Talk:The Invention of Lying

Film Title

Hey, according to imdb.com, this movie is now known as Invention of Lying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.180.104.100 (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Imdb.com isn't necessarily a reputable source. Is anyone else in the world parroting that bit of news? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meddlecascade (talk • contribs) 21:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Who is reliable? I see it on Moviephone and BoxOfficeMojo, but I don't know enough about this sort of thing to say if they are reliable or not. CSZero (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking something from Ricky's blog at rickygervais.com, or a press release from Warner Brothers or Universal. The reliability factor I'm looking for is a source directly involved in the movie...I don't see any links to anything of that nature from either Moviephone or BoxOfficeMojo (it's still "This Side of the Truth" on RottenTomatoes, btw).Meddlecascade (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the article with two references within the past two days that leave the name "This Side of the Truth" intact (Ricky's blog and the Times of London). Unless something official happens, I think we can trust that the "Invention of Lying" meme was started as a hoax. Meddlecascade (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This is all completely wrong! You seem to have confused two of Ricky Gervais' films This Side Of The Truth, co-written with Matt Robinson is in post-production, due for release in september. Cemetery junction is Ricky's next project, completely separate from TSOTT, written with Stephen Merchant. It is in pre-production, filming hasn't started yet!Jersanuk (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This article had been incorrectly moved to Cemetery Junction, but everything (including edit histories) has been fixed now. See response under "Merge?" below for more details. –Fierce Beaver (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm writing this in the incorrect format, but this side of the truth is different to "the man from the pru", or "cemetary junction" as it is now apparently known. Filming for This Side of the Truth started almost a year ago, and involves an "alternate Earth" whereby noone has ever lied, and Gervais plays the first man to lie. Pilkington also has a cameo as a caveman in the film, and the filming of his cameo was featured in a segment on BBC2's "The Culture Show" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.188.250 (talk) 07:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Why you would think imdb.com is NOT a reliable source is beyond me. All confirmed information from that site is true, and any rumors about productions are unequivocally noted as such. As it is, that site is MUCH more reliable that this one, if nothing else.Kp.murphy (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge?

I don't know how to make tags on pages but would it not make sense to merge this page with 'This Side of the Truth'? Mcbill88 (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There was a problem with an accidental 3-way move between The Invention of Lying, This Side of the Truth, and Cemetery Junction around April 8, 2009. Erik moved this article (originally This Side of the Truth) in error to the Cemetery Junction name, but instead of correctly moving it back, someone recreated the article at This Side of the Truth and began editing the original page at Cemetery Junction (film) to reflect that film's information. To make things even more confusing, Gervais confirmed that This Side of the Truth's title had indeed been changed to The Invention of Lying, and instead of moving the article there, someone cut and paste the contents of This Side of the Truth into that article... long story short, there was a lot of chaos, but with the help of an admin (thanks to Anthony Appleyard), the histories of all articles were able to be more or less salvaged into their correct locations. –Fierce Beaver (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Estimated Cost

Four million dollars? Impossible. Where did this number come from? For comparison, Ghost Town was TWENTY million dollars and didn't star Jennifer Garner. Her pay alone is at least four million, never mind the rest of the cast and expenses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.38.30 (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Check into some facts before spouting off about this. Just because Jennifer Garner's price tag for the typical film is $4 Million does not mean she didn't take a lesser salary, or perhaps no salary, for working on this LOW BUDGET, INDEPENDENT film. There are actors and filmmakers who seek out projects like this on a regular basis, merely for the "art" of it. See Jennifer Aniston, who's a MUCH bigger star that Garner. I do not see any reason why that budget is not possible for this film. You may be right, and if so you should note that. However, it's naive to think that just because a film has big stars in the cast list, it MUST have a large budget.Kp.murphy (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Really? They get 4 mill just for starring in one movie? Million? I mean, being a millionaire's most people's dream, and they get four mill? And that's just for one gig? What a job.--203.45.146.36 (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this article's coverage of the negative reviews fair?

Reading this article, one would presume that people have really only taken issue with (the supposed) atheistic message of the film. Maybe this is accurate, but I find it unlikely. The film was abysmal in a number of areas, and I don't think it's fair to only list religious objections. Maybe I'm wrong and no-one laughed at Gervais' crying or thought his love for shallow Garner was absurd, but I do suspect this page isn't being fair to the critics.--203.45.146.36 (talk) 06:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

But I don't really read reviews myself, so I'm hoping someone else can do the work for me.--203.45.146.36 (talk) 06:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I am an atheist, and I liked the film. I'm also somewhat like the people in the film which I liked and was surprised to see that the reviews were generally negative (apparently in America primarily) so I think it is the reverse, that the believing and dissembling centrists of Mei Guo found it insulting and offensive and that's why they didn't like it. My appraisal would be similar to that of Roger Ebert (3.5 out of 4). 72.228.177.92 (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the reply, but I don't think I was being clear. I certainly consider myself an atheist, and found the religious stuff to be some of the funnier aspects of the film. Now I don't want to put any 'original research' into the article, but I just imagine that I wasn't alone in my thoughts on the film. Perhaps I'm wrong -- the article seems to suggest this. But I couldn't help watching, say, Ricky's abysmal crying scene, and not thinking: "That's it: the reviews are gonna hammer him for this." There is some mention in the article of how formulaic the love storyline is, which is good, but it's a little bit buried beneath the religous stuff. And it's not just that the romantic story was formulaic: it was outright absurd. Garner's character was portrayed as ridiculously shallow, and out of nowhere Ricky (or Millman or whatever his name was in this thing) just starts spouting all this crap about how caring and decent she is. If the negative reviews didn't rip into the film for these things (et al), then they didn't and I have no problem with the article. I'm just stunned if they didn't, that's all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.146.36 (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC) --203.45.146.36 (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

5 years later, and at some point some editor or editors have taken out all reference to atheism from this article, except for the categories! Surely the atheistic angle on religion is an important theme of this film?--greenrd (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Hoff cameo?

Does anyone know what this is supposed to mean?

I think 'cameo' might be more appropriate. I'll edit this if I remember and there are no sensible objections here. --78.101.144.210 (talk) 21:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The "ability" to lie?

I'm pretty sure it wasn't that other people couldn't lie, but rather that nobody had the idea until he did. Should I change this? flarn2006 [u t c] time: 10:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

No. Leave it. Ghetto Spongebob Squarepants (talk) 06:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Change it. There is a scene that makes it clear while they are sitting in the bar. If the movie was called The Evolution of Lying, 1/2 of America would not watch it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.49.159 (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Introduction

"The Invention of Lying is a 2009 American speculative romantic comedy film ..."

No, it isn't. It's a satire on theistic religions.

Of course, a satire has to have a plot line, and the romantic interest is part of that, but it's incidental to the core of the film.

Why can't the intro call the film what it really is? Longitude2 (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

It can, if you can demonstrate that most reliable sources describe it as a "satire on theistic religions", or whatever you think the primary genre is. The BBFC calls it Drama, Comedy. I've never seen the film and I have no opinion on what it should be, except that its genre (which is obviously subjective) should match what mainstream sources say. Beyond "comedy, drama", thematic descriptions would also have to be supported by sources. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)