Talk:The Room/Archive 1

Archive 1

Initial text

"Wiseau promotes the film as a black comedy and insists that the “unintentional” humor is intentional. People who have seen the film doubt this claim."

As for the attempted deletion of the last sentence; Even the NPR story linked below reports that people who watched this film don't believe the humor is intentional. Wikipedia isn't a place for censorship to suit personal agendas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC) (talk • contribs)

Fair use rationale for Image:TheRoomMovie.jpg

Image:TheRoomMovie.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

POV

Wow, you don't think the last paragraph was added by Wiseau himself, do you? Naaaah. 208.120.238.185 (talk) 09:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

timing

The article claims that "The Room" ran on Adult Swim as a joke on April 1, 2009 and that it was followed by Tim & Eric ASGJ... well, I'm sitting here at 1am EST and "The Room" is still running. How can the author already know what will follow the joke, unless he/she is in on it? I'm weary of someone editing the article before something has officially happened. 67.189.254.228 (talk) 05:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

~~ Sitting here wondering the same thing... Saw the movie going bet it had to be an April fools joke from Adult swim looked for a wiki; and behold there was a wiki that was written in the past about things that have not happened yet. Was disturbed at the fact that it spoke in the past tense about an episode of Tim and Eric which is still a half hour away. Good post but might be a little staged.

By the way, where did this guy get 6 million dollars from, and how did he spend it on this thing? I'd like to see a citation on that line....

I am assuming it was maybe someone who worked there. its 2:24 here and Tim and eric is on.Derelix (talk) 06:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the humor in this "joke", is there any factual reference for this? It doesn't seem like a joke, just a special night of programming. --Bhockey10 (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Trust me they do it every year. They set it up so that it said on the guide that normal shows were playing but when it got to about midnight i think, they play this movie. I believe the first time i saw AS on april fools, they played fart sounds during their shows. Another time they played Aqua Teen Hunger Force: movie film for theaters, before it was released but it was all screwed up so that you could not really enjoy it (i am not sure what they did exactly) i know these are not really things you can put on Wiki without proof so i am not changing the article and i understand if you want to delete any mention of the joke on this article but it was a joke but i am telling you it was a jokeDerelix (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.130.86.188 (talk) 08:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC) How did he spend the $$? From someone who was there (although this won't meet wikipedia's criterion for inclusion), ... "...having the dubious honor of saying I worked on this film, has also brought with it the responsibility of telling the truth about what happened on set. Apparently Tommy had a lot of money sitting around and decided he needed to make a film. Not being able to decide what to shoot, film or video, we shot both. Side by side. Both cameras on the same head, being operated by one camera operator.

We shot almost the whole thing in the parking lot and back storage shed (read- sound stage) of a camera rental house in Hollywood. I got the call to work on the show after they had already tried to start with another crew that ended up all being dismissed. I believe that we ended up being crew 2 of 4. The show never had much organization to it from the start. We were told it would be a 3 week shoot. At the end of 3 weeks we were exactly 1/2 way done.

Crew calls were usually 8 a.m. tommy would show up around 10:30 or 11. Because he would take the HD video camera home with him every night, we had no choice but to wait for him. Since we were only in one room or outside the door in the parking lot, we did not have anything to do but sit around and wait every day.

When Tommy arrived we would have to see if he was in actor mode or director mode. If he was in actor mode, you were not allowed to talk to him so he could "stay in character." Since he was in almost every scene, he was always in his "actor" mode. This also meant that he could not direct. Noting the huge delays every day and the fact that we were never seeming to get anything done, our wonderful s c r i p t supervisor stepped up and became the director...at least he tried. One day he had to go off and do another show and asked if anyone else wanted to step up and direct and keep some s c r i p t notes. When nobody volunteered, I stepped up. I loved it. It was my directorial genius that had tommy bump into Lisa as they were taking the bad guy off the roof! I will also take credit for the now famous line "You are tearing me apart, Lisa!" In the first 10 takes, tommy kept saying "You are TAKING me apart!" As the crew tried to keep it together, I felt I should right the situation and corrected the line. The crew was also instrumental in keeping the chicken line in. "CHEEEEEPPPPPPP, CHEEP, CHEEP, CHEEP, CHEEP!" We begged our scri pty/director to keep him doing it take after take.

Though the crew ultimately followed the original DP out the door and quit, we are all proud to have taken part in the making of this film. Amongst the film crew realms, we are minor celebrities. "Dude, you worked on that thing?" is a phrase that is often heard when The Room is mentioned.

I have the pleasure of driving through Hollywood every day and still seeing the billboard for the film up and Tommy glaring at me as if to say, "I telled you I could make movie." 71.130.86.188 (talk) 08:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Tuxedo scene

This article mentions that wedding photos are usually taken the day of the wedding. In my experience, this is not necessarily true: my wife and I had our wedding photos taken a month before our wedding day. Far be it from me to defend a turkey like The Room, but Denny's statement makes it pretty clear that they're going to a wedding photo shoot. 203.73.225.205 (talk) 10:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Adam Green

Is Adam Green (filmmaker) notable enough to mention as a fan of this movie? I've seen him in a video being interviewed after waiting in line to see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.125.227 (talk) 21:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion to semi-protect article

I think that this article should be semi-protected to avoid vandalism, such as the recent contributions from Desudesulol, as well as from about a dozen anonymous users over the last week. This film was shown on Adult Swim, and Wiseau has also made an appearance on Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job, which (not to stereotype) probably attracts a lot of bored teenage boys looking to vandalize the article. Can anyone make this happen? Shamrox (talk) 21:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Errors section

While I agree that it's pretty easy to spot goofs and errors in the plot of The Room, I think this section might be going a bit overboard in some spots. For instance, the comment about Johnny drinking champagne after previously professing to be a non-drinker--is this really an error? For one thing, Johnny never claims to be a teetotaler (notwithstanding the admittedly clever Wiki link someone has added on the phrase "doesn't drink alcohol"); he just says that he "doesn't drink." Lots of people who "don't drink" will still have a sip of champagne at a party in their honor. Secondly, Johnny had already broken his abstinence in a previous scene, so this certainly seems acceptable in light of that. Basically what I'm saying is, sure, it's great to list these funny and topically relevant mistakes, but let's not just add things for the sake of having a long list. Do you agree? Chalkieperfect (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I do agree but I think the fact that he explicitly says he doesn't drink alcohol and then does so twice is a pretty weird occurrence. Probably worth mentioning. Grunge6910 (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree it's one of the many errors. Actually, Grunge, doesn't that make it 3 mistakes--the saying he doesn't drink then doing it twice! Mjpresson (talk) 02:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing the related statement because it is neither a plot hole or inconsistency. In fact, the arc of Johnny going from non-drinker to (casual) drinker appears to be the only change of characterization in the narrative. While such an instance of proper character development could be considered out of place in a story this poorly told, I don't think it qualifies as one of the errors intended for this section.
--K10wnsta (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Casandraelf, 24 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please modify this page to include mention of the Nostalgia Critic of That Guy With The Glasses riffing the film and being forced to remove the video, prompting him to make and post another video.

