Talk:Stoner film

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rygoat4.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete

Remove Hot Tub and Green Hornet, they have absolutely nothing to do with weed, despite of being "hot" and "green" hehe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.70.97 (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If by stoner movies we mean films with prominent consumption of marijuana and not just films we like to watch when stoned - Shaun of the Dead isn't stoner movie at all. There's only running gag about Nick Frost selling weed and some passing reference to weed, but that isn't a plot point at all. Although i love that movie, it does not belong here. I'm removing it from the list. Pcbflare (talk) 10:02, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Films to consider

Half-Baked

I've always considered HALF BAKED to be a bit of a wolf in sheep's clothing as far as being a stoner film goes. It's heavy on negative stereotype and Chapelle chooses an uptight judgemental chick who makes him quit smoking just for the sake of doing it. It's a bait and switch. 24.33.28.52 10:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Half-Baked is a genre-defining movie. The entire film revolves around cannabis. I argue that just because they were stereotyping stoners it shouldn't disqualify the film for inclusion. Whether or not the film negatively affected the stoner culture is not at issue.

Saving Grace

Not sure if this is generally accepted as a 'stoner film', but cannabis is part of the main theme. Saving Grace (2000 film) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NattyFido (talk • contribs) 23:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Does Grace ever taste the stuff? —Tamfang (talk) 04:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Iirc in the end the whole village including Grace is high when they burn the marihuana plants. Oh and yes Saving Grace could be seen as a Brtish version of a stoner movie--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Removed stuff from the list

Baraka

I'm removing Baraka from the list. Anyone who knows what the film is about will agree a 100 percent on my action. the movie IS nice to watch stoned, but there is not a single joint in the movie, neither a protagonist... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.25.93.162 (talk) 01:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I would classify "Dark Side of Oz" a stoner film, yet it contains no cannabis usage.

Hostel

Removed. Main focus is on human hunting and not weed.--sin-man 13:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Blow

I removed Blow from the list. Although there is plenty of cannabis usage in the first third or so of the movie, it's portrayal of the drug is much more realistic and lacks the over-the-topness that is essential to stoner movies. Serotrance 21:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I would classify "Dark Side of Oz" as a stoner-film yet it contains no cannabis usage. Meta-Structure

Superbad

There is no reference to canabis in this film what so ever. It's a "America Pie" category film, cool, but does not belong here. --Galadhrim (talk) 12:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Others

• Pink Floyd The Wall (1982) (which should have been Pink Floyd The Wall (film))
• Over The Edge (1979)
• films starring/featuring Jay and Silent Bob (1994-2005) (which should have been View Askewniverse)
• The Big Lebowski (1998)

The Wall is quite dark and cynical and doesn't have the light-hearted, altruistic, comedic elements described in the article. Yeah, stoners like to watch it, but they like Teletubbies, too.

Over the Edge is no more stoner film than Better Luck Tomorrow was. It takes an arguably dim view of drug use as something kids do as a last resort to escape a boring life.

View Askewniverse films have stoner characters, Jay and Silent Bob, but they were only central to the story in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. That one might count, Clerks, Dogma, Chasing Amy, etc. definitely don't, though.

The Big Lebowski is the closest, but it's more of a classic hardboiled caper film that has a stoner as the central character. — AKADriver ☎ 17:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Are hardboiled capers and stoner films mutually exclusive? 24.33.28.52 04:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed Pink Floyd's The Wall from the list, as someone mentioned it is a very dark film dealing with the character creating a wall between himself and society, and is not a lighthearted stonner film. I do not know how it got back on the list (68.45.76.174 16:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC))

I think Knocked Up should be removed. Yes, there are stoner characters, but the use of marijuana or other drugs is in no way central to the plot. 76.117.248.56 (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

BTW, AKA, the Pink Floyd The Wall link is fine as it is, thank you very much. The album cover reads Pink Floyd The Wall but it is referred to as The Wall. Pink Floyd The Wall is the name of the film. Geez.--Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 20:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Others

Removed The Breakfast Club, Dazed and Confused and The Big Lebowski from the list. Though they all feature marijuana smoking, it's not the central theme of the films.

