Talk:Buddy film

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 August 2008. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Term

Who coined this term? --Cantharellus 12:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banter

Please, this isn't a place for this type of needless banter. If you're new and want to experiment, go to the Wikipedia Sandbox at Wikipedia:Sandbox. This is not the place to do this sort of stuff. Thanks. Gorovich 05:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feminism

The feminist innuendo is totally uncalled for. And is there anything to this article but the feminist innuendo? It should be merged into articles in feminist film theory. Dnavarro (talk) 01:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There is absolutely no reason to believe that movies like 'Dumb and Dumber' and 'Rain Man' have anything to do with "punishing women for their desire for equality." That's an incredibly biased opinion to be cited in a wikipedia article, especially as the sole source used to define the term. 24.235.156.135 (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fully attributed passage in a highly reliable publication. It does not mean every filmmaker who makes a buddy film is consciously trying to punish women. The buddy film genre, regardless, held a certain appeal for some time. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References to use

The Buddy System
Bucking the Buddy System
Buddies Cracking Jokes and Heads
Colorblind Buddies In Black and White
The Buddy System Is Adjusted to Fit The Late 1990's
Opinion (find underlying article)

References to use. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was not to merge, no discussion or activity for seven months, no consensus Clockchime (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

<Start of discussion> I propose merging bromantic comedy into this article. The bromantic comedy article is extremely problematic, filled with WP:OR and awful sources (e.g. Urban Dictionary cited in the lead), so I don't know how much can be merged, but despite the lead currently connecting the genre to romantic comedy, the more obvious merge is here. In fact it's more or less the same thing. Note that there is also an article for bromance, but although "bromantic comedy" clearly derives its name from it, a merge there makes less sense (in the same way romantic comedy has more in common with other genres of film than it does with the phenomenon of romance). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rhododendrites, first time I've heard this term! It does appear that it is a valid term, though. Searching for it in Google Books and Google Scholar shows some worthwhile coverage specifically about the term. I do not think it is common enough to manage a list of films, but I think we can keep a stand-alone article to be cleaned up. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Erik II: The question isn't whether it's used because Wikipedia is not a dictionary and doesn't have articles about terms. The question is why that is considered a distinct concept from a buddy film. In other words, if you see "TermA is defined as X" and "TermB is defined as approximately X", we only create one entry that covers both terms. If you would like to keep it, could you describe what a Featured Article version of bromantic comedy would look like such that it's distinct from buddy film? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I saw seemed to provide more coverage than just dictionary definitions, which is why I advocated for a stand-alone article. I did not see much referencing of buddy films in that coverage; it seems to fall more under the general notion of bromance and homosocial relationships. I doubt there would be much substance for a full-fledged Featured Article, but I think you could have several paragraphs consolidating the existing coverage. Instead of a list of films that would be easily expanded with OR, there could be a paragraph naming some films that were labeled as such. In news sources, The Wedding Ringer seems to be a key example. As well as That Awkward Moment. It could just be something like black and white hat symbolism in film. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I must not have been clear. More coverage than just dictionary definitions isn't really relevant because what you're advocating is a separate article on the basis of it being a different term. What we need to find is evidence that the meaning of bromantic comedy is substantially different from the meaning of buddy film. It's not a question of whether the terms "buddy film" and "bromantic comedy" appear in the same coverage because the words themselves don't matter here. In other words there may be lots of coverage about the term "pooch" that doesn't mention the word "dog". What's more, the coverage of "pooch" may explain it as slightly different than the other sources describe "dog". Nonetheless, the concept is singular -- or not different enough to merit separate articles. So again the question is how is "bromantic comedy" described in reliable sources that clearly distinguish it from buddy film? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage I found did not discuss it under an umbrella of buddy films. For example, this book shows "buddy film" coverage in the early part of the book (up through page 161 or so), and "bromantic comedy" coverage shows up mainly after page 190, not mentioning "buddy film" as part of it at all. That kind of distinct coverage of the two topics is why I think there is a basis for a stand-alone article here. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My response to this is more or less the same as my previous messages (i.e. who cares about the terms and their proximity to one another; what is the substantial difference in meaning?)