Casandraelf (talk) 22:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This has been removed before previously. This needs a more notable third party source. Provide a cite and this will be added. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The Nostalgia Critic note has been added again, without citation. I am removing it until citation can be provided. I suggest further protection may be required. 96.252.169.163 (talk) 10:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Two sources for your use

I honestly have no clue if either one of these is useful but have a look

• http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100721/15284610310.shtml
• http://www.primaryignition.com/2010/07/22/blatant-insubordination-youre-tearing-us-apart-tommy/

Both appear under google news search so I am under the impression these are credible, notable, third party sources.

My personal 2-cents is that the copyright holders have no clue how copyright law and fair-use works and that this would bite them back in an actual court.

-- Cat ^chi? 01:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately they were added & removed before, as the articles are based on the same posts at tgwtg.com & sketch. Therefore unfortunatly unreliable (they fall under those "which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions"). Jarkeld (talk) 02:00, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I strongly recommend taking a break. It is typically a bad sign when you are responding mere minutes after someone posts on a talk page. I had an edit conflict here :). All I am suggesting is taking a few steps back can't hurt. The article will be there probably untouched a few hours later. :) From experience I know how stressful things can get, trust me it isn't worth it :)

As for the content...

First of the actual Nostalgia Critic review posted on blip ( http://nostalgiacritic.blip.tv/file/3906636/ ) qualifies as a credible third party source on its own. Granted it is biased, but that is ok as far as policy is concerned. Anything mentioned by the person on the video can be presented in the casual "Douglas Walker (aka Nostalgia Critic) claims foo" format. Douglas Walker is notable enough to have an article, his show is notable enough to have an article list describing individual episodes. So I strongly believe notability isn't an issue as far as we should be concerned. If the studio has their version of the story it may also be included in the article. Mind that the studio itself (Wiseau Films) doesn't seem to have an article covering them (at least I see it as a red link). Judging from the filmography I am not entirely certain if Tommy Wiseau himself is that notable.

Then there is the matter of weather or not this is encyclopedic. This one I am not sure of. The said video mentioned above is in a parody format making it difficult for our use as a source. However whats mentioned at Douglas Darien Walker#History seems reasonable and neutral to add to the article. I am putting the exact quote I am looking at below for your review. We may consider the event notable because a notable persons (Douglas Darien Walker) video was taken down. Again I am not entirely sure.

“ In July 2010 Doug Walker was forced to take down his review of the film The Room due to a copyright dispute with filmmaker Tommy Wiseau and his studios Wiseau Films. In response to this, he has made a sketch parodying Wiseau and an employee who was apparently the first person to want Walker to take the review down. ”

As a final note, the hostile tone I see on this page (on previous sections) is baffling. There is no need for this people. Your hostile tone isn't helping. Calm down

-- Cat ^chi? 02:25, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Other than not getting any appropriate fact driven third party sources yet, that quote sounds more appropriate for the article for That Guy with the Glasses than this article. If we made a note of every site the movie was removed from, we'd have an ugly uncitable list and other than having a dedicated cult, I don't see any real significance of adding this information here. I think a quote like this would be more appropriate for this article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I went through 3 Google pages without finding anything I consider fact-driven from a third-party source. Sure TNC can have his own article, but I don't think his opinion should be in this article. Literally everyone has had something to say about this film somewhere and we need to maintain the article'a integrity. Mjpresson (talk) 06:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Why does this keep getting removed from the article? There's clearly multiple sources for it, it is totally legitimate.Doshindude (talk) 00:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The TechDirt one uses phrases like "Unfortunately, the specific details on this are not entirely clear" so it's already admitting to not being 100% on the facts. The second one openly admits to being biased and on their "who are we" page, this appears to be a fan site. These are not notable sources and as we've discussed above, videos being taken down from the internet for films is done all the time on various sites. This kind of information is more appropriate for the That Guy With The Glasses article rather than articles on The Room or Wiseau. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Andrzejbanas...Please forgive the accidental deletion of your edit, replaced. Mjpresson (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

First of people lets focus on discussing first and then make edits later. An edit war is unproductive. I can remove any edit you make within seconds just like you can do the same to my edits. There is no end to it. Let's avoid an edit war.

Conceptually wikipedia doesn't cover whats "true" on matters with difference in opinions, just claims by different sides. We do not expect 100% accuracy from sites. Even "CIA world factbook" provides estimates when it comes to percentages and we still use them (clearly identifying the number are based on CIA data). Let's not have confusions about this.

The review video got taken down because this movies studio claimed copyright infringement and demanded a take-down. For this reason the material is definitely relevant to this article. This is being done frequently on different articles. For example Wikipedia#Coverage_of_topics briefly mentions Chinese censorship of some articles. The only question is weather or not if it is important enough to be in this article. To establish this (or at least to have a metric) I compared the two sites (thatguywiththeglasses.com theroommovie.com) and noticed that thatguywiththeglasses.com seems to be significantly more notable than theroommovie.com. Therefore I think the take down is important enough to be in the article as it affects the content of a site valued at $688,333 and ranked #6,391.

The other mater is weather or not there is a notable/reputable source. That is aside from the parody content on thatguywiththeglasses.com. I noticed this url: http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/07/22/the-nostalgia-critic-vs-tommy-wiseau-debacle/ what is your take on it? Also I have contacted both thatguywiththeglasses.com and theroommovie.com for their version of the incident. I am yet to receive replies but I am confident we will get something. If not the coverage will be one sided and that alone isn't a problem as I explained above.

