Talk:The Hangover Part II/Archive 1

Archive 1

Mel Gibson casting

We can not add information about this or any other event taken from an unreliable source. This also includes reliable sources that merely reference an unreliable source as its source.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

If it so unreliable, then why would reliable sources use it as a source? Also, I'm not convinced that TMZ isn't reliable. They have a good record of accuracy and fact checking. Sure, they might be considered gossip, but in this case I do not see the issue with stating an opinion here. Truthsort (talk) 05:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Because celebrity gossip sells and they bare no legal responsibility since they are clearly citing someone else's work. This is quite a common occurrence on wikipedia particularly when dealing with WP:BLP and rule of thumb has always been to trace back your sources. It is called fruit of the poisonous tree. I would be more than happy to let such criticism stand as long as the work originated from a reliable source.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's a suitable source. 'Hangover' ax burns Mel Gibson, New York Post, 2010-10-24, Retrieved 2010-10-25.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, good. Truthsort (talk) 17:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is another if necessary. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Premise

There is no plot description for this film yet as it is yet to be released. What is contained is premise released freely to the press for sole purpose of promoting the film. The description is fully cited giving credit to the source/copyright owners of the film. Any deviation from this wording as the film is unreleased would constitute original research. Once film is released we can include our own plot description with original wording.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Extensive quoting is a copyright violation (attribution means it's not plagiarism but doesn't affect copyright) and a violation of WP:NFC, which only allows for "brief quotations ... used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea". The fact that information is publically available does not mean that it is public domain or otherwise free content. It's simply not true that any deviation of the official wording is original research or else everything on Wikipedia would have to be quoted from other sources. Facts may always be used with the source cited to support them; the creative language from copyrighted sources cannot be. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You take my meaning too far. In this particular case it does not seem to be in violation of copy protection or WP:NFC. This information is not just publicly available but released with the intention to be used in the manner as it is here. Furthermore when it comes to premises of unreleased films taking bits of information gathered from different sources might violate WP:SYN and open the door for WP:OR as the final product is unknown and can easily be taken out of context or construed incorrectly. Blocking the quote out as it was here both honors the copyright holders intentions as well as discouraging editors from adding their own content.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If they have explicitly released the information into the public domain or under a free license, that's one thing. Their assumed intent for the information to be reused however does not factor in to our handling of copyrighted matter, however. A standalone quote does nothing to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view, so it does in fact fail the NFC guideline. I understand the benefits of a quote with regards to OR and SYN, but as I said before, those concerns apply to all information on Wikipedia and articles on unreleased films don't get a special remit to use extensive non-free quotes. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Isn't public domain the inherit nature of press releases, prepared statement issued to newspapers and other news media for them to reuse and make known to the public? Though the quote might not illustrate or add context to specific points within the article it does establish context to the article as a whole i.e. what the film is about.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. I'm talking about public domain in the legal sense, not any generalized definition, and copyright is automatic upon publication, so they would have to specifically release the material. Usage such as this falls completely within the bounds of fair use of copyrighted material which is why it's broadly used elsewhere, but our standards are explicitly stricter than those demanded by fair use. In this case, writing free text to explain the plot (what little we know of it so far) is an option and so we can't use the quote. With regards to the context issue, even something like "The four friends from The Hangover reunite for Stu's wedding in Bangkok, Thailand and hilarious hijinks ensue." should work and provides the same context as the quote to the article as a whole. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I know it's not as flavorful and evocative as the press release, but thank you for rewriting it. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Rewording Productions section

In the section for production it states:

"....will each reportedly be paid in the vicinity of $5 million against 4% of first dollar gross. Director/producer Todd Phillips will reportedly be paid around $10 million against 10%."

It is unclear what is meant by "...against 4%" and "...against 10%". The best I can guess is that it means their pay PLUS 4%. I will change it to that. If there are any objections please respond here and it can be discussed more. --98.234.74.77 (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it more likely means that the $ figure is a minimum, and an advance on the percentage. So if they're advanced $5 million and their percentage ends up at $6 million, they are owed $1 million. If they're advanced $5 million and their percentage ends up $4 million, they aren't owed anything, but hold onto the $5 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.30.132 (talk) 15:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Title

How is it not The Hangover Part II (ala Back to the Future Part II)? Art1991 (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Its The Hangover: Part II per spelling from this interview with director Todd Phillips:

• I'm not delusional. I'm aware that other comedy sequels have disappointed. So the first step was to call it The Hangover: Part II. Like The Godfather: Part II. That might be the only way a sequel holds up. When I typed the cover page, I was like, "There! Got that covered."

