issues. The imdb plot outline (much more detailed) can provide some further verification for this.

I have no issue with someone changing my words for the better but once factual mistakes are made, it's an egregious error to revert to such an obviously bad version.

I hope indeed my version is superseded.. by something neater, sleeker and even better. Take a go, how about watching the film and doing some work! ??? Richardhod (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• I don't need any advice from you, so save it. Your version is poorly written, period. As I said above, if there are errors of fact, correct them, but the plot does not need a rewrite. You have violated both BRD and 3RR and you have not proven that your version is better, you have simply repeated yourself. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is insane.

You are reverting, edit warring and just deciding that you don't like words which are not yours. Your version was a hamfisted editing of an earlier, reasonable plot, (see for example the plot here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kiss_Kiss_Bang_Bang&diff=522019407&oldid=522015839) but which didn't conform to the new guidelines. Unfortunately, those edits added in errors, or lost context / continuity to make it inaccurate and misleading and a poor representation of the plot. It's an easy mistake to make when editing others' work and no reflection upon your moral standing. So, instead of reverting to this inaccurate length-edit (which also has some Wikipedia style inconsistencies) please edit the style, just don't revert to the incorrect version. imdb is a reasonable secondary source, but when doing this, primary source does work best as even the imdb isn't entirely right. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0373469/synopsis . Seriously, if you're not prepared to engage constructively you should not be editing. Richardhod (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• So, let's try again. I'm just trying to make this accurate and helpful to readers.

I've done nothing but remove inaccuracies and tidy up a little bit. No added text beyond a couple off words. Overuse of semi-colons fixed, for shorter, more readable sentences. See the excellent http://thewritepractice.com/the-poor-misunderstood-semicolon/ for good practical uses of semicolons.

This is mostly a cosmetic change, except for the error removals at the bridge scene, and about who knows what Harmony said about Jenna. (It's in the earlier hotel scene when Jenna tells Harry most of that story).

So, how does that look so far? These are your words, but now at least vaguely accurate, if incomplete.

There are still plot holes. Next task is to go back and input the missing parts of the plot.

Richardhod (talk) 23:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Outside comment - Richard, your version of the plot summary wasn't all bad, but on whole it was poorly written. Did you honestly think "Cue comedy henchman torture and escape by concealed gun" was appropriate in an encyclopedia article? If you did, I think you might find it helpful to take a step back from editing and try spending more time reading Wikipedia before contributing large amounts of text.

You reacted to The Old Jacobite with far more hostility than was warranted in this situation. He perhaps didn't approach it optimally, but TOJ was more or less justified in reverting your edits here; even after revising your text significantly you included several unencyclopedic phrases. I have edited many, many plot summaries over the years, and it is sometimes easier to rewrite a plot summary from scratch than correct a badly written plot summary. You definitely need to separate your preferred style of writing from making factual corrections if your style is repeatedly questioned.

Both of you might benefit from behaving more cooperatively. When this type of situation arises, it might be best to analyze the content in small pieces and come to an agreement. Richard, rather than continually rewriting the majority of the plot when it is being rejected, there are two approaches you can take: address your specific concerns with the current content (e.g. "in paragraph 3 it says they did this but they actually did that"), or ask for more specific feedback about your writing (e.g. "could you let me know where you see specific major flaws in my text so I can adjust it?") TOJ, in this type of situation, it really helps the other editor if you address in detail specific flaws with their writing, or work with them to address problems in the existing text.

My two cents, anyway. I hope my revision satisfies everyone. Some guy (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit: Richard, please do not insert HTML <br> tags into talk pages; we shouldn't be formatting talk pages with HMTL. Also, it would be a lot easier to indent your comments if you didn't use so many paragraph breaks. Some guy (talk) 02:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback, appreciated. I am not used to talk page formatting: I now see the bullets provide required paragraph formatting. I take issue only slightly on some points: I know wikipedia's style well, but edit a lot less, but I'm silling to push here and there where it seems potentially beneficial. I did think one or two of my phrases were marginal, but because this was a comedy film and they were concise and reflected the tone of it considered them worth offering. This may not be the case, but it's not an egregious error, since these are not terrible phrases. Furthermore they were minor parts of a rewrite of the existing text. I was happy to change all the elements, but the feedback was so unhelpful that I did, I admit, definitely react more angrily than I would normally do. It takes an obstreperous interlocutor to make me do that, and while my tone was definitely reactively bristling, my suggestions were all nonetheless cooperative, and suggestive of constructive engagement if you look, although it might be hard for someone to separate that from my definite pique. Richardhod (talk) 12:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Since we are writing an encyclopedia article, we tend towards a dispassionate plot summary. We convey the events of the story and the reader can interpret humor if something funny happens that is notable enough to be included.