-- Cat ^chi? 23:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not the value of the site to make it notable. Tons of copyright claimed videos are removed from sites every day. That doesn't make it more notable or not for this article. Leave this kind of information related to the That Guy With The Glasses Site. This plagiarism site mentioned above has also been removed as well as it's getting sources from message board posts from the TGWTG website and that's generally a blog. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

So? It itself is not a blog. It qualifies as a valid source as far as I can tell. What is your definition of a reliable source? I doubt CIA world factbook will cover this. :) -- Cat ^chi? 03:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Even if this was CNN posting the above statements, it states in the article itself that it's using the message board posts from the TGWTG's site for information. That's stops it right away from being useful. Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with Andrzejbanas; anything and everything could be written on a message board and an article deriving its info from forum posts is not usable. Not every piece of information can come from a peer-reviewed published journal, but all usable info does need to be the result of some sort of editorial process. Besides, DMCA takedowns are commonplace, if TGWTG had filed the appropriate counter-claim and it went to court as a legimate possibility of Fair Use, then there might have been some notable coverage. As it stands, TGWTG did not actually make any serious effort to resist the takedown and so the only conclusion left was that it was a non-notable case of copyright infringement that was removed. For this encyclopedia it's not a matter of who was "right", but verifiability. That leaves this as a pretty dead issue. 96.252.169.163 (talk) 06:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Newgrounds

Please stop adding the Newgrounds game information. Without a secondary source, it barely relates to the film and feels like Spam for Newgrounds. If there's anything notable about this that relates to the film other than someone created a fan tribute, than feel free to reply. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of common sense, the existence of a flash game parody feels non-notable; however, it did receive (a brief paragraph of) coverage from Entertainment Weekly per the citation. As it is a major publication, the source is notable but the information itself might not be. What is the significance and/or influence of this flash game? I think it's worth further discussion to reach a compromise. 96.252.169.163 (talk) 18:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Things that make no sense.

"In order to gain funding for the massive project, Wiseau invented a 4D filming technique, patented it, and then sold the rights to Template:Jim Cameron. Later he asked Cameron for the technique back and Cameron obliged, having came up with a way to make good films in 2D." This needs to be explained. What is 4d filming, and almost all films are in 2d. 207.159.180.63 (talk) 01:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Grellery

Watch out for this person's edits. Their username suggests they are Greg Ellery, who played Steven. His only edit removes – what he calls – a 'personal quote'. I reverted because it is sourced and he has a conflict of interest. —Half Price 17:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Chris-R's Pistol

What is Chris-R's pistol exactly? I have been unable to find a cite for it. Although Mark takes it from him during the altercation on the roof, it somehow ends up in Johnny's possession, which presumably would be another inconsistency if Chris-R had been arrested. Unless they are two guns of the same or similar make and model. Or it was Johnny's gun in the first place which Denny had stolen and given to Chris-R previously. Talk about Chekhov's gun! kencf0618 (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this helps, but Chris R's gun is actually a CO2 pistol -- when he's holding it to Denny's head, you can see the pellet magazine at the base of the grip. Perhaps that's what makes it hard to identify the model (although it looks to be in the style of a 1911a1 to me). D Haggerty (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Same gun? (edit conflict, so I've merged sections)

User:Kencf0618 added this information, which I subsequently reverted. I mentioned in my edit summary that "The possible innacuracy is mentioned elsewhere in article'". Having checked the article, this is not the case although I distinctly remember the inconsistencies section mentioning it, stating that they were in fact slightly different guns. There was a huge removal of unsourced information, maybe it was part of that.

Anyway, Ken gives a source (see "Chekhov's Gun" bullet point). This site doesn't seem reliable. Although the only source I can find which states the guns are NOT the same is in the comments section of this Cracked entry. Having seen the film many times, the guns are indeed different. I realise this is original research though. Whatever the case, it should not be in the plot section. —Half Price 16:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll put up more reliable citations as I find them, assuming they're out there. I haven't found any citations for those two pistols, which strikes me as odd given the intense focus on virtually every other aspect of the film. Happy hunting! kencf0618 (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Youtube footage of the two scenes is fairly helpful I reckon. Chris-R scene. Suicide scene. 2:49 in the latter gives you a good shot of the gun. —Half Price 17:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Good catch, and a solid source —they're definitely two distinct pistols. kencf0618 (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Lisa's "pregnancy"

The plot summary states that Lisa announces to the guests at the party that she is with child. However, I seem to remember Johnny announcing this: "Hey everyone I have an announcement! We're expecting!" I'll go ahead and change this, but feel free to revert this change if I'm mistaken.... D Haggerty (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Nostalgia Critic Para

Here is my opinion on the matter. Although this Nostalgia Critic has his own article, I don't think his views are ones that are particularly notable. The prose used in the article is rather vapid and tells the reader nothing. Please share your thoughts so we can decide whether it should be included or not. Thanks. --Half Price (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is said paragraph:

The Nostalgia Critic recently did a review on this movie, complaining about the plot holes, bad acting and the overall quality of the movie, he does point out, however, that the movie is slightly entertaining due to the poor quality of it and should be seen. The review, as well as another review of this movie by another reviewer, has since disappeared from his site without any explanation. --Half Price (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The above entry regarding "The Nostalgia Critic" shouldn't be allowed in the article. It's full of weasel words and implications. We can't start piling on every internet critic's opinion in an encyclopedia. I feel the article begins to degrade with this. Mjpresson (talk) 22:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This film really should be locked for the next few weeks. It looks like the NC has his minions out to send hate mail to Tommy Wiseau and the staff of Wiseau Films, thus probably leading to a lot of vandalism of the appropriate wikipedia pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.137.92 (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This is just my two cents to the comment above but I don't recall him ever asking his "minions" to attack. Wikipedians should know by now that the internet is full of dummies who take things into their own hands even when they weren't asked to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.89.114.250 (talk) 12:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Minions. Really? You're not serious, are you? You make it sound like a kingpin is pulling the strings on a bunch of thugs. Not that I disagree about protecting the page, but come on. 174.126.69.239 (talk) 03:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Minions? Grow up. Tommy Wiseau's studio filed false copyright claims against one of the largest internet journalism companies in existance now (ie. Channel Awesome) and you don't think it's worthy of note and that people don't havet the right to be angry. Sure, some disgruntled fans will probably try to vandalise the page, as would any disgruntelled fans and we should endevour to make sure vandalism is kept down, but to call them minions is quite frankly rather pathetic and shows your biases against internet media. This is an important legal issue and Nostalgia Critic as a series is more notable and current than the film ever was, Wikipedia shows too much favouratism to televised material, often removing any internet based media's pages because they're "not notable" and refusing to accept any controversial issues that happen on the internet. Let me put it another way. If Tommy Wiseau's studio had filed a lawsuit against say 'The Dana Carvy Show' for doing a sketch about Tommy Wiseau, it would have been included without this drama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TornadoCreator (talk • contribs) 12:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Minions actually sounds accurate--have you seen how devoted the NC's fanboys are to him? Perhaps this experience will teach NC some much needed humility. That said, do, please, protect the page from vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.246.46 (talk) 06:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Rather the only "vandalism of the page was caused by a mod. The mod deleted this section. "In 2010, the Nostalgia Critic reviewed the film. He placed it firmly in the "so-bad-it's-good" genre and ultimately recommended his audience to view it. The film was quickly removed due to copyright infringement from Wiseau Studios. This also confirms the missing of Obscurus Lupa's (a contributor to ThatGuyWithTheGlasses.com) review of The Room that was also taken down. In response, Doug Walker made a sketch satirizing Wiseau bringing the review down, stating that as a review it is protected under fair use. This sketch also lampooned John, a staff member of the official website for the film, who apparently was the first to bring the complaint."

