Talk:Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cast Update[edit]

I added some information under the cast section to give a short description of the main characters of the movie. I felt that even though most of the main characters already had a Wikipedia page of their own, they should still have some information about them on this page. It gives readers more understanding of the tone of the movie.

Although the changes I made were minor, the resources I used to make the edits are from below:

https://anchorman.fandom.com/wiki/Ron_Burgundy https://anchorman.fandom.com/wiki/Veronica_Corningstone https://anchorman.fandom.com/wiki/Brian_Fantana https://anchorman.fandom.com/wiki/Brick_Tamland https://anchorman.fandom.com/wiki/Champion_%22Champ%22_Kind

Dream sequence[edit]

did anchorman really have a dream sequence? I don't think I've ever seen it and I've seen the movie at least 7 times. Perhaps in the extras or deleted scenes?

yep - it's around the middle of movie when ron says he can't go to the pancake dinner with the guys. they are sitting around in the newsroom. The dream is of veronica at home doing the housework and they have two kids. johnSLADE (talk) 10:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Really, I watched my DVD of Anchorman including all deleted scenes and found nothing about a dream sequence. Perhaps, it's in the director's cut, if there is one? I have this version of the DVD http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00061QJZI/qid=1124208125/sr=8-5/ref=pd_bbs_5/103-8715919-4599853?v=glance&s=dvd&n=507846 The one with the wording at the top and a picture of the channel 4 news team (all 5), and the review by peter reavers of rolling stone at the bottom.

The "dream" sequence is only in the Widescreen Unrated Director's Cut. --Max22 05:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the secne when he has sex with Veronica and they go to that place with the cartoon animals? The Republican 23:29, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. As previously noted, there's an unrated cut of this film, which is both on DVD and is shown on cable (they seem to alternate between versions for some odd reason). The dream sequence is shown in the unrated cut. Also, I believe that in the direct-to-DVD "lost movie" cobbled together from cut scenes, WAKE UP RON BURGUNDY, this sequence is used. Sleeper99999 07:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "dream" scene consists of Ron coming home to Veronica dressed in a sexy-housekeeper outfit. She tellls him that she worked all day dusting his emmys and cooking dinner in the nude. Ron then looks to his school-age sons only to say "No eye contact" upon their reception of his presence.

Baxter[edit]

I'm not sure where the author got that from, but Baxter the dog is definitely not a Jack Russell terrier. My guess would be some sort of border terrier mix, but since no one can be sure, it would probably be best to leave that reference out.

Iceman[edit]

Quick Question.. Why does Tits McGee direct to this article??

because that was a name given to veronica by Ron. also ic ant recall any other tits mcgees

The name was first used by Adam Sandler's character in "Big Daddy." Nashvilleshark 22:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cult Following[edit]

I think something should be added on the cult following that has been established for this film. its a film that has been taken to heart by thousands and is oft quoted

I disagree that Anchorman is a cult film or that it has a cult following. It achieved pretty widespread success, considering it's gross, large fanbase and upcoming sequel. Usually a cult film is one that appeals to a small portion of people who love it with intensity, but I think a lot of people like Anchorman, and Will Ferrell is certainly a big star.Comatmebro ~Come at me~ 22:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Character birth/death dates?[edit]

Where do they come from? I don't remember seeing them in the movie. --Cardinal biggles 02:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes[edit]

Is it considered okay to have a quotes section for a film? El redactor 15:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Standard procedure is to isolate quotes to Wikiquote. Baseball Bugs 17:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Black[edit]

I'm pretty sure Jack Black was credited as 'motorcyclist'. 90.241.139.169 16:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Individual Character Pages[edit]

Based on the movie's popularity and the nuance's of each character, I think individual character pages would be very beneficial for the abundance of information on each character. Anyone opposed to this idea? --Endlessdan 17:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plot[edit]

I think someone should add a description of the plot to this. --71.132.202.228 22:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Champ's Sexuality[edit]

