Talk:Revenge of the Nerds/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Importance

It's the first in the series so I think it deserves a Mid rating. I'll give all the others a low though. Andman8 23:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Should the TV Pilot for Revenge of the Nerds be given its own page? It starred Rob Stone (of "Mr. Belvedere" fame) and Robbie Rist (Cousin Oliver from the Brady Bunch TV series). - 71.236.196.246 07:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Article for the Soundtrack

A Revenge of the Nerds (soundtrack) article hasn't been made yet... or should it be incorporated into this article? Antmusic 22:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Revenge of the Nerds (2007 film) should be merged here because it is an article about a canceled remake of this film. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: Please do not remove the box on the article that notes that the merge has been suggested. If you feel that the two articles should not be merged, make your case here. Thanks. Where Anne hath a will, Anne Hathaway. 20:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Survey

  • Merge - if it ever gets picked up to be made it will warrant a seperate article but until then it's too small and too unimportant on its own. Scaper8 06:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge - as per Scaper8
  • Merge - agree with Scaper8 --Mike Segal 04:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge - do so for now; if there ever is a remake then this can be incorporated into that article , maybe in the production section. --Nehrams2020 04:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge - agree with Scaper8 Matt73 15:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge - agree w/ Chris Griswold Davidweiner23 02:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge - agree with Scaper8 --Baumi 20:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

  • It is its own seperate entity, and there is rumors of it being moved to a different company. Antmusic 22:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Merged per consensus. The Parsnip! 20:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Douche bag

In the scene where Booger says he though he was looking at his mother's old douche bag (but that's in Ohio) he uses 'douche bag' in the way it's used commonplace today. This movie was made before I was born so this is just a thought, but was this the first time douche bag was used that way? JW 09:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The Douche article says that douche bag as a pejorative "goes back to the 1960s". The Oxford English Dictionary has uses from 1968 and 1972. So no, this is not the first use. 140.247.11.25 (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sequeals

Even though Revenge of the Nerds is a four-part-film series, the films' articles are not conected. Shouldnt that be fixed. and also there should be an article about the series in general.--JDDJS (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

at the bottom of the infobox is the succeeded by and followed by parameters. the series probably wouldnt warrant an article, since the later ones were forgettable. badmachine (talk) 04:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Revenge of the Nerds V

I was asked to appear in the 2007 remake of "Revenge of the Nerds" (before it was shelved) after writing a script for "Revenge of the Nerds V: Nerds of the Millenium" in 2001. A short adaption of this sequel was filmed and produced in 2001 entitled "Nerds, Geeks, & Dorks". It can be seen on YouTube.

Can this be placed on the article? Jeanlovecomputers (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Lamar

In the article, it says that Lamar is later revealed to be gay. This is inaccurate and should be changed. A viewing of the movie will make it clear that the character is obviously openly gay from the beginning. Just in case anyone is too stupid to understand, this is not an attempt to discuss the movie but to point out what is definitely an error in the article. Therefore, anyone who removes this is a vandal. 174.91.4.207 (talk) 05:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments like this are less likely to get you an answer to your problem with the article. Feel free to change it on your own, but do not resort to personal attacks against editors on Wikipedia. It is against policy and you can be banned for it. --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • I DX for fun! 15:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Maybe next time you won't just blindly revert. Who am I kidding? Of course you will!174.91.7.34 (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
You do not understand the rules here at wikipedia do you? You should always assume good faith with other editors. Your original question posted to this section was very vague and could easily be misinterpreted. The personal attacks are another thing I will not tolerate. You can't also hide behind other IP address as that is against policy here on the site. See WP:SOCK. I would caution you on your attitude. If you continue I will report you. --ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • I DX for fun! 15:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
No, it couldn't easily be misinterpreted. You only did so because you're stupid. (I suspect I'm not telling you anything you don't already know here.) As for sock puppets, I don't use them. If you weren't an idiot, you'd have heard of dynamic IP addresses. It's not something I actually do, it's automatic every time I log on. But, like I said, you're an idiot and that is just being proved each time you comment. Maybe you should quit? The internet records all this stuff, and personally were I you I wouldn't want that kind of gross idiocy recorded. 174.91.7.34 (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Profiling? Hardly!