I think it's rather sad that a mod would be the one to vandalize a page and then lock it to prevent others from fixing it. Well there are still ways to post the truth on Wiki. Sadly it has to be placed here instead of where it should be. --CSLoner (talk) 04:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No, he locked the article because a presumably large number of users were attempting to edit in NC's review after seeing it on his website. Much like the AVGN, Doug's reviews are entertaining but not notable by Wikipedia standards. This has been discussed and resolved countless times on other articles. I see that since the article was unlocked someone has edited it back in without citation. Someone making a video review on YouTube or their personal website, however popular, does not constitute notability. I'm removing it again for now, if someone can find a suitable citation that the Nostalgia Critic's review has received notable coverage then it can be inserted back in. 71.101.95.236 (talk) 05:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Never mind it's locked again. Why has it been locked in order to keep a non-notable review in the article? I suggest this needs review by a different moderator. 71.101.95.236 (talk) 05:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Any confirmed editor is able to edit the page--that's how semiprotection works. DMacks (talk) 05:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You can use all the bold text in the world but it will not change the fact that the Nostalgia Crtic meets General Notability Guidelines per significant coverage from third party sources. Vodello (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Notability is not the issue for using him as a secondary source. Of course NC has enough notability to merit his own page, but using his review as a secondary source on The Room is not acceptable per wiki guidelines because his videos are not subject to editorial oversight and/or peer review. This talk page is for discussing the article on The Room, not the Nostalgia Critic. Now if you feel that the Nostalgia Critic's review of The Room is notable enough to be included on the article, then please provide a secondary source that is subject to editorial oversight to demonstrate significant coverage. 96.252.169.163 (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

And this is just the type of backbiting that keeps Wikipedia from being a respectable reference resource.24.29.219.43 (talk) 06:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not intended to be a "respectable reference resource". The policy of no original research makes it very clear that all significant content on Wikipedia should come from somewhere else. Please stay on topic about how to improve the article. 96.252.169.163 (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It's statments like this " Someone making a video review on YouTube or their personal website, however popular, does not constitute notability. " that make people consider wikipedia little more than a joke. Actually it does constitue notability, whether Wikipedia want's to admit it or not. Look at Susan Boyal and tell me her fame wasn't aided by having one of the most popular videos on YouTube ever, what about various celebrities such as Philip DeFranco or Cenk Uygur. Both made it big because of YouTube. James Rolfe and Doug Walker are both celebrities because of video series outside of YouTube, but still on the internet. Also, every single name I mentioned her has a Wikipedia page. There are some people like 2 The Ranting Gryphon (also know as Matthew Davis), a man who has released 4 DVD's, has toured USA and Europe with his comedy shows, and had a weekly online radio show, and now weekly online TV show, which still don't have pages on Wikipedia though. Why? Because it's on the internet. Wikipedia needs to change it's policies because it's pathetic and the very reason most colleges refuse to accept any citation of Wikipedia in any assignments or essays. What isn't notable to one person, is notable to another, after all, I'm fairly sure the NES game Air Fortress is of no interest or consequence to most people, and it is certainly less popular and current than many internet celebrities, but it get's a page. Notability is nothing more than popularity, and if something is popular enough that people want to look it up, it should have a page, I have often gone to look up things on Wikipedia and found the very page I wanted was deleted because it "wasn't notable", but like I give a fuck if it's notable, I wanted to read it... Wikipedia needs changes, or it will continue to be a joke on the internet.

Well, I have to agree about this. Notability standards on Wikipedia are a bit like the "scientific" standards of behaviorist psychology, which went along the lines of "if I can't grab and lift it, it's not scientific". Psychologists felt that their area wasn't "science-ish" enough, and overcompensated. Compared to real sciences, like physics, (which do use the notion of eg. forces and fields), this made a buffoon of psychology for several decades.

Likewise, I'm sure there is pressure in the Wikipedia community to conform to the standards of Big, Respectable and Venerable Encyclopediae, and this is the cause for this psychotic zeal to banish web2 content from the pages, but in reality it IS quite laughable, no less than the stereotypical "mad doctor" psychologists of the '40s and '50s with their rats and crazy ideas about the human mind. 86.101.216.102 (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This talk page is for the article, not the movie itself, Nostalgia Critic, nor sweeping discussions of what Wikipedia should or should not be. Please keep further discussion limited to the goal of reaching consensus on the article, in according with present Wikipedia policies. I've tried to straighten out the indentations but this talk page may require more cleanup. 96.252.169.163 (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The Nostalgia Critic definitely qualifies for notability under wp:note. The current paragraph is wp:npov. Although, it does need a little work. The Episode List page for the Nostalgia Critic, however, needs attention. It currently violates wp:NOTGUIDE. -DevinCook (talk) 08:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Nostalgia Critic has received enough notable coverage for an article about himself. That does not mean that each of his reviews is a suitable secondary source for every movie he reviews. The relevant guidelines here are not notability, but reliability and self-publication. 96.252.169.163 (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

"The film was quickly removed due to copyright infringement from Wiseau Studios" Someone should really change this sentence. It is poorly worded AND implies that Channel Awesome was definitely guilty of copyright infringement when it's not yet clear. Maybe something like, "The review has been removed from the site for the foreseeable future due to a claim from Wiseau Films alleging copyright infringement." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.227.11 (talk) 08:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I reworded it. The article is only protected from IP addresses and new accounts. Probably because of some guy at 76.XXX.XXX.XX inserting really bad stuff over and over again like, "feel free to E-mail John here:" Vodello (talk) 14:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Please change the link of "a sketch satirizing Wiseau" to the actual video in blip: http://blip.tv/file/3906636 It is the oroginal site, not the youtube post of some fan. And NC gets a share of advertising of blip.tv. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snafu2k (talk • contribs) 18:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually if you change any link, it should be to the page here - http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/nostalgia-critic/26252-the-tommy-wiseau-show on the Nostalgia Critics own website, not a direct link to blip.tv as it circumvents some of his advertising and without specifically trying to find the videos individual URL it's normally not possible to find any one video on blip.tv's main page. Also the point would surely be to show that the Nostalgia Critic is having the dispute, not blip.tv themselves, and linking to the website that simply hosts the Nostalgia Critic videos but has no control over their content may give the wrong impression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.78.218 (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

http://thecinemasnob.com/2010/07/20/brad-and-jerrid-watch-the-room.aspx - possibly worth considering inclusion too? It's third party comment on the whole issue (The Elfoid (talk) 03:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC))