• I'll agree with the first and third, but Dazed and Confused features marijuana heavilly enough to definitely count as a stoner film. I'm adding it back. -Josh, September 30, 2005, 4:54 AM EST

The word "Blow" has been before "See also: List of Teenage Stoner Films" dating back Febuary 5. I just thought that I'd note that, even though it doesn't matter, because there have been a number or revisions in this span of time. 65.96.98.74 00:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

This whole page

seems like original research. It's actually the disputes on this discussion page that made me notice this... the whole "this or that is or isn't a stoner film." There's no codified definition for a stoner film. The article however makes it out like there is such a definition and thus we get this picking-and-choosing is-or-isn't effect, all based on the "rules" in the article. Plus, saying "this isn't a stoner film because it's _____ (science fiction, detective, etc.)" is nonsense anyway. It's like saying that a movie can't be a mystery if it's a western... the genres are not defined by the same terms.24.33.28.52 01:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, many of the "stoner" films listed do not even have pot in them. In order to write a unified section about the similarities between stoner films, one must first decide what makes a "stoner film." This is an inherently ambiguous and difficult thing to do. We would have to change the guidelines to "films credited as being stoner films," and then reference each credit next to the films that are listed. I do think this page should exist, because in my opinion this is a unique genre of film...but it needs to abide by the guidelines established by Wikipedia:WikiProject Films in order to do justice to the genre. Simply put, there are major neutrality issues that need to be addressed, which risk having the whole article deleted..and that would be silly. Johnny^California 22:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyCalifornia (talk • contribs)

OK, I addressed this issue by clearly defining "stoner film" as a subgenre. I also created a page for a List of films containing frequent marijuana use in order to help others avoid the temptation of dumping their favorite movies onto this page's list. Johnny^California 03:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyCalifornia (talk • contribs)

Guys, seriously?? This is a terrible article. As of today, there are 152 movies listed there. Some of these seem to meet the definition set forth for "stoner movie" (in SOMEONE'S opinion), others just may include someone smoking pot or talking about smoking pot, while others just feature actors that have been in movies where someone smoked a joint, or something. Point is, it's out of control. Films that haven't been designated "stoner movies" in a citable review should be dumped.Shuneke (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

2001?

I don't remember 2001 "depicting the use of marijuana," as the article defines the term stoner film as requiring. Marijuana certainly wasn't "one of the main themes, [inspiring] most of the action" as the article also describes the term. I don't see an explanation for this on the talk page, but am hesitant to remove it in case someone who knows more about the topic than I do has kept it here for a reason. I certainly think that any explanation ought to be kept here so that others with the same query I have can read it before they delete the reference. What is the explanation? Ari 22:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that so far the editors of this page have been guiding the page towards only including movies that depict cannabis use. The reality is that when the term "stoner film" is used, it just as often refers to movies that feature absolutely no cannabis use but are fetishized by the cannabis-using community as being favorite films. In particular, films that feature heavy use of atmospherics, have a heavy emphasis on visuals, or feature very cerebral metaphysical themes are often considered "stoner films" i.e. 2001: A Space Odyssey, Waking Life, etc. Thats the same reason The Wall by Pink Floyd has been edited in so many times. In many ways it is one of the quintessential "stoner films" yet does not depict cannabis use at all. -HistoryNature 21:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no point in lawyering a list based upon the definition in the article. the "explanation" demanded is that this is a nebulous term with no formal defintion to be lawyered. Encyclopedia are descriptive, not prescriptive, in their definitions.24.165.210.213 07:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and has it's own set of quality standards. This article clearly defines "stoner films" in a certain way, and movies that are watched by stoners falls into a different category, one which could probably not have it's own page due to inherent neutrality issues. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or fansite. Ambiguous, "descriptive" articles have the burden of providing references for each and every section that might be challenged. This is not "lawyering," it is simply an effort to keep this page here so it is not deleted. Any editor has the right to delete any unreferenced material if it is challenged and the problems aren't addressed in a reasonable time (see Wikipedia:Citing sources). Please assume good faith on the part of the editors here and refrain from using pejorative terms in the future. Anyone reading a discussion page for an article most likely has the article's best interests in mind. Johnny^California 23:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I checked out a reference listed at the bottom, and the author might say it better than I do, "Not to be confused with films like Winged Migration, Wizard of Oz, or Muppets Take Manhattan—however beloved by tokers they may be—the proper stoner movie is by, for, and about pot smokers. These are not movies where a lone joint is passed around in a party scene. Instead, the stoner film shows serious commitment to smoking and acquiring marijuana as a lifestyle choice." Johnny^California 23:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Films to unconsider

• Can anyone explain why 'Idle Hands (1999)' is in the list? The boy is stoned but it's more of a thriller / horror than a stoner movie. Galadhrim
• Eventhough the Tenacious D movie contains 2 scenes with weed in it and 1 mentioning getting stoned it really does not come near being a stoner movie. Granted I had to laugh alot while being it myself but it does not fall under the category Stoner Film. Galadhrim
• Fear and Loathing isn't really a stoner film. It's not even really a stoner-friendly film. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas is a bit disturbing, in fact. Great film, but dark and troubling- intended, at least, at being a criticism of the american dream circa 197x.