Is Champ really gay, after all, he did try to touch Corningstone's breasts and flirt with her. Anonoymus 7:54, 15 January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.87.143 (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's a closet case.--EndlessDan 16:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand were you would get that, but he did it because he actually wanted to date her, not to prove he wasn't gay. Anonoymus, 3:00 20 January 2008

You need to watch the 'lost movie'. Champ admits he is in love with Ron.--EndlessDan 13:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost Movie is an alternative film, not the true story. P.S Mabye he is bisexual. Anonoymus 3:03, 21 January 2008

Brick's Loving[edit]

What do you mean Brick "admits to loving several objects in the room?" He didn't really love those objects, he just said that he did because he didn't understand what love is. Gamer 5:47, 29 January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.246.114 (talk) 01:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because he's retarded he doesn't know what love is? You f-ing racist.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 02:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I meant dumbass. He really didn't know what love is, watch the movie. I just suggested that the passage that said that "He admits to loving several objects in the room" sould be refraised. God, you don't have to be a dick. Gamer 9:22, 2 April 2008

Title[edit]

Was the title inspired by the documentary released three years earlier, Porn Star: The Legend of Ron Jeremy? Julyo (talk) 06:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Every movie in the Mediocre American Man Trilogy title's are inspired by that. Anonymus 9:32, 24 June 2008

Expanding / explaining template[edit]

I came across this template:

{{Mediocre American Man Trilogy}}

There isn't any word on Wikipedia about the so-called Mediocre American Man Trilogy, so I thought maybe here someone could help out. --Soetermans (talk) 23:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Rogen Cameo?[edit]

Can you really count it as a cameo as he was relativity unknown at this point. Bencey (talk) 03:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct - Although Seth had received small screen recognition for his role within Freaks and Geeks and had a few TV Characters under his belt. This was only his second big screen outing is what would be considered a supporting role, not typically considered a “Cameo” at this point in somebody’s career —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.72.35.119 (talk) 10:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

some editin may be needed[edit]

i just removed the word poopmouth from the plot section, it's possible there may be other vandalism in the article but i don't know it well enough to spot it. someone should read through and see what may need correcting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.167.169 (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel[edit]

On some entertainment newscast I heard Ferrell talk about the sequel, he explains Ron will be an anchorman in Europe, and not understand the local language or culture. Can anyone verify it? --99.251.127.80 (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the seuel will mainly focus around the life of ron after his tv days are long over —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.134.96 (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Afternoon Delight[edit]

There should be some reference to the singing of the song "Afternoon Delight" in the movie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.21.235 (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since it doesn't actually further the plot, no. (Deftonesderrick 20:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Vandals[edit]

This page is being dominated by vandals, I think a limited block is needed. Zuranamee (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Headlines[edit]

to use with this article.--J.D. (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Messi cameo?[edit]

Surely, that is someone messing with us. The Argentinian footballer would have been 17 at the time, and mostly unknown. What the hell would he be doing on the set of a movie in LA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.58.164.64 (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ron "The Balls" Burgundy[edit]

So, I disagree with labeling "the balls" as his nickname. Listening to the sound byte in the citation, it says "In other words, he was the balls." Later in the movie, everyone introduces their own nicknames. I believe that the narrator is calling him the balls kind of like you call someone the bomb, or the bees-knees. None of these are nicknames, and have very similar usage. I would suggest we remove "The Balls" as his nickname. (DrNo830 (talk) 02:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Inspiration of Burgundy character by a Philadelphia news anchor?[edit]

I have seen instances of where people say that the character of Ron Burgundy was inspired by WPVI-TV anchorman Jim Gardner. Old pictures of Gardner strongly resemble Burgundy. See Photo of Gardner - scroll down to view an old photo of Gardner. Bill S. (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The True inspiration for Anchorman is Former Detroit anchorman Mort Crim. http://www.freep.com/article/20131204/ENT01/312040138/will-ferrell-ron-burgundy-mort-crim-inspiration — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.200.213 (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit dispute[edit]

Hearfourmewesique and I are having a dispute over recent edits I have made to the article. This is my version. This is Hearfourmewesique's. Here is the difference.