No. The cinemasnob is a collaborator of TGWTG who hosts his videos on his own site, but this still constitutes a conflict of interest as much as a video published on TGWTG. We need coverage by a neutral source that follows an editorial process. 96.252.169.163 (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

With the inclusion of copyright arguments etc., I think the NC para now deserves to be in the article. I haven't really been on WP for a bit so I don't know who made the changes, but well done them. --Half Price (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The information does not belong here for several reasons. The information about clips from the film being taken down a site is about as notable as something being removed from youtube. He wasn't sued or anything and no major deal happened other than he started making fun of them later. Information concerning this removal has no major third party source outside some blogs. I reverted their cites as they were even saying things like "we're not 100% on this one!" and such. If you want to include information about videos no longer his site, leave it on his article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I can see the information being added if and only if it can be cited to verifiable secondary sources, not blogs of Nostalgia Critic and his fans. As it stands now, none of the citations provided are acceptable under wikipedia policy. Perhaps after all the frenzy around the Doug Walker/Tommy Wiseau conflict dies down we can move towards a reasonable consensus, and perhaps by that time there will also be some outside coverage that can be used as a source. 96.252.169.163 (talk) 08:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

All Nostalgia Critic information is removed despite the fact that it caused protests at Comic-Con and legal action is being taken yet "Wiseau plans on creating a video game and children's cartoon show based on The Room" is an acceptable statement on Wikipedia (which is laughable considering how utterly inappropriate this shitty, practically pornographic, badly shot film is for the basis of a damn childrens cartoon). That statement is sourced to a shitty little blog in the arse end of nowhere online, that no fucker reads. Wikipedia needs to stop this shit. Just because something is on the internet doesn't mean it's not important. If something was reported in a YouTube video by someone with 500,000 subscribers it would be ignored and claimed to "not count", yet if it gets an article in a magazine that has half as many reader Wikipedia takes it seriously because it's actually on paper. Fuck paper, and fuck wikipedia. It's out of date and considered a joke by EVERYONE. Universities and colleges refuse to accept it because it's unrealiable and biased. Regular people see no difference to it and any other website and people online know how over the top the Wikipedia edit-nazi's are when it comes to inforcing their guidelines. Online and offline, in any walk of life, quoting wikipedia is more likely to get you laughed at that taken seriously. Secondary sources don't exist on the internet, they're called hyperlinks. I guarentee though, if I provided a digg.com link to the Nostaligia Critic issues, it wouldn't count would it. Wikipedia is a fossil...

Please remember to sign your posts (use four tildes ~). Again, this talk page is for improving the article, and not a place for discussion about wikipedia in general. 96.252.169.163 (talk) 11:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to locate secondary sources as a means to reach consensus on this issue...very little can be found other than blog posts and video comments. This[1] might be considered a secondary source as there is some editorial process to it, but the author clearly states that he doesn't know for certain "since the details are a bit fuzzy", and without explaining his sources my impression is that he's going off of forum posts and blogs. That probably makes it an unreliable source as it falls under those "which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions", but I'm open to discussion on the matter. To anyone reading this please remember, the Best Practice for encountering uncited content is to make a good faith effort to locate a source yourself before removal; that said, there do not appear to be enough reliable sources to merit inclusion at this time. 96.252.169.163 (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted that post before as that user is getting information is "Unfortunately, the specific details on this are not entirely clear. I've asked "The Nostalgia Critic" to see the details, but haven't heard back, so the following is what I've pieced together from what's out there.". If we can't get a decent source, this removal of content is about as notable as the fact the various people are banned from youtube everyday for this kind of content. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There really should be SOMETHING covering the incident with Channel Awesome on here if only because it lasted for months and became fairly well known on the internet. Whoever does the writeup needs to be careful to be nuetral and just present the facts, though. Leaving any mention of it out of the article altogether is just as bad in terms of not maintaining neutrality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.227.11 (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

No there shouldn't. It's has no relevance for The Room. It however may be more relevant on it's effect to Nostalgia Critic or That Guy With The Glasses. It only lasted for months because NC couldn't get over the fact that a copyright claim was made in Blip (his safe harbor after failing in Youtube). Also it's only well know in circles that care about NC and his site.It has significant nothing to do with The Room --84.248.54.59 (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Critical Reception

I have no idea why there's so much trivia in this section that has nothing to do with "Critical Reception." I'd like to remove the paragraph about the midnight screenings (what does that have to do with critics?), the celebrities that are "fans" (they're not critics) and the one sentence about the news agencies that have commented on it since it's a very generic statement. I'm thinking the midnight showings statement might be moved to the Popular Culture section and rewritten. Thoughts, objections? (I hate taking out that much research without discussion.)Bobbyandbeans (talk) 15:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Room (2003 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: GRAPPLE X 23:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Lead doesn't need the citations, anything cited in the lead should be mentioned elsewhere in the article and cited there instead.
   The 'Casting' section has some very short paragraphs, which could combined together.
   "Wiseau is credited as an actor, an executive producer, the writer, the producer, and the director." -> I'd lose the "the"s and just list it as "an actor, an executive producer and the writer, producer and director".
   Both paragraphs in the 'Soundtrack' heading could be combined. You could add a track listing table if you want as well. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (film)#Soundtrack has some pointers if you decide to do so.
   The third paragraph of the 'Errors, plot holes and inconsistencies' section (starting with "At the same time") is unsourced. If the citations elsewhere in the section address this paragraph too, add them there as well.
   The 'Other media' section should use lower-level headings instead of bullet points.
   The 'In popular culture' section should use prose instead of bullets, but the content is okay.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Cast section should either contain some information about the casting and the roles themselves (see e this, this or this for examples). Otherwise I'm not sure it's necessary since you already explain who plays who in the plot section and the cast is listed in the infobox. There's stuff in the 'Casting' header that could be duplicated or summarised here; or moved there entirely if you prefer.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   A lot of the references are missing dates, authors and access dates. They're used well but they just need this information added for completeness sake. Might be worth using the citation templates to help you keep a consistent list of things to fill in, but their use isn't necessary. There's also the refs in the lead that should be used in the article itself.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Scope seems okay.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article seems neutral. I was looking for the positive reviews that pushed the Rotten Tomatoes rating up to 36% but I'm not convinced they're actually serious.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Seems to be attracting a fair amount of disruptive editing. I'll keep an eye on it for a while longer to see if this persists, and if it does, it might be worth seeking semi-protection for it. IP vandalism seems to decrease even after a semi-protection has expired, so it shouldn't hurt.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   The image is used well and the rationale is solid, though it's using an outdated template. Just replace that with the current one and it should be grand.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   There's a fair bit of work to be done here, it seems, but there's a GA-worthy article in there. I'm going to put the article on hold for now. If you find yourself needing help with any aspect of what I've listed above, don't be afraid to ask for help.

