Talk:Ace Ventura: Pet Detective/Archive 1

Archive 1

Page move

I request that this page be moved to its correct title. IMDb has it listed under this name, so should we. -- Ianblair23 00:20, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

It was suggested that this article should be renamed Ace Ventura: Pet Detective. The vote is shown below:

• Agree, this move should be done.Gateman1997 00:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Agree. Unlike some information at IMDb, titles seem to be more accurately registered there than any other convenient source I've ever found. I think any other title than the canonical IMDb one should require justification. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Agree. It does not go to the wikiquote page without the colon.

I'm a bit concerned about this move. Does the Wiki software support this sort of move? – AxSkov (☏) 08:11, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

How do you mean "support"? If you mean "does the Move function allow it directly" (given the existing history at the target page), the answer is "no", but there is a formal process to overcome this inconvenience that also ensures the page history for both articles is recorded for GFDL purposes. I assume that, since it requires some effort, this is why we are supposed to call for a consensus, so sysops doesn't waste their time doing something that will have to be undone later. If you mean "does the Wiki software allow a title with a colon in it that doesn't represent a namespace", the answer is "yes" (see 2001: A Space Odyssey). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. violet/riga (t) 21:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Utterly utterly tiny insignificant anal retentive thing, but "It's later learned that Dan Marino was about to be kidnap and join with Snowflake." you missed a "ped" at the end of kidnap.

Removal of Quotes section.

I have decided to be bold and remove the section on Quotes. My reasons for doing so:

• The list is rather fan-crufty.
• Those quotes are actually copyrighted.
• They are of little to absolutely nothing of encyclopedic value.
• Not written in a formal/encyclopedic style.

If someome has any ideas or suggestions on opposing this, please, by all means, share your thoughts. I thought I'd rather bring this discussion up first before removing it without an explanation. Thank you! ♥Tohru Honda13♥ 07:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If you want to put up quotes, just use wikiquote 68.76.218.65

Jim Carrey and Cannibal Corpse

"Jim Carrey opted to put his favorite band, Cannibal Corpse, into the movie..." While I don't deny the presence of Cannibal Corpse in the movie, is it verifiable that they're Jim Carrey's favorite band and that he "opted" to add them? Lizardking42 08:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. he states it in an interview which happens to be quoted on his wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.96.112 (talk) 14:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ray Finkle

Hey, I noticed a big problem with the Ray Finkle page. The article makes many false claims about the former Dolphin kicker Ray Finkle. When I clicked on "Discussion" to falsify these claims I was 'redirected' to this page about a fictional character named Ace Ventura. What is going on here? Must we create a new Ray Finkle acticle which lists the facts? Sadly his career ended prematurely in the Super Bowl when Dan Marino messed up in spotting the snap, leaving the laces "in", and thus causing the ball to go wide of the goal-post and the Dolphins lost the Super Bowl. Even this article seems to leave out some of the basics about Finkle's outstanding career. -Soccer style kicker, graduated from Collier High, June 1976, Stetson University Honors Graduate, 1980, former holder of two NCAA records, one for the longest kick, one for the most points in a season, formerlly nicknamed "the mule", the only professional athlete to ever come out of Collier County and one hell of a model American. -Teetotaler

For some reason i thought John Hinckley, Jr. when I saw the movie back in the days. I am not American and did not know who Hinckley was but had heard the name somewhere, and that he was a mental of some sort. Guess that is only a weird coincidence due to the fact that the names sound kind of similar (Fincl vs Hincl). Or? Lebaramebara (talk) 06:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Testicle Tuesday

From where did Jim Carey got this phrase? Axxn 19:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Ray Finkle article deletion

Is the Ray Finkle article really necessary? Pretty much everything you find on that page is right here and here. Plus, not only that, the character is non-notable. I say we nominate it for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.34.217.222 (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. I redirected it to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.34.217.222 (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it should be redirected to Scott Norwood? KenFehling (talk) 05:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

References

Other Jim Carrey's films make reference to the Ace Ventura films, for instance, there's a scene in Ace Venturs were Jimmy Hoffa is mentioned, and in Bruce all mighty, the find Jimy Hoffa's body. Both Ace and The riddler (played by Carrey) are afraid of Bats. The same species of Ace's monkey Appear in Bruce All Mighty. and the scene in Ace ventura 2 were Ace moves his eyebrows to the beat, he does the same in Irene, Me, and Myself. Should something of this be mentioned in the article?--Fandangox (talk) 03:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

vandalism?