I made my changes because

  • There is no need to discuss in the lead section the process behind the production of the sequel film (certainly not that Ferrell appeared on Conan); such detail is better suited for the body, where it does appear. Just saying that a sequel has been announced is sufficient.
  • Beyond violating WP:TONE, saying that a film is "tongue in cheek" is redundant when describing a comedy.
  • While cites in the lead section are neither prohibited nor encouraged, there is no compelling need for cites that repeat others that exist in the body as this is neither an article on a controversial, "challenging" topic nor a stub in which the bulk of the text is within the summary.
  • Contrary to Hearfour's bizarre claim, no rule exists that prohibits removing a cite from an article. The one cite I removed, from Cinematical, was substantially duplicated by the Deadline Hollywood cite in the body.

I would appreciate Hearfourmewesique's response to the above. Ylee (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is:
  • It's not a "discussion", it's half a sentence that is written in a professional manner and clarifies the sequel issue in a very succinct manner;
  • Not all comedy is tongue in cheek, and where exactly is WP:TONE violated?
  • If an editor worked on finding a cite, there must be a very compelling reason for removing that cite;
  • It's not a "bizarre claim", and the answer is right above. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead, especially when relatively brief, is no place to discuss details like a film being put on hold--something that happens to many, many films whether they are ultimately produced or not--or the manner of announcing that production will go forward. Such details belong in the body. I watched, and laughed at, Ferrell appear on Conan as Ron Burgundy, but this does not need to be stated in the lead.
  • A phrase like "tongue in cheek" is prohibited by WP:TONE's admonition to not use "unintelligible argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon". The exception is when the phrase itself is discussed from an encyclopedic perspective--thus the existence of the Wikiarticle--or when quoting a reliable source that uses it, but otherwise it should not ordinarily be used when writing encyclopedically about a subject. (If quoted from a RS, it really wouldn't belong in the lead, anyway; as with the previous point, it would almost certainly be more appropriate for the body.)
  • Again, there is no rule that prohibits removing a cite if it, as the disputed one did, substantially duplicated another, and there is certainly no allowance given to the "effort" needed to punch some words into a search engine. Both cites say that the film was on hold. No compelling reason exists for having both, especially in the lead. Ylee (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well... it's half a sentence. It's an encyclopedia, not a court transcript. We are also instructed to use WP:COMMON SENSE;
  • It is not "unintelligible", it is actually an accurate term that describes a particular genre of comedy. I've also found a source that uses this term;
  • Again, an editor worked hard enough to find the cite and comply with the citation requirements of Wikipedia. To simply throw it away, you need to try harder than saying that no rule explicitly prohibits that. Wikipedia is not a WP:BUREAUCRACY. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? You're going to cite WP:COMMONSENSE? It is meant as a metarule to deal with corner cases when all other rules don't quite apply. It is not meant to be a first-use get-of-of-jail-for-free card.
  • Phrases like Mary Sue and Magical Negro and even Principle of Evil Marksmanship have reliable sources that define them as legitimate, unique, distinct tropes to describe aspects of creative works, and are thus appropriate for use in Wikipedia in proper contexts. No more-encyclopedic synonym for any of these phrases exists. "Tongue-in-cheek" is pure slang which, by contrast, can easily be replaced by more encyclopedic language ("satirical" and "humorous" being two examples).
  • I used the word "quoting" when describing a way to appropriately use the phrase in a Wikiarticle for a reason. It would be appropriate, for example, when describing the film's critical reception, to include the phrase as part of a quote from a review praising the movie. Otherwise, merely citing its use in a non-encyclopedic source does not ordinarily permit editors to use it in encyclopedic writing, as per the previous point; otherwise, any slang whatsoever could be introduced in Wikipedia merely by pointing to a cite using it. Ylee (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, corner cases like an adamant editor insisting on compulsive deletionism. Every shred of common sense tells us that your version is uglier and does not look half as professional as the other version;