I think that the stability of the article can be solved by simply protecting it. This always happens with topics on cult classics. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 11:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to be busy for the next few days so I'm going to let this hold run on for another full week. The article seems to have calmed down a lot but there's still a good few points to address. It was due to finish tomorrow but I'll let it run on until the following week for that to be seen to since I'll be away. GRAPPLE X 19:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

As much as I would hate to say this, time is something in short supply. While The Room remains a topic that I want to get to GA status, I am afraid higher priority issues must come first. Rainbow Dash !xmcuvg2MH 11:35, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

That's understandable. I'll still let this run out until the end of the week just in case you do find some time, or another editor takes it on. GRAPPLE X 12:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's the additional week over, and unfortunately time seems to have been hard to come by. I'm afraid I'm going to have to fail this one for now, but if you drop me a message in the future I'll review any future nominations promptly. GRAPPLE X 01:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Genre

According to the director, this movie is a black comedy--this is stated explicitly in the Wikipedia article. To contend otherwise is unsubstantiated POV. The burden lies with those who wish to re-categorize the movie, due to the suspicion of audience members. 66.68.111.4 (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:BRD the burden lies with the person who wants to change the category to another category that is not backed up by the references. Jarkeld (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see the first citation. "[Wiseau] insists that the whole humor-from-melodrama theme was his intent..."66.68.111.4 (talk) 21:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read several other citations that show it's a drama. The black comedy bit is a retcon by Wiseau, so it shouldn't be mentioned in the lede. And you should not replace the category without waiting for the discussion. Jarkeld (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Whose opinion is more authoritative than the director's? I provided a citation. Unless you have one to back up your claims, the opening sentence must read "black comedy." 66.68.111.4 (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS. Wiseau is a primary source. Wikipedia uses mostly secondary sources. They say it's a drama. Jarkeld (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Your secondary sources are an anonymous actor and "most" audience members. "They" is a weasel word. 66.68.111.4 (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

They as in "the other sources" does not constitute a weasel word. Some of those other sources are by journalists with editorial oversight. That makes them more reliable than a director who tries to make his unintentionally comedic drama a black comedy by repeating that statement ad nauseam. Jarkeld (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Assumptions made by journalists are not sufficient grounds to overturn testimony of the director. We have no reason to believe the former's word over the latter. The attribution of the label “drama” to the film is a subjective judgment made by journalists, and must not be the determining factor in Wikipedia's categorization. Certainly, there should be a section in the article describing the debate over the film's true genre, but the opening line should not refer to the film as a “drama.”

In addition, Andrzejbanas's claim that “nothing in [the first] citation suggests a black comedy” is conspicuously false to anyone who read the article to which the citation refers. At most, we could grant that the film is a “comedy” simply, rather than a “black comedy,” though this would run afoul of the very next paragraph in the Wikipedia article, which relies on the citation in question as well as an additional one.129.116.108.124 (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Wiseau didn't originally market it as a black comedy but as something comparable to Tennessee Williams (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20246031_2,00.html). Even Sestero has said that. It wasn't until the audience started laughing that he said the comedy was intentional. Wiseau also denied that cast members needed to be replaced and then backed out of that statement, so his credibility is shaky at best. The opening paragraphs acknowledge Wiseau's current statements but the movie was released as a drama.Bobbyandbeans (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't use Wiseau as a source for the genre of the film. As a primary source, his interpretation is very complicated. It involves how he wishes to be seen as a filmmaker. Let's stick to film criticism for this issue. The Interior (Talk) 00:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Errors, plot holes, and inconsistencies

I'm considering removing the paragraph about the Denny character since this is not technically an error, plot hole, or inconsistency; it's just a poorly written character. Is there a need for a subheading under this section to mention things like this and other issues that make it "the worst movie ever made"? I'm trying to be judicious about what is appropriate to include and what is just unnecessary trivia. Bobbyandbeans (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the section merits inclusions, but it could use some cutting down. Since Wiseau was specifically questioned about Denny and (somewhat) explained the character, I do not see any harm in leaving it in as it is an example of the half-thought out characters which supports why the movie is considered one the worst. The content about the tape recorder seems trivial however. To say "much has been made about it" is going a bit overboard, especially since the entire paragraph is only supported by one source. I think some of the content regarding the football playing in tuxedos could be salvaged but only with proper sourcing. I say that only because that is probably a fairly memorable portion of the film (albeit bizarre) that most people who watch it remember and question. The mention of the wedding photos seems trivial and could be removed. Pinkadelica^♣ 00:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I have given this section the more appropriate title "Narrative flaws and inconsistencies." The section itself does not discuss any real "errors" aside from the operation of the cassette recorder, which only has one source and is a minor technical flaw in the film. Additionally, the confusion around Denny is more thoroughly sourced and has more bearing on the film, but nothing regarding his character is a "plot hole" or "inconsistency." Thus, I think the new title is more appropriate to the content it discusses.24.155.117.14 (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The "Initial reception" section

Both of the reviews (from IFC.com and The Guardian) in the "Initial reception" section are both retrospective reviews posted years after its release. It feels erroneous for them to be in this section, as they clearly don't qualify as inital reception. Can they not be moved elsewhere in the article, or at least have some sort of clarification that they are more recent than the article currently suggests? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.232.198 (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Am I contravening wikipedia talk page guidelines? Should this be at the bottom? Who cares! Too many arbitrary guidelines here, dudes.

Hi. I can't be bothered with the petty politics and wrangling involved in editing a wikipedia article myself (this place really is ridiculous - congrats, "wikipedians") but I thought I'd post here in the hopes that OCD would spur one of you guys on to make this article more accurate and comprehensive (comprehensive about notable things, of course. It wouldn't be right to have comprehensive information about silly things here, like early BBS history. Meanwhile, in-depth analysis of Simpsons episodes is ok). For example, do you think people care about where the money for this film really came from? Tommy's ESL teacher provided him with the money (Chloe) - she's old and rich. This information comes from the "How did this get made" podcast (link below), featuring the guy who played Mark. He was also Line Producer for the movie, so despite this podcast not being "peer reviewed" or whatever, it has some information straight from the horse's mouth. If this article is to be encyclopedic, it behooves you to listen to this podcast and edit the page in a way that over-zealous wikipedia moderators will arbitrarily accept. As I said, I've long given up on trying to add information to this cesspit. You'll notice that all I do is post on talk pages, asking wikipedians to edit for me. All else is pointless - but please, by all means enjoy your editing. "The encyclopedia that anyone [willing to follow pointless, shackling guidelines] can edit.