I have just reverted the plot description to a previous one as it was a load of foul language and graphic sex description. I can't remember the actual movie but I presume what I have left in does happen - it's not that sexual. btw - it'd been like that since 21st April!?!

Here's what I removed : "So he then rips her skirt off to reveal her penis to everyone and uses the ripped skirt to smack her on her butt. He again fails because although she is wearing panties she clearly appears to have a vagina. Throughout this, Einhorn appears to be shaking a lot, makes some strange faces, has her legs crossed and keeps bobbing slightly. Suddenly Marino who is slightly behind Einhorn calls Ace over and whispers something. As it turns out Einhorn had learned to tuck her penis and testicles between her legs to hide them. The faces she was making where most likely a result of when Ace spanked her with her skirt. He probably hit the tip of her penis and she could not touch it to relieve the pain without maybe drawing attention to it so that was her only outlet. She had crossed her legs to try and squeeze it so no one would notice and the bobbing was an attempt to use her body to pull her penis between her legs and out of sight from both angles. Unfortunately due to the size of it, she is unable to. At one point she makes a very noticeable jerk back. Either way she was unable to hide her penis and"

yeah... how did anyone miss that? 137.205.28.59 (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I edited that description a couple of weeks ago to make it look appropriate, and removed all the sleazy descriptions (together with the accompanying poor grammar and spelling). But the author of that unfortunate elaboration seems to have an attachment to this article, and he has since returned and made his edits again. I have now reverted back to my version. Hammondsworth (talk) 08:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Billy Cundiff kick in Allusions section

Should this line be in the article? The line "In turn, Billy Cundiff's missed short-range field goal in the 2012 AFC Championship Game was compared to the fictional Finkle kick." doesn't have any citation. Also, no sources other than some tweets and Facebook posts seem to exist. It might be premature to say that the comparison has been made. Also, if such a comparison is made, it wouldn't be something the movie is alluding to, since it happened several years after the movie premiered. 72.173.192.59 (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Links to foreign-language articles?

Below the "Miami Dolphins" box, but just before the Categories section, I noticed there's a grouping of links, in several languages. In the edit screen, it looks like:

[[ca:Ace Ventura: Pet Detective]]
[[cy:Ace Ventura: Pet Detective]]
[[da:Ace Ventura: Pet Detective]]
[[de:Ace Ventura – Ein tierischer Detektiv]]
[[es:Ace Ventura]]
[[fr:Ace Ventura, détective pour chiens et chats]]
[[gl:Ace Ventura: Pet Detective]]
[[it:Ace Ventura - L'acchiappanimali]]
[[he:אייס ונטורה: בלש בצחוק]]
[[hu:Ace Ventura: Állati nyomozó]]
[[nl:Ace Ventura: Pet Detective]]
[[ja:エース・ベンチュラ]]
[[no:Ace Ventura og jakten på den forsvunne delfinen]]
[[pl:Ace Ventura: Psi detektyw]]
[[pt:Ace Ventura: Pet Detective]]
[[ru:Эйс Вентура: Розыск домашних животных]]
[[sr:Ејс Вентура: Детектив за кућне љубимце]]
[[fi:Ace Ventura – lemmikkidekkari]]
[[sv:Den galopperande detektiven]]
[[tr:Hayvan Dedektifi]]

It looks like this is trying to be a list of links to any Ace Ventura: Pet Detective articles on the Wikipedias of other languages, but they all lead to non-existent articles on the english Wikipedia, instead. Is there a way to correct this? Leogorath (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit: I moved the links to an earlier point in the article, and it made them appear as normal Interlanguage links. Not sure why they weren't behaving normally before. Leogorath (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