Looking at that source, it says "The rising popularity of the term 'bromance' as describing an already well established narrative formula (the buddy film)..." (53); "Film fans [consider] a bromance any film that deals with the representation of 'a close non-sexual friendship between man,' reclaiming what had been typically categorized as 'the buddy film' for the purposes of creating a history of the genre" (52); and, most telling, from page 53 "the shift in nomenclature from buddy to bromance". So no, a quick search to look for the two terms' proximity to one another would not have been fruitful -- what's important is what they mean. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was highlighting the book source to show that the term "bromantic comedy" was covered extensively on its own. I'm not denying that there is a relationship between it and the buddy film genre in general. A topic is considered notable for a stand-alone article if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Further research turned up these sources that have not been mentioned before:

Aisenberg, Joseph (July 31, 2009). "Here Come the Bromides: Living in the Era of the Bromantic Comedy". Bright Lights Film Journal.
Smigh, Greg. "I Love You, Man: Mandate movies, bromantic comedies, and the 'Frat Pack'". Feeling Film: Affect and Authenticity in Popular Cinema. Routledge. pp. 122–140. ISBN 978-0-415-49636-0.

WP:CONSPLIT says it can be appropriate to do a content split for two distinct topics that are closely related as long as notability and neutrality issues are addressed. I don't think there are any neutrality issues here, and I think that there is enough coverage (here and what already exists in the article) to address notability issues. What do you think? Do we need a third opinion? Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they should be merged. I think that the buddy film and the bromantic comedy are very different. Bromantic comedies are distinct, they tend to be wild and crazy, and buddy films tend to be much tamer -- and can cover a wider range of styles. The Bromantic comedy is a genre with a huge profile currently, and much discussion. Wikipedia is huge and there is room for both articles to exist. And there is room for improvement to both of the articles. StBlark (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@StBlark: What are you basing that distinction on? What would be required per Wikipedia policies is for that distinction to be articulated in multiple reliable sources. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be referring to specific Wikipedia policies, but I'm not sure which ones you're thinking of - beyond reliable sources. Maybe you can ask me again, and I'll try to answer as best I can. StBlark (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Content forking. If the distinction between the two is articulated in reliable sources, that's one thing, but the description you gave above (like a lot of the content people have added to the article in the past), sounds like your own evaluation/understanding of the distinction. When two subjects are very similar (even if not exactly the same), it's very often the case that it's best to treat them both at once (hence this merger proposal). There are an awful lot of sources that use fear and terror in somewhat different ways, but we cover them together because they are not sufficiently distinguished in a sufficiently consistent way in sufficient reliable sources. By proposing this merge I'm not saying they're exactly the same, but that there is not a consistent, clear distinction across multiple reliable sources that justifies a separate article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Rhododendrites, for responding. I think I completely understand what you’re saying, and I think we may have to “agree to disagree”, on this. However, I like the way you think, and I’m sure we would agree on many things. In this one case, I do think there is an important distinction indicated by sources. StBlark (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support the merger. There will not be much left of the bromantic comedy article if we really enforce our content policies. For instance, large parts of the article are based on two sources, each representing the opinion of a single author (Sarah Stewart and Joseph Aisenberg), and they do not seem to corroborate each other on even a single point. Samsara 22:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Film roulette

I just reverted an unexplained replacement of one (series of) film(s) with another. I just wanted to leave a note here saying that I find this serial replacement of one set of films with no evidence that they belong in this category with another set without evidence rather strange. Is it not possible to actually compile a list of films that experts say belong in this genre? Samsara 00:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think other editors are only following the current structure, which unfortunately makes it easy for them to pass their own judgment on it. This kind of list should use inline citations, referencing reliable sources. If this is set up, then editors in the future will be less likely to remove films, and if they add films, they are more likely to try to include an inline citation too. I've created a few lists of films to this end, like list of films featuring surveillance and list of films featuring home invasions. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 01:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Buddy film. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140106184319/http://boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=323&catName=QWJvdXQgSW5mbGF0aW9uIERhdGE%3D to http://boxofficeindia.com/showProd.php?itemCat=323&catName=QWJvdXQgSW5mbGF0aW9uIERhdGE%3D

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

other media

Would an "In other media" section be appropriate? Or is there a broader "buddy adventure" article? I'm thinking of Asterix and Obelix. —Tamfang (talk) 19:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]