Podcast link: http://www.earwolf.com/episode/the-room-directors-edition/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trumad (talk • contribs) 08:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Denny being "mentally retarded"

I cut a version of this a while ago but it's come back - the statement that "Wiseau has confirmed that Denny was intended to be mentally retarded, so that the character would be confused by the events going on around him.", sourced to an interview ("What do you think Philip Haldiman brought to the role of Denny?" "I think he brought a lot stuff. One thing was people actually, he’s really retarded a little bit." "Is that how you wrote it?" "Indirectly, so he’s confused."). Can we really pick anything coherent out of that about what Wiseau intended Denny's character to convey? --McGeddon (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree the quote doesn't support the statement made here. Neither does his having a girlfriend or going to college. I think it's far more likely that his strange behaviour is just like everything else in the film: unexplainable. - Estoy Aquí (talk) 22:23, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I've cut it again, along with the whole "The character of Denny has received a great deal of attention from fans..." paragraph, which was only sourced to an article that mentions Denny's name once in passing. --McGeddon (talk) 10:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Despite Wiseau's butchered syntax, it's clear (or as clear as Wiseau ever is) that he implicated retardation in Denny (Wiseau here confusing "implication" for "indirectly") so that the character would be confused by the events unfolding around him, rather than understanding them with adult perception. I also think that it's a slap in the face to people with disabilities to imply that they can't have a girlfriend or go to college. Poor form.66.170.204.148 (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

No it's not. That's reality. No one is saying people who are disabled cannot or do not go to college or have girlfriends. However, the idea that someone like Denny with a mental disability so severe that he does not understand... well everything that he seems not to understand, could have done both is entirely implausible. If he doesn't have adult perceptions almost all laws hold that he is not legally competent to enter into a relationship. Disabled people aren't on trial, Wiseau's credibility is, the same person who claims to be from New Orleans, and that the Room was a "black comedy", and intentionally bad (he obviously does not understand what a black comedy is). The character reads as though Wiseau initially intended him to be around 10, and then changed his mind halfway through. - Estoy Aquí (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

THE NOSTALGIA CRITIC

Any mentioning of popular internet comedian The Nostalgia Critic's review of this film seems to be automatically removed or significantly shortened. The Nostalgia Critic's review is a notable footnote in The Room's rise in popularity. I created a paragraph explaining that while this review was negative, The Nostalgia Critic recommended his viewers to see the film, which resulted in a growing fan-base for the film (myself included). I also mentioned that stars Juliette Danielle and Greg Sestero praised the review (and that Sestero reprised his role in an episode of The Nostalgia Critic).

However, somehow any mention of The Nostalgia Critic is curiously removed (perhaps Tommy Wiseau is editing it himself?) It was changed to "Negative review" without mentioning The Nostalgia Critic recommending his viewers see it (which is important in explaing The Room's "So Bad it's Good" status). The copyright feud was mentioned, and I suppose Wiseau still holds a grudge against this review. If that is the case and someone involved with Wiseau is specifically trying to keep any mention of The Nostalgia Critic off the Wiki page, then someone higher up on the food chain needs to put a stop to this. Because this is notable review to mention regarding the film, just like Siskel & Ebert, Leonard Maltin, anyone like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JTCBlues (talk • contribs) 00:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Consensus on lead sentence

I think it would be good for us to gain a consensus on this part of the article because it seems to be one of the most often changed sections. WP:FILMLEAD as well as WP:LEADSENTENCE go into more detail about what is expected of this section.

Both the title and date are rarely changed, however people do change romantic drama film to comedy or black comedy often, I believe based on what FILMLEAD guidelines say this should remain as romantic drama: "Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources."

Another issue seems to be to include Tommy Wiseau's credit as an Executive producer in addition to all his other titles for the film. I'm fine with this going either way as it is true he was one on this film but also usually executive producers are not put in the lead as well as Tommy already being listed as a producer on the film, just not as an Executive producer. Executive producer generally seems to imply the person had financial ties to the film but did not neccessarily engage in day to day production like a producer. Jeanjung212 (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

As far as genre goes, I think the way we do it now is best – identify it as a melodrama in the opening sentence and discuss further genre categorization later in the lead. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Consensus on future wife/fiancée

One of the small oddities of this article is the reference to fiancée in almost all instances being referred to as future wife. I would like if we can reach a consensus as to refer to Lisa as future wife or fiancée in most cases.

My personal thoughts on this are to keep the wording as 'future wife' as that is how she is described in the film, the book The Disaster Artist, and most of the cited sources. It also seems to be what editors in the past have preferred with how much fiancée has been edited to future wife. Jeanjung212 (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Room (2003 film)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ribbet32 (talk · contribs) 22:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Pinging also frequent editor @PatTheMoron:

Well-written:

1a Generally good. Would like to see the brackets avoided in text. Tense in directorial credit: "he desires credit" rather than "he desired credit" 1b Some structural concerns here. I can appreciate the Inconsistencies section can be an offshoot of Plot, to the extent that the film is supposed to have one; it also reads like a Reception section in parts, though. I'd suggest moving it down near Influences, creating an Analysis section and making it and Influences subsections of Analysis. The third para of Script reads as though it belongs in Inconsistencies. Additionally, per WP:CASTLIST I don't see the merit of the bare bullet point Cast section, and suggest converting it to a table and placing it alongside the Casting subsection in much the same was as the GA Apt Pupil (film). That won't leave room for the Johnny photo, but it can be moved up to Plot since it depicts the character. The Sestero photo can also be moved down further. Why should Home media get its own section when everything else is grouped under Release?

Verifiable with no original research

2a Page numbers, or at least chapter titles if page numbers are unavailable to the editors, should be used rather than the a-z citation to The Disaster Artist- the fill citation should be moved to Further reading for consistency; Other sources are incosistent as to whether dates are spelled out (June 17, 2009) or given in 2017-07-18 format. Per WP:LEADCITE, come of the citations should be moved down from the lede; this came up in the last GAC as well. Plot shouldn't have citations either. 2b Major publications are used, but the YouTube reference ( Tommy Wiseau... Will The Room be on Broadway?) does not appear official; madameask does not appear to be a notable source either; and Amazon.com is retail and not an independent source. "Despite the criticism, the film has received positive reviews from audiences for the same reason with some viewers calling it the 'best worst film of all time'" is completely uncited. 2c. Review pending 2d. The big red flag was the overlap with IMDb trivia; however, looking through the history, it appears much of the identical material was in the article in 2012, when it wasn't in IMDb [2], so they copied from us rather than the other way around. Earwig did turn up other concerns:

Wiseau has been secretive about exactly how he obtained the funding

that he made some of the money by importing leather jackets from Korea

to The Rocky Horror Picture Show; audience members dress up as their favorite characters, throw plastic spoons

Broad in its coverage:

3a. All major and several minor bases covered. Seems appropriately thorough for "the Citizen Kane of bad films". 3b. Not a lot off-topic.