It's hardly "profiling" to point out the one Japanese exchange student, or the sole black member of Adams' Tri-Lamb chapter. The former is a key plot point. 69.158.139.230 (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Remake Reworked?

I cannot prove this with 100% accuracy, but I believe that after the remake was shelved, its script was rewritten as American Pie Presents: Beta House. American Pie Presents: Beta House was released in 2007, around the same time the Revenge of the Nerds remake was supposed to be released. Also, the plots are very similar. Both films involve two frat parties in major competition with each other. The only difference is that in American Pie Presents: Beta House, the nerds are seen as the antagonists and the jocks are the protagonists. It just seems odd to me that a film with a similar plot to Revenge of the Nerds gets released shortly after it gets shelved. Jeanlovecomputers (talk) 01:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That they were even planning on remaking Revenge of the Nerds is a travesty, and I was unaware of that idiotic plan. There are no ideas left in Hollywood it seems, and there is simply no way to improve on something like this classic except to make a quick and cheap buck. If the creeps that keep coming out with the ridiculous American Pie movies ripped something off, I hope they get sued back to the Stone Age. Doc talk 02:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Who could forget...?

There's no mention of Booger's famous ten second-belch anywhere in the article. Was that scene ever singled out for recognition? Maybe in a 10 Funniest Moments, or Longest Eructation on Film? Anything? --The_Iconoclast (talk) 07:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

This Is Getting Increasingly Annoying

The "rape scene" thing continues to surface. It appears we have an editor in Jacksonville, Florida that believes if they insert "the rape thing" using different IPs from the University Of North Florida that it somehow (magically?) will get into the article.[1], [2] It will not. I would again strongly encourage this editor using his/her school's IP addresses to stop attempting to add it. We can always protect the page or set up a rangeblock if necessary. We are tired of reverting your stupid edit. Stop adding it now. Doc talk 01:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: Get used to it and continue to revert. I say this not to belittle your frustration, but as someone who watches several pages with "childish" IP editors who like to insert their OR nonsense. So I can tell you that they don't read Talk pages (either for the page they edit or their own) and the act of acknowledging them only fans the flame of their stupidity. Also this page doesn't even come close to the number of malicious edits to qualify for a block. I'll continue to revert the same, but until he gets really malicious, the situation is what it is... Ckruschke (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

There's more than one editor trying to insert this, and this is a warning to them all. The page has been protected in the recent past for the same reason, and it will happen again if this continues. Doc talk 03:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

As it has come up again, I have started a broader topic at WP:VPP on the question of how to present situations like the one in this film that were once acceptable when the work was made, but are not at the present time. See [3]. --MASEM (t) 16:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I've removed it again. Doc talk 22:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

It keeps coming up because it really does need to be included, if not in plot than in the reception section. Whether or not what occurred would have constituted sexual assault when the movie was released and whether or not it was recognized as such by the film's creators or the original audience is irrelevant. People reading the page are reading it in 2015, and in 2015 the events as they occur in the film depict a sexual assault under law in almost all common law jurisdictions.

For example, section 265(3)(c) of the Criminal Code of Canada states that "... no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of... (c) fraud". In a case with facts more bizarre than fiction & involving identical twin brothers, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that "the complainant’s mistake about the identity of her sexual partner meant she did not consent to the sexual activity", and therefore that having sex with someone while disguised as someone else constitutes a sexual assault under section 265(3)(c) of the Code. R v Crangle (2010) ONCA [1] MyNameisLara (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

We can include in the film's reception that the scene, viewed through today's eyes, is considered rape, and hence why the film may be seen by some as morally deplorable. There's actually a reasonable number of sources on that. It's just that, per the linked discussion above, it is improper in that it was considered rape in the context of the film's crude humor. --MASEM (t) 02:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd say it was considered rape in the eighties. This film was made for thirteen year old boys who couldn't get into porno's yet. The women in the film behave exactly like women do in porno's. And the reason these types of films don't get made anymore is because there's zero market for them due to the internet. --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 19:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