To be frank, "Cue comedy henchman torture and escape by concealed gun" is terrible in an encyclopedia article. That you are not seeing this is I'm sure part of the frustration TOJ expressed. This isn't the appropriate place to try to convey that the story is humorous through quirky or eccentric wording. That sentence belongs in a concise newspaper review of the film, not an encyclopedia article. Some guy (talk) 13:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Plot rewrite by Some guy

I rewrote the plot to address various concerns and sidestep the currently contested revisions. I have corrected factual mistakes and rectified bad wording; the only part I'm not sure about is I don't remember exactly when in the film Harmony first tells them she had told her sister Dexter was her real father.

I took out some trivial details that don't affect the story on whole, e.g. the names of the thugs, and Harry's finger getting cut off, possibly more. I trimmed out enough that I was able to add some important details, e.g. Perry shooting the body, while still shortening the section.

Please give your feedback regarding my rewrite. If it is acceptable, perhaps we can just nix the RfC. Some guy (talk) 02:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the attempt. Haven't looked in detail yet (others may have a good opinion, I don't want to be the only one). She first tells Harry in the hotel room when she hires him, before he finds the body in the shower, but then all three of the main characters get more information on this at the part when they watch the video at the party after Harmony first takes Harry to the hospital.77.99.184.41 (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Some Guy, thanks, it's definitely better. however, now we're still missing I think two important plot points (see the later version for some of those details):

1. the finger cutting off: you say it's minor, but I strongly believe this is a big plot point because

a. it's big for the audience in terms of comedy/horror(it's the only thing I remembered from my first viewing), and

b. it explains why he's unco9nscious, and

c. Part of the comedy is that he keeps on ending up in hospital, and also Harmony takes him there, showing how she cares for him

2. the relationship between Harmony and Harry is almost entirely invisible, and we need to show the spirit and gist of that, at least. This is what makes it a more complicated plot Richardhod (talk) 11:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

So, I changed that, and re-edited to correct the placement of Harmony's first reveal about when she told Jenna, which I had got wrong too. Also there's room to spare for clarifications as word count standing at about 600 is not close to the max. Unless there's strenuous objection I think our efforts may have reached some kind of compromise (improvements still possible, of course), and started to give some flavour of the film, which is part of the point! I'm fairly sure TOJ will be happier because you wrote it and there's no hint of informality. Because it's an involved plot I added a link to a more comprehensive synopsis at IMDB, as per the guideline section on plot for the Wikifilm project. Richardhod (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe those are minor details not worthy of lengthening the plot summary for. It's not necessarily our job to convey all of the original humor in the plot description. Harry getting roughed up by the thugs still explains Harmony driving him to the hospital. I disagree that we "need" to show the spirit of their relationship, but we can see how TOJ feels about the current length. Some guy (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

If TOJ has no comment than I propose we close the RfC and leave the plot how it is now. Any objections? Some guy (talk) 05:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

No objections from me.

I reckoned we ought to show at least a flavour if we can within the constraints, just because it helps people who haven't seen understand what it's about, but indeed that is a discussion that could go on and on, interestingly, should we so care! So, even though I didn't always entirely concur with your assessments, it's been a pleasure working together to a decent edit set! Thanks. Richardhod (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Which plot summary revision is preferable?

This RfC concerns two revisions of the plot summary in this article. Which revision is preferable?

It is not disputed that the newer version is more accurate.

1. Newer Version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kiss_Kiss_Bang_Bang&oldid=556961969

2. Older Version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kiss_Kiss_Bang_Bang&oldid=555719888

Here's a diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kiss_Kiss_Bang_Bang&diff=556961969&oldid=555719888

Richardhod (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Please sign where you agree (or add a category if none fits) and add a brief comment:

• 1. Newer Version better
• 2. Older version better (if corrected)
• Both are very good (if accurate)
• Neither is good enough

Some guy (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Should you like to make detailed comments and discussions, please do below.

• comments

• comments

• I wrote the newer version. I don't mind about my words, but I do care about accuracy and readability. It's possible the new version's words are a little informal, and I'm happy to take advice from experienced third parties on what's style for Wikipedia. Richardhod (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
• The newer version is too informally written; the old version is occasionally worded so badly the meaning is indecipherable. Also, this RfC is terribly presented. It was a lot more work than it should have been to figure out what the point of the RfC was, so I rewrote the RfC presentation.

I have this film and have seen it many times; I'll be bold and take a stab at revising the plot summary myself. Some guy (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I rewrote and trimmed the plot. It is currently 493 words, which should be well within acceptable length. Some guy (talk) 02:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request: The second version, while a little more colloquial, is more detailed and complete. Keep the second version. TheOneSean ^{[ U | T | C ]} 12:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your (excellent!) opinion ;) In the end we've gone with the rewriting that SomeGuy started, for the sake of peace and pragmatism and outcomes!

I think this particular stage of the Plot discussion can be closed for now, given no other objections. Richardhod (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

" While Perry implies that the two of them are also engaged."

I don't know why this part of the plot summary was taken out it's literally true. 108.41.98.222 (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Because it isn't true. The scene in question is available here. This hoax has been added and removed twice now. -- Scott Burley (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)