  Walters, David (November 2010)Todd Phillips Gets His Due Details. 2010-11-13.

--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Art1991 (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

April 2011 revisit

I haven't seen the use of the colon in the title in any of promotional material. I am wondering if we should move the page to The Hangover Part II.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Hangover Trailer Pulled.

I know it's a quote from the article that trailers are shown before similarly rated movies, but this sounds misleading. There are plenty of PG-13 movies that have trailers for R movies. Is there a way this can be phrased better? DanielDPeterson (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Assuming what you say is true, could it be that this a new MPAA regulation that WB violated or some similar occurrence? I don't know, we need another reliable source to clarify the statement.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I imagine the content in question was deemed inappropriate for a PG-13 movie, and that is why the pulled the trailer. I think they puled it from Scream 4 as well as a sign of good faith, but I'd bet that if they premiered the trailer before Scream 4, nobody would care. Also, if you want a source http://www.filmratings.com/filmRatings_Cara/#/advertising/faq/ sums it up nicely. DanielDPeterson (talk) 10:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

"Stu's fiancée" name -- Laura?

There is no name for Jamie Chung's role, just "Stu's fiancée". She's not a star, but this seems a bit disdainful. I found a few sites that listed the name of her character as "Laura", But there's a blacklist that blocks those links. It even blocks it on talk pages, so I can't put it here. But I can link IMDB's copy here, though of course IMDB is "unreliable".

In the trailer for the upcoming The Hangover Part II, Todd Phillips' sequel to 2009's hit The Hangover, the Wolf Pack travels to Bangkok in preparation for the wedding of Stu and Laura (Jamie Chung)

Maybe someone else can find an acceptable source. Barsoomian (talk) 03:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

We cannot add the character name without a reference from a reliable source. Sites are blacklisted for a reason and cannot use them. If you think a site should be delisted you may propose removal.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 07:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Try reading my comment before telling me things I already stated. Barsoomian (talk) 16:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Files

http://hangoverpart2.warnerbros.com/main.swf WhisperToMe (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Giamatti's role

People keep saying Giamatti's role is "Kingsley", but there is no mention of this in the cites. And now someone is saying he's an "Interpol" agent. Again, no supporting info. So I've removed that. Barsoomian (talk) 02:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree but with the film released I just assumed someone verified this through the primary source.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, having seen the movie myself, I can confirm it's true. Giamatti does play an Interpol agent by the name of 'Kingsley,' with the movie itself being the primary source. the_one092001 (talk) 06:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I do not have a account or anything, but to summarize Giamatti's role as a Interpol agent on the page is a bit of a spoiler of a large plot point. He should be described as a businessman of sorts since that is what you see him as first in the film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.138.135 (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Very Bad Trip 2

It's an American-English article, the foreign titles would not be applied or mentioned unless they were of significance. Certainly not in the article lead. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

If the French title were in French I wouldn't even bother clicking on "Edit", but in this case it's an alternative English title and should be mentioned as such, just like in this example. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

In that example it's using the alternative title because it's the US alternative title for a US article. Foreign names for films are added at the bottom of the page. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Not really, since that example is a US alternative title for a UK film, hence a UK article if we go by that logic. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

It's an English article. Noone in the west who comes to read about the Hangover would need to know that in France and Switzerland the film is referred to as Very Bad Trip 2. There are a list of foreign titles at the bottom of every film page for just such a purpose. If we need to add Very Bad Trip 2 then we need to add every alternative foreign title.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You are missing the main point here: the alternative title is in English. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait... which west are you referring to? You just agreed that UK is a part of it... France, Switzerland or Belgium are more or less a part of that same region, so...? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the readers from those countries will look for the English article, and since the words "very bad trip" are in the English language they will look it up instead of "the hangover" (which is a completely different word in the English language)? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