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.

4. It can be hard to appear truly neutral when the film is indisputably, objectively bad and every viewer and critic says so. The fact that Production is a funny read even though it contains no jokes is a charm.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

5. No edit wars taking place

Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio

6. Poster is attributed, other images are free from Commons

2c review: "Running time 100 minutes"- source says 99. Under Inconsistencies: ""if only you knew." - ref says "If people only knew". Development: " leather jackets from Korea"- source just says "clothing". The specifics, per above, are better cited to IndieWire. "$7,800,000 in 2016"- not in source- why 2016? Completely random later year. Remove all adjustments for inflation unless you update to 2017 and have refs. "In his performance, Wiseau attempted to emulate Marlon Brando and James Dean"- source mentions Clint Eastwood and Orson Welles rather than Brando- and it would more accurately be said "direction and performance", given the question. Need page numbers to verify the book ref. Putting on hold until then. Ribbet32 (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review and give your feedback! I'll try to address everything this week. Jeanjung212 (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC) @Ribbet32: I've been working on all the items that were of concern and have a few questions/comments along the way.
2a. Page numbers - I should have this done within a week, the copy I own is an e-book with non-standard page numbers but I have a local library that is the same edition as the cited one I'll go and review for the correct page numbers.
2b. YouTube reference - I know the reference does not appear that official. However it is of Tommy Wiseau himself mentioning his plans on the recording. If that isn't satisfactory I can just remove that portion from the Live performances section if my searches turn up no alternate source.

I'd still have doubts as to its acceptability. Also, do you have secondary sources to replace the Amazon and Netflix refs? DVD and Blu-ray releases will often receive some news coverage, at least in the form of reviews. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I replaced the youtube source with a different more recent one and changed the information a little, also got the better sources for the releases. I removed the purchase information because it doesn't seem other film articles bother with that. Jeanjung212 (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

2c. Leather jackets from Korea source says clothing - I'm a little confused by this one because the cited source quotes Tommy mentioning the leather jackets.

Sorry, missed that. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

2c. Inflation - I'm fine with removing this if it's still viewed as a problem, I just thought it would be interesting information to have for readers since I think many will think of monetary values in current year worth. The numbers in the article are automatically calculated by the currency template used by way of {{Inflation}} which uses {{Inflation/US/dataset}} which is not updated until the end of each year because of how inflation can fluctuate in each year, which is why the display date will always lag a year behind the current year.

@Jeanjung212: Interesting. I guess there's a template for everything. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

2d. Earwig concerns - I looked into the indiewire article and all of those lines actually existed in the Room wikipedia article for more than a year before that indiewire article was written, so I think they copied the prose from us for those parts.

Good find. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou again so much for taking your time to help me with this! Jeanjung212 (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC) @Ribbet32: It took me a bit but I found all the page numbers for the book citations and have changed them. I even was able to correct one of the quotes from the book. Only one citation couldn't be found in the book or elsewhere so I removed that information. Please let me know if I missed anything for this GA review, I think with this last revision I've addressed all the concerns. Thanks! Jeanjung212 (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jeanjung212: Thank you, I noticed the additional citations earlier this morning. I'm going to have a busy work day so please give me till Saturday to review. Ribbet32 (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jeanjung212: Thank you for all your hard work! I am satisfied with this now, and very pleased Wikipedia can turn out articles better than their own subjects. Ribbet32 (talk) 03:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on The Room (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170619164427/http://laist.com/2007/04/27/laist_interviews_tommy_wiseau_the_face_behind_the_billboard.php to http://laist.com/2007/04/27/laist_interviews_tommy_wiseau_the_face_behind_the_billboard.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161108020244/http://gothamist.com/2016/07/28/tommy_wiseau_the_room_interview.php to http://gothamist.com/2016/07/28/tommy_wiseau_the_room_interview.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Checked and confirmed both links are valid. -Jeanjung212 (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Blacklisted-link

• https://intensitiescultmedia.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/j-macdowell-j-zborowski-the-aesthetics-of-so-bad-its-good1.pdf

• linked to by http://web.archive.org/web/20140622135734/http://www2.hull.ac.uk/fass/film-studies/staff/james-zborowski.aspx
• also at http://thelesserfeat.blogspot.com/2013/03/value-intention-and-aesthetics-of-so.html

64.175.40.235 (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Request for image correction

At private WP:OTRS ticket:2018081010005606 a user requests a correction to the non-free image leading this article.

Somehow a black and white image is used. The official movie poster has color. The request is for someone to copy the image from the IMDB entry to use in this article.

Are any of this article's editors available to replace the incorrect black and white File:TheRoomMovie.jpg with a copy of the IMDB color image? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@PatTheMoron and Jeanjung212: I think you have edited this in the past. Are you available to take this request? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I can do that. PatTheMoron (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Done! PatTheMoron (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@PatTheMoron: Thanks! Jeanjung212 (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Resolved

Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Box office source review

I was looking for box office for the room when google found that according to wikipedia the box office was 1800$... compared to other articles in wikipedia where box office is written as total number, i found it really low given it's famous character.

This wiki article many times refers to https://ew.com/article/2008/12/12/crazy-cult-room/ as relevant source of information and provides it as source for box office aswell. however, the article itself states (on the current box office number): "Tommy Wiseau insists that he ”really doesn’t know” how the film fared at the box office on its initial release. However, one industry source states that the combined gross from the two-week run at two theaters — the Laemmle Fallbrook and Fairfax — was just $1,900." (only box office reference i found in article connected to the number)

i find one "industry source" highly unreliable, given you have other sources like IMDB which is at least a bit more believable with it's $7,840,034 Cumulative Worldwide Gross and Opening Weekend USA: $5,800, 30 June 2003. or https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=theroom.htm boxofficemojo's Domestic Total Gross: $549,602

i already tried to edit the article providing information from IMDB as total box office rather than some random number from 2 cinemas. the change was reverted tho so i would like someone more qualified to review the source and in case he finds it incorrect aswell edit it. at least put $1800 as information for "initial box office" not as "box office".

thank you for reviewing this— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.98.253.6 (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is that the number to be listed in articles is for initial box office, not re-releases later, and this is the way this and the other infoboxes for movies are formatted. Additionally, the boxofficemojo showing is a re-release done by Fathom Events in 2018. --Jeanjung212 (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, the infobox is usually just for the initial theatrical release, though I guess we could include the Box Office Mojo figure if people think it's relevant. We can't use the IMDb, though, because that's user-generated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)