There are many films on the list that should be re-considered. In order to have a section like this, it needs to be bullet-proof in terms of references and neutrality issues. I am changing the list to "films credited as being stoner films." Each film will need it's own reference for the credit. Johnny^California 22:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)See the discussion above and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Films website for a guideline of wiki's quality standards. Johnny^California 22:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyCalifornia (talk • contribs)

I removed some films from the list. Please see my rationale as outlined in the multiple discussions above..this article is about films that revolve around pot, not films that stoners like. For example, all stoners love the Big Lebowski, but it is not a bonafide "stoner film" in the sense of "stoner film" as the film sub-genre.

1. Easy Rider- Not a stoner film as defined here. Ironically, the article used to reference it explicitly says so.[1]
2. Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982)- Another classic that stoner's love, but not a "stoner film".
3. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas - A drug movie, not a stoner film.
4. The Wash (2001)- Lots of weed, not about weed.
5. Orange County (2003)- What? Not sure how this made it on the list. (...just because JB is in a film doesn't make it a "stoner film"..haha)
6. Lords of Dogtown (2005)- same as above
7. Beerfest (2006)- same as above
8. Idle Hands (1999)- same as above
9. Knocked Up (2007)- same as above
10. Mallrats (1995)- Like the Judd Apatow films, no one will argue that Kevin Smith is a stoner, but this is not a stoner movie in the sense that smoking pot is explicit or that the plot revolves around weed. (We may be able to keep Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back - as they are like pot superheroes of sorts- but I can't remember how explicit or important the pot use is in this film's story)
11. Clerks (1994)- see above
12. Clerks 2 (2006)- see above

If you disagree, feel free to a film back, but please provide a rationale and references. Eventually all unreferenced films will be removed from the list. Johnny^California 23:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

To avoid vandalism or an editing war, I created this page: List of films containing frequent marijuana use. Cheers Johnny^California 00:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnnyCalifornia (talk • contribs)

I agree with you. Initially, though I am pretty much into old movies, but I never really knew anything about a genre called "stoner film". All what I know now is from what the article says. But, according to the definition above, I agree that Easy Rider would not be a stoner film (it is a road film though not my favorite one). Further, Dazed and Confused would be delisted from the list too, as it mostly features high school life, not marijuana (and it should be noted that Richard Linklater is far from being a Tommy Chong-ish director!). On another hand, I don't know if Midnight Express qualifies as such genre. Chimeric Glider (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Y tu Mama Tambien does contain a little bit of marijuana use but does not revolve around smoking pot, the pursuit of pot, or a stoner lifestyle. I took it off because it doesn't match either the definition suggested by the article itself or what seems to be the prevailing understanding here.Shuneke (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Cleaning up the "examples of films" list

Based on the criteria offered on the article itself i have removed a fair number (got up to 2005 until i started having to look up film plots and i don't have time to do that). The list was way too long for a set of examples - it should be much shorter (and perhaps taking out a lot of the comedies apart from the more successful ones to balance out the genres a bit) 86.0.64.50 (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Not stoner movies

I briefly looked at the list and I noticed many movies on the list that shouldn't be there such as scooby doo, benchwarmers, 40 yr old virgin. And there are many more that shouldn't be there. Someone tell me why these are there. Only movies like Harold & Kumar and How High should be on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lil' Rad (talk • contribs) 00:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Briefly skimming through the list (I was looking for some films I could watch while stoned. LOL), I noticed several films that shouldn't be in there. How are either Ghostbusters or Ghostbusters II considered stoner films? Cannabis isn't a major (or even minor) plot point in either film. It doesn't contain most of the "common elements" of stoner films, ie 2 male friends looking for pot, nor are the films about evading authority figures (granted, both films had authority figures who impeded the Ghostbusters' mission, but that had nothing to do with evasion). As such, I have removed the two films from the list. If anybody disagrees, feel free to reinclude the films and leave a reason why they should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by N Yo FACE (talk • contribs) 09:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Because some fool thinks simple 'comedy' movies that possible contain one or two instances of someone smoking a joint is considered a stoner movie, I have added to everything since I am a typical lazy as fuck wikipedian who cant be bothered to actually correct anything. :p

Movis script

I who would like to present a comedy strip that I wrote for Redman and Method Man Bygdank (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

9 to 5?

The article current says:

Nine to Five was the first stoner film to feature a female protagonist. The men are well-meaning and usually sexually frustrated, and will usually come comically close to sexual success with exceedingly beautiful women only to have the opportunity lost due to chance or ineptitude.

There is a citation for this, but it has nothing to do with either half of this paragraph. It's basically just a list of 10 stoner movies with brief descriptions.

In fact, if anything, it contradicts the paragraph it's attached to. It doesn't include 9 to 5 in its list, or even mention it in passing, much less call it the first stoner film with a female protagonist. And most of the listed movies either have men actually succeeding with women (e.g., Harold & Kumar, or Bill & Ted) or not even trying (e.g., Spicoli); none of them are about men coming comically close to sexual success.

I've removed the whole paragraph, but left the reference attached to the previous one, where I think it originally went. --157.131.170.189 (talk) 08:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)