  • Tongue in cheek is much more distinct than humorous or satirical. If you dispute that, I believe your problem might be lack of WP:COMPETENCE;
  • Since when did recognized television networks become "non-encyclopedic sources"? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The disputed summary text, minus "tongue-in-cheek", would be fine in the body. The dispute is over whether the lead should discuss relatively unimportant details such as (what turned out to be) a temporary delay in the film's production, or the means of its announcement.
  • I don't disagree that "tongue-in-cheek" is more distinct. That's irrelevant. "The Cowboys crushed, destroyed, and demolished the Bills" is a more interesting sentence than "The Cowboys defeated the Bills by a score of 52-17 in Super Bowl XXVII", but it doesn't change the fact that the former violates WP:TONE and the latter doesn't.
  • I goofed; by "non-encyclopedic sources" I meant "source with non-encyclopedic writing", which is of course going to be the vast majority of non-Wikipedia content. The TONE-violating sentence in the previous bullet might very well appear in a newspaper article discussing the aforementioned Super Bowl, even a straight news piece. Such language does not disqualify the news article from being used as a reliable source for a Wikipedia article. The Wikipedia article might very well quote the sentence when discussing media reactions to the game ("The Daily Planet stated that the Cowboys had 'crushed, destroyed, and demolished the Bills.'") Using the cite, however, does not permit editors to use such slang as their own words, something the disputed text does. Ylee (talk) 21:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll play along: give me an utterly adequate substitute for "tongue-in-cheek". That is, without altering the meaning even the tiniest bit. I'm still having a hard time understanding how you compare that to "crushed, destroyed, and demolished". It's an actual, legitimate expression, and it's not slang by far. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by 3rd opinion here: with regard to tongue-in-cheek, I don't see this as being slangy/jargony/non-encyclopedic in tone at all. I would say it's perfectly appropriate for describing a particular kind of comedy/humor, and that the subject of this article pretty much fits the bill. Also, tongue-in-cheek doesn't have anything like the emotional/subjective/POV connotations of 'crushed, destroyed, and demolished'. Arthur Holland (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An exact synonym for problematic slang is not necessary to communicate meaning while complying with WP:TONE. How do the alternatives "humorously portrays the culture of the 1970s ...", "satirizes the culture of the 1970s", "parodies", "lampoons", etc., or (given that the fact that the film has already been described as a comedy) an unadorned "depicts the culture of the 1970s" communicate their meaning less adequately than the current version?
Emotional connotation is not the only reason why "crushed" or "demolished" is inappropriate for Wikipedia, even in a sports context. "Crushed" is not a precise synonym for "defeated" or "beat", but one improperly slangfies language (well, improper by WP:TONE standards, but fine in many non-Wikipedia contexts) while the other doesn't. Ylee (talk) 03:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merriam-Webster, Cambridge dictionary, and Thesaurus.com all define "tongue-in-cheek" as a legitimate expression, without mentioning slang altogether. What's your otherwise proof? Also, none of your suggested alternatives conveys the phrase's full meaning. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picture...[edit]

I dunno if this happened to anyone else, but I recently got on the page because I am watching the movie and a very unpleasant and very disturbing picture was on the page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.54.86 (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Casting[edit]

Found an interview from Anchorman 2 where Apatow also talks about the first film. The article includes lots of casting information that could be added to the production section. The strangest note is that James Spader expressed interest in playing Brick. -- 109.78.245.27 (talk) 07:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anchorman:_The_Legend_of_Ron_Burgundy&oldid=1204835417"