Talk:Van Wilder: The Rise of Taj

The Legend isnt Growing[edit]

Plain and simple. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.10.50.212 (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC). <Complete agreement> By the way, wasn't Van's dog named Colossus? I remember Van's friend friend saying, "C-los, get off my shirt!", or something similar early in the original (decent) movie.<Vans dog was named Colossus, but being a different dog, it would have a different name> Completely unimportant in any case, as the only people who search for this movie are likely just looking for more of what was shown in the "Badminton Scene", and the "Beer Chugging Competition". Like me.Surrogate Spook 22:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confused[edit]

2 thing confuse me, 1) why are the reviews so negative, this film was funny, is it just because the american audience couldnt grasp the fact that the film was set in england? 2) wasnt there a paintball scene? im sure they went paintballing but when i watched it again there was no paintball.. weird 172.207.242.9 (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, thought it was hilarious. In answer to your question: yes, there is a paintballing scene. It might have been deleted from the version you watched, for whatever reason, but yes the scene does exist.

Yes, that's why people disliked it, because it was set in England...70.160.102.251 (talk) 06:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Rodiggidy[reply]

There's a fundamental problem with American frat house movies set in British universities: there is no tradition of fraternities or sororities in British colleges, so American audiences find them weird and unconvincing, while British audiences find them incomprehensible. This is quite apart from whether the films are any good in other respects. --Ef80 (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow[edit]

Hahaha oh wow this is a terrible film. Crass stereotypes, amongst other things, meant I could barely watch it. 138.38.217.149 (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

awww....[edit]

I was planning on watching this film but when i heard that ryan reynolds wasnt even in it i decided not to99.149.118.183 (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not counting the fact that your comment does not contribute directly to the quality of the article ABOUT the film... I can say that it was quite good without Ryan Reynolds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.152.6 (talk) 05:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

about rotten tomatoes[edit]

What are the odds we can stop mentioning this website's reviews? Not only are is its metascore typically astronomically different from the norm, but - aside from the throngs of non-professional critics that flock to it - its collection of film critics seem to be a random hodge-podge of personalities and hardly well versed film analysts.

Requested move[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: page moved. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

National Lampoon's Van Wilder: The Rise of Taj → ? – Per Animal House decisions, "National Lampoon's" must be scrapped out. Sources use the current title, Van Wilder: The Rise of Taj, and Van Wilder 2: The Rise of Taj. An official name may not be commonly used, and the official name omits "2". Should the "2" be added or not? George Ho (talk) 08:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would support Van Wilder: The Rise of Taj; the "2" is superfluous, where we have the subtitle. bd2412 T 15:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't this argument make Halloween III: <something something> superfluous? George Ho (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell, the "2" does not appear in any materials related to the movie (poster, home media). I've no idea why IMDb uses it, if that's where you got it from. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:COMMONNAMES, an article title doesn't have to be official. "2" isn't that inaccurate or ambiguous, is it? George Ho (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, reviewing results from a search engine test, I see that it's more common than I realized. It seems like either option would be acceptable based on secondary sources, but I think that the primary/official source gives the one without "2" an edge. I'm not sure if the one with "2" overshadows the other option. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to Van Wilder: The Rise of Taj per WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME. The topic is still understandable with the shortening of this article title. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

just 2[edit]

National Lampoon's Van Wilder: The Rise of Taj (credited as just National Lampoon's Van Wilder 2: The Rise of Taj from the film)

What does "just" mean here? What does "from the film" mean? (The parenthesis was added 10 August 2015.) —Tamfang (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]