AFC Championship Ring

I the article the AFC Championship ring is listed as being from 1984, but the ring was from 1982. Why this got through the fact checking is odd as the article also mentions that it revolved around Super Bowl XVII which was played in January of 1983. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.29.228.92 (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Vinnie

the actors who plays vinay died in 1971? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:6383:ce00:5473:d7d4:191a:c475 (talk • contribs) 02:04, August 28, 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out! Apparently the actor is not notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article. I've updated the link, so now it is red. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Critical response

The critical response section of this article drew my attention as did not to include a Cinemascore grade as many other articles do, and it was very verbose and badly worded, much more so than other film articles. I added CinemaScore and rephrased the section in a generic way that was more consistent with what many other film articles do.

User:Erik objected to this change in the edit summary, asserting that it was "cookie-cutter" and that was somehow "problematic" and reverted the changes. While I reject the assertion that a good faith effort to use wording consistent with other Wikipedia articles is a bad thing, I still thought there was significant room for improvement.

User:Erik seems to believe it is particularly important to emphasize that the reviews were contemporary. This level emphasis doesn't seem particularly relevant or necessary for the comedy film Ace Ventura which was released in 1994. Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic didn't come along until several years later, all reviews were collected retrospectively, and selection bias is inevitable but hinting as those generic problems seem better left to the Rotten Tomatoes article. (Maybe it would be better to move RT and MC to end of the section to demphasize them.) If there were some kind of important rerelease or anniversary that was causing the scores to skew more positively (or negatively) over time I can understand that might be worth taking extra words or sentences to mention those details, but that does not seem to be the case. The emphasis that reviews were contemporary doesn't seem to offer any useful insight to readers here. This particular emphasis does not seem at all necessary.

Overall scores of 37% from Metacritic and 47% Rotten Tomatoes isn't that hard for readers to understand, less is more, but maybe some context is helpful, so I tried to again to improve what was in this article, because the wording was so verbose, and needs improvement.
The detailed breakdown of the reviews from Metacritic into "categorized six as negative, five as positive, and three as mixed" seems like an unnecessary level of emphasis for this popular comedy film, but if that is what you want then why not be consistent and do the same for Rotten Tomatoes? If the section is going to include long winded phrases like "assessing each review as positive or negative", then it is better show instead of tell, and include actual details! The point of my change was to include the same breakdown for Rotten Tomatoes: e.g. 59 reviews, 28 reviews positive, 31 reviews negative. This is more consistent, contains more actual information, and is still clearer and less verbose than the previous wording.

Please read the wording out loud and reconsider, it is certainly not "cookie cutter" or generic, but it is not good either. Please suggest a different less convoluted awkward phrasing. If there are reasons why this article about critical response to comedy film needs all this unusual extra emphasis there must be better ways to express it. -- 109.78.248.150 (talk) 22:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

You don't get it. Only a handful of editors have perpetuated the exact same wording all over Wikipedia, and it is an absolutely gross over-simplification of Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, which are commercially-driven websites designed to tell moviegoers whether or not a movie is worth seeing. It is puffery for an encyclopedia to blandly mention RT and MC scores as if these are enduring measurements of a film's reception. A sentence like, "The film received critical acclaim," is what makes sense for the enduring future. "The film got 50% on Rotten Tomatoes" means nothing real, especially when RT flattens reviews as strictly only positive or negative. That's why it is absolutely necessary to unpack how Rotten Tomatoes works for a truly encyclopedic approach. Editors who perpetuate the wording wrongly assume that everyone is like them in understanding how RT and MC works when that is not the reality. Like the MOS says, use RT carefully when the film predates it. Based solely on contemporary reviews, the RT score would likely be lower, but we can't tell that because RT just mixes everything in in an ahistorical manner for the sole reason of telling you whether or not the movie is worth seeing. Wikipedia isn't in that business. It's in the business of accurately conveying critical reception for encyclopedic value, not to tell readers whether or not to see a movie. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)