That is why foreign titles for films are added to the bottom of the English articles so that they can be properly directed to the English article. Very Bad Trip is already on the Hangover's page at the bottom alongside all the other foreign-language translations of the film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

All those foreign titles are either "The Hangover: Part II" or in their local languages, except for this one. As I already stated numerous times, this is a different title in English. If a resident of a French speaking country, or – even better – an English speaking visitor to one of those countries – wants to inquire about "Very Bad Trip 2", they need to see, in a crystal clear manner, that it's just an alternative naming for "The Hangover: Part II". If it were a title in French then you would have been right, but it's not the case. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Like I have said, repeatedly, the title "Very Bad Trip 2" is already on the page, in the external links section amongst all the other foreign titles for the film, that help foreign viewers find it. You have repeated warnings for reverting things you believe you are right about, please believe me when I say that the title is on the page already in a standard fashion and "Very Bad Trip 2" should not be in the lead of either article. There is no discussion to be had because you've proven you are unwilling to deter from your viewpoint when I have provided you evidence that your title is already catered for and pre-existing in the article in the appropriate place. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

No, the word "Français" is on the page, wikilinked to the title. You are also unwilling to realize that keeping the title off the lead makes it extremely clumsy and non-user-friendly for English speakers who are present in French speaking areas to understand that the confusing posters for a movie supposedly called "Very Bad Trip 2" are actually referring to "The Hangover: Part II". Please address this point because I am also repeating myself here. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

English speaking people in french areas will be confused by the exact same poster with a different title? You're creating an apocalyptic problem that doesn't exist. EDIT The core problem here is that you've added it without need, adding it without a source and anyone who has removed it with reason you have just reverted as your POV is the correct one. It shouldn't be there period but it definitely shouldn't be there without a source and your constant reverts are bad form and against the rules of Wikipedia.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• Here's a French poster. You'll notice that it does say ' "VERY BAD TRIP 2" (THE HANGOVER PART II) ', admittedly in smallish type. Meanwhile Very Bad Trip 2 is a redirect to this page, and any search will also get you here, so no one will get lost. However, it might be worth mentioning in the "Release" section, especially if anyone can find an explanation of why the French release uses a different English title instead of the original or a translation. Barsoomian (talk) 02:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Should be in the release section as Barsoomian said. Also would be great to add commentary on why it is titled that in some parts of Europe. —Mike Allen 03:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The Wind in the Willows (1996 film), Léon (film), Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film)... have you noticed that all these were originally made and released outside the US, but all contain their respective US alternative titles in the opening sentence? According to your logic so far, why would any Wikipedia reader in the huge English speaking world outside the US care about the US title? Apparently, the US market is big enough to establish notability. Surely, a different title in English (again, cannot stress enough that the French title is in English) is notable enough as well, considering there are enough English speaking people in French speaking countries. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

"Very Bad Trip 2" is the French title, it isn't used in any English-speaking country. All the examples you gave above were used in English speaking countries. I notice you also "fixed" The Hangover (film): with this edit. Barsoomian (talk) 09:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's a source that confirms that the movie was first released under the title "Very Bad Trip 2". Besides, you never addressed the point of the vast amount of all the English speakers visiting French speaking countries and/or residing in those countries. Since the title is in the English language, we must treat it as an English speaking title. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 09:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Like I said, this discussion is going nowhere, any point you throw at Hearfour is just thrown right back at you. Just because a title is written in English is not an excuse for it to be in English. Barsoomian, the only reason Very Bad Trip 2 redirects here is because Hearfour made those pages yesterday and redirected them here. The emphasis hearfour is giving to this title is bordering on the ridiculous. It is a french title, it is covered in the external links under fr:Very Bad Trip 2. Whether or not it is written in English is inconsequential to the fact that it is NOT how the film is widely known and is not what anyone visiting the English Wikipedia would expect to see. I cannot believe how many times I have had to state this, but "Very Bad Trip 2" is covered on this page, in the area it should be, the area it always has been in every previous film article and this one title deserves no special status purely because it is written using English words in a french-speaking country. EDIT Your source backs this up, each country was asked to come up with a different title for the film and the French used English because its "hip" like it is in Japan to write things in English. So it has even less warrant to be in the lead. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned the redirect because that solves the problem of confused tourists in itself, so there's no need to give it more prominence in this article.

