Talk:Valentine's Day (2010 film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

California: Los Angeles Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Greater Los Angeles portal This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Comedy Low‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Romance Low‑importance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romance, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional romance in literature and romantic fiction writers. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.RomanceWikipedia:WikiProject RomanceTemplate:WikiProject Romanceromance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Taylor Swift Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taylor Swift, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taylor Swift on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Taylor SwiftWikipedia:WikiProject Taylor SwiftTemplate:WikiProject Taylor SwiftTaylor Swift articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

United States: Cinema / Television Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Film portal This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Extremely Negative Reviews?

Considering it only has reviews from 21 people, how does that qualify as having received negative reviews? I'm fairly sure that should be removed until a larger amount of people review it. 208.54.14.103 (talk) 08:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ths film only pretends to be about love, and a little humorous. Just fun to view. Which it is. What do all those critics expect? Not every movie needs to be a phsychological drama. Anyway, could somebody add some more positive reviews, plase? Debresser (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

False info?

The plot of the movie is wrong in several places. Completely wrong. And the first sentence about the gay lovers completely ruins the movie, if you read this page before actually seeing the movie. No way is any of this an official plot. Who ever wrote it should be blocked for trying to slip spoilers into a plot summary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.108.78.10 (talk) 03:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, "first project to feature Ashton Kutcher and Topher Grace since...That '70s Show"? No. This is misleading grammar-- at best. Kutcher was in spread and Grace was in Spider-Man 3 long after That '70s Show. What I think/believe this means to say is that it's the first film "to feature Ashton Kutcher and Topher Grace together since...That '70s Show". I cannot fix this error as the page is uneditable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.65.109.10 (talk) 11:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editsemiprotected}} Where it talks about Emma Roberts' charcter, Grace, and her boyfriend, it needs to be changed. They need to put Grace's name in there as well as Alex's name and his real name: Carter Jenkins. Pre-Thx!!!

Not done for now: Can you please cite a source that indicates this is the case? Without a source, there is nothing backing up this claim. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 08:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Foxx is supposed to play a news reporter forced to report on Valentine's Day even though he is a sports reporter. He knows Jessica Biel because she's the publicist for Eric Dane. They do become romantically involved. George Lopez is an employee at Ashton Kutchers flower shop who gives him advice. Queen Latifah plays Anne Hathaways boss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.59.81 (talk) 10:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a link to the source reporting this? Liquidluck✽talk 11:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No source link, but I've read the official script from New Line dated 6/25/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.59.81 (talk) 07:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Wikipedia has a policy against adding original research without a way to back up the claims. Otherwise, there would be no way to identify what is correct and what is not. Liquidluck✽talk 00:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a number of mistakes in the cast list as well. As Grace is only Edison's babysitter, she wouldn't have the same last name as Edison. And Edison's last name would have to be either the same as Julia Roberts' character's or his grandparents'.--little Alex (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

actually his name is russel and not edison who said its edison? i saw the movie yesterday and really dont think his name is edison... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.38.21 (talk) 08:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similarities to Love Actually?

Does this film being a shameless ripoff of the aforementioned film deserve a mention in the article? 86.132.227.207 (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

definitely. i'd even go so far as to say it's more like "Love Actually 2: Electric Boogaloo" but that's just me :P

MrRandomPerson (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, I thought there were more than a few similarities. But Love Actually is better, the characters are more clearly depicted. In Valentine's Day I lose track of who is who, not helped by very similar looking actors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.178.145 (talk) 13:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any sources for that. But, from listening to the premise, I thought the exact same thing. Still, keep in mind Love Actually wasn't a hit in the US either--Surten (talk) 03:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sequel

Perhaps this can be added?: http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=63096# Galgamek (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler related cat

I added 'Category:American LGBT-related films' because of the Sean Jackson storyline. It's not Brokeback Mountain I know, but it belongs in that category more so than half the films that are already in it.--EchetusXe 19:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goofs

Julia flies from Los Angeles to San Fransisco to visit the hospital where Dr. Harrison Copeland works. But everything in the movie takes place in Los Angeles (except for the shots of the international flight with Kate Hazeltine). When the nurse at the hospital tells Julia the name of the restaurant where Dr Copeland is having dinner with his wife, it is as if it is a "local" restaurant. And then we hear the hospital receptionists pick up the phone and answer "Los Angeles Hospital", which couldn't possibly be the name of a hospital located in San Fransisco.

All In The Family

Many people in this film are related to each other, a tradition Garry Marshall is fond of. Julia Roberts and Lisa Roberts Gillan are sisters. Emma Roberts is their niece. Garry Marshall, his wife, his son, his daughter, granddaughter, his great granddaughter... among others all appear in the film, some as extras, others with speaking parts. His wife plays the older nurse who reveals to Julie (Jennifer Gardner) where Dr. Copeland is taking his wife to dinner. Lisa Roberts Gillan is the younger nurse who confirms that Dr. Copeland is married. Garry Marshall's daughter works in the Flower Shop owned by Ashton Kutcher's character. The scene on the soccer field features several Marshall relatives. Reference: http://www.contactmusic.com/news.nsf/story/marshall-roped-family-into-valentines-day_113251 Joe Montegna and his niece are in this film as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.134.187 (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Valentine's Day (2010 film). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100215013821/http://movies.yahoo.com:80/movie/1810094501/info to http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1810094501/info

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

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: 5 June 2024).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]