Talk:The Room

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)

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. "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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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?utm_source=featured_ep&utm_medium=featured_ep 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)

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)

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)