"it is improper in that it was considered rape in the context of the film's crude humor"- I don't know what this means. Do you mean that it shouldn't be included in the plot section because it wasn't intended to be seen as rape?MyNameisLara (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Basically, there's a whole bunch of men on Wikipedia who prefer to see a whole bunch of rape scenes as not rape. Its a huge problem that's impossible to fix. There are certain things that Wikipedia gets wrong all the time, this is one of them, and will forever continue to be one of them. --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 19:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
No, that's not the issue. Again, review the discussion from VPP here [4] (archived). In the context at the time, while it absolutely fit the definition of rape, no one then - not the film's producers, actors, critics, or audience, blinked at the scene and considered it rape - it was crude college humor. Today, we are vastly aware that that humor doesn't sit well and the scene, rightfully, is highly criticized in modern sources; we should absolutely document this modern reaction as part of the film's reception. But it is improper per WP:PRESENTISM to reframe the scene as written in the plot section in the light of a modern moral scope when it clearly wasn't originally produced with that moral scope in mind, as per that VPP discussion. --MASEM (t) 19:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Effectively yes. --MASEM (t) 18:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

So... Why isn't there a section in reception on this issue? Shall I add one, since we seem to be in agreement that "we should absolutely document this modern reaction as part of the film's reception"?MyNameisLara (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

To be fair here, it's considered a modern reaction mainly because of the internet. Had the internet been in existence then like it is now, I'm sure the reaction would have been the same. If one goes here [5] to Cullen's comment even they say that this type of behavior was considered sexual assault at that time. --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 23:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Except, the problem is, there are no clear sources that call it that. Raunchy college humor films were popular back then, and the poor morals they showed then were taken by society as little to get worked up about, on average. There more than likely were people that were outraged by that scene at the time of the film's release, but if they voiced their opinions in a manner we now can use, no one has been able to produce any reliable source. If there was a significant reaction as you see now for the film, you would have expected to be documented in newspapers or entertainment trade magazine. Now since then, there has been a drastic change in society's morals, with more awareness on the various harm that can come from a situation like the film is just not right. That's not because of the Internet, though the Internet gives people more places to speak out about it that we can now use. It's just as a society we have matured in that way that now makes the film overall feel wrong, while at the time it was just yet another college humor film. --MASEM (t) 23:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Except these types of films were not made for college-aged individuals. They were made for high school males and there's zero market for these types of movies today due to all the easily accessible porn available on the internet which is why they aren't being made today. --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 23:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
You'll note I've added a paragraph to the reception section on this. It could probably use a few more sources to get the gist. That said, when reviewing the sources to add it, all of them seemed to indicate that when the film was release, no one really considered it an issue as , as one sources puts it, "people were stupid about date rape" back then. We as a population have gotten smarter, we have realized that male-dominating thinking (in which, as Revenge has it, women were seen as trophies rather than equals) is not good, and hence why now there is more outrage about the film. Films with similar nature haven't stopped being made just because there happens to be easy access to M-rated materials on the Internet, just that they make people wince when they are overly masculine and misogynistic in tone (see nearly any review for Pixels). In any case, such a needed paragraph has been added to reflect that now we as a whole see this scene as a problem. --MASEM (t) 18:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
As long as it builds on reliable sources I know I won't stop such a section from being added; I just haven't had time to pull all the sources I know exist on that factor. --MASEM (t) 22:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Plot section in general

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).Part of the problem is that the entire plot section is far too detailed. There are a lot of minor details that could be cut. Summarize the plot, don't simply retell the story scene by scene. Blueboar (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

It has been trimmed down already, and falls under WP:FILMPLOT's 700 word (685 just checking now). Its definitely not a scene-by-scene retelling. --MASEM (t) 00:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2010/2010onca451/2010onca451.html

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Revenge of the Nerds. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 06:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Revenge_of_the_Nerds/Archive_1&oldid=1078399761"