As for " Since the title is in the English language, we must treat it as an English speaking title." ORLY? What policy is that? The closest I can find is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) which says: "Use the title more commonly recognized by English readers; normally this means the title under which it has been released in cinemas or on video in the English-speaking world." Though that's about the article name. Barsoomian (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Darkwarrior, "any point you throw at Hearfour is just thrown right back at you" is a borderline attack, especially when you ignore the fact that my intent is to improve Wikipedia by benefiting a portion of its readers. "Widely known" is POV, since there is a vast amount of people that saw the title "Very Bad Trip 2" before they had the chance to see the title "The Hangover: Part II". "Just because a title is written in English is not an excuse for it to be in English" is a logical fallacy, which is pretty self-explanatory. I'll repeat: although the US contains a relatively small percentage of the worldwide English speaking population, the three examples above (The Wind in the Willows (1996 film), Léon (film) and Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (film)) state the US alternative titles that are not used anywhere outside of the US, apart from some countries that usually import blockbuster films from the US, regardless of the country of origin. There are at least as many people who saw the world premiere of a movie called "Very Bad Trip 2" as the number of people who saw the later screenings of a movie called "The Hangover: Part II". Hearfourmewesique (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Your only qualifier for why this title is more special than the Spanish or German name for The Hangover Part II is that it is written using English words. This is not the same as an article named Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone in most areas and changed slightly for a US release. Your title is specific to one country, it means nothing to the general readers of the English wikipedia and you're deeming it worth mentioning purely because it is written in English. And, as I've said like 4 times now, it is already on the page, at the bottom, with all the other foreign language titles. It is covered as well as it should be on the English wikipedia where The Hangover Part II is the official name from the country of origin. EDIT Your example regarding Leon continues the point, Leon is the official title from the country of origin but as it was released under different titles in English areas, for the users of the ENGLISH wikipedia, the alternate titles are there for what they may know it as.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Another important comment on your rationale, as for "covered on this page" (or even, as the other editor mentioned, covered on the poster): a small printed "Français" on the side of the page, garbled among all the other foreign languages, or having "The Hangover Part II" on the poster within a much bigger text in tiny letters that you almost need a microscope to read, is hardly being covered, more like the "small print terms and conditions" trick to oblige with the bare minimum. And as for users of English Wikipedia, you are more than strengthening my point about (EDIT English speaking) readers who "may know it as" "Very Bad Trip 2". Hearfourmewesique (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyone with even a passing interest in it who primarily speaks English would know what it's origin name is but regardless, that's why you've created two redirects that cover those bases as Barsoomian mentioned such that, on the off chance someone from Belgium comes to English Wikipedia looking for Very Bad Trip 2, they will now be directed to the correct article because hey, who needs the entries at the bottom of the page. So we've taken care of those people and no longer need the title in the lead at the top. Or they could go here http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_Bad_Trip_2 but whatever.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. I'm trying to make this undoubtedly clear cut but you're telling me that there's a tiny footnote and that an English title in a non-English speaking country isn't notable. We really are going in circles here. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Marketing, Casting and Sequel

Source 41 on the page: http://www.deadline.com/2011/05/hangover-part-2-opens-with-9m-10m-thursday-midnight-screenings-on-its-way-to-125m/

They've updated it, I've been using it for box office stuff but it has some really good info on marketing for the film if anyone is interested in writing it up

"The studio's strategy for selling Hangover 2 was "to stoke the very high anticipation coming off of the first movie by promising even more outrageous comedy -- an insanely good time with the guys you love in the exotic locale of Bangkok," an exec tells me. The buzz for the movie transcended anything in the genre, and tracking had been at summer tentpole levels. The campaign kicked off with a teaser trailer in February, and a main trailer that launched on April 1st. TV was key, taking advantage of the highly-rated NBA playoffs and network primetime season finales. The publicity included a hosting position for Zach Galifianakis on SNL in March and Ed Helms in May as well as a heavy magazine campaign of covers. Warner Bros also participated in the National Association of Theatre Owners convention in Las Vegas and showed footage from the film. Press tours were completed in Toronto, New York, and Philadelphia, while screenings were hosted in Top 60 markets around the country. Online was also key to the sell with 13 million fans on Facebook (a staggering number) who regularly received content from the studio. In addition, there was a game based on the Mr. Chow character, and an omnipresent online advertising campaign"

Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is another reference that could be used for "Marketing". Erik (talk | contribs) 14:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

That's pretty fascinating stuff. I don't really do marketing but the push behind this film is quite impressive. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

• Adding additional source that talks about what the actors got paid and their contract status for a potential third film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

http://www.deadline.com/2011/05/200-million-opening-weekend-puts-warner-bros-on-course-for-third-hangover/

• Reference for FX buying the cable rights to the film including fee. Not sure if it could be used here or not but found it interesting.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118037824

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Thanks to Boing! said Zebedee (talk · contribs) for deleting the redirect so I could perform this move (non-admin closure). Jenks24 (talk) 10:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

---

The Hangover: Part II → The Hangover Part II – A quick search engine test shows that just about all reliable sources are calling the film The Hangover Part II without the colon. Let's make the Wikipedia article consistent with everyone else. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

• I agree, I brought it up at #April 2011 revisit.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support: It's absurd it hasn't happened already.  InfamousPrince  14:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• I also think it should be renamed. The colon appears nowhere else. Jaketcetera (talk) 14:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with all of the above. The film's title is The Hangover Part II w/o colon. Wikipedia of all places should conform with that. --Boston Burkenation (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• I can't see this causing a major problem, can we just go ahead and do it? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support move per official name. —Mike Allen 23:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support: Haven't seen it written with a colon anywhere. –CWenger (^ • @) 02:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support That is the real title. smaro! 04:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smarojit (talk • contribs)
• Support: Why is it even written that way at the moment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saimcheeda (talk • contribs) 14:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support Bobfreshwater (talk) 07:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support --Eddyghazaley (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Can we not just do this? It isn't a controversial move, its only removing the : Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

  I'll make a new request. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

  It has been proposed as an uncontroversial request twice now and has been rejected both times as being already under discussion. Guess we'll just have to wait 7 days for an admin to close. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

  That's too bad. I didn't know it was attempted before, but I think that the consensus is very clear this time. Seems worth invoking WP:IAR. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support, Its the official name. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support See official website Americanhero (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support, Well, for example, just to make a comparison with something else, neither Disney uses a colon in its promotional material for Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, but it is actually written with a colon. As for Hangover 2, though, I think it really doesn't need one because it is found nowhere else with a colon, except Wikipedia, whereas Pirates 4 can be found with a colon in many places. Spinc5 (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2011 (GMT+2)
• Support: It's the official name, a la Back to the Future Part II. -- CollisionCourse (talk) 05:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bill Clinton casting

Why has user TriiipleThreat edited out Bill Clinton's name three different times from the cast? It has been widely reported by multiple news outlets, and has even been confirmed by Clinton's staff as per CNN, AOL, CBS, etc. If the user is with the movie and trying to cover up Clinton's cameo the secret is long since out of the bag, and it also doesn't make since to ignore his cameo while including Mike Tyson and Paul Giamatti's. Would be very curious as to what his or her hijacking agenda could be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.143.17 (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have not, it is there in prose after the remarks about Liam Neeson since it is a cameo. I even referenced it and added it to the production log.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Also regarding Mike Tyson and Paul Giamatti the referenced sources make no connotations to the types of role unlike Neeson and Clinton which is why they are bulleted with the rest of the cast.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it was great seeing Bill Clinton in the movie, wasn't it? Oh wait... 68.231.146.198 (talk) 07:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Mason Lee

Can someone highlight Mason Lee 's name? --HomeWork14 (talk) 17:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Plot

It fails to explain how Teddy lost his finger. --Boycool (talk) 15:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

In the end it reveals how he lost his finger Zacharymcgovern (talk)

Someone should put it in the plot section. --Boycool (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Movie Soundtrack

Could someone please add the soundtrack of this film? I found it here: http://itunes.apple.com/us/album/the-hangover-part-ii-original/id435817940 I'm not able to do it, but it could be wonderful if you insert it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anpet93 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Stuff

http://hangoverpart2.warnerbros.com/main.swf For archival purposes WhisperToMe (talk) 07:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"Hangover 2 Now in Thailand! (2011)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hangover 2 Now in Thailand! (2011). Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)