Talk:Disaster Movie

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i'm going to make this very clear.[edit]

this is NOT your review blog. this is NOT uncyclopedia. this is wikipedia, an internet site made for information uses. you hate these movies? me too, lets start a club, but wikipedia is NOT the place to vent on it. uncyclopedia is a really good place to mock things, thats what it was made for, feel the need to insult the movie? write in a line in the artical there, not here. now stop this shit, please, i don't want to have to keep defending a shitty movie.

Good call although this has been sorted now thankfully. The joy of this page Wiki page is that even though it is an unbiased article it still manages to portray this as one of the worst films ever and cite some major sources (Rotten Tomatoes, IMDB and The Times) in the process. The best way to show you hate something is by taking it to pieces through other peoples words not just your own and the Wiki community has done so! Cls14 (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lock[edit]

how do u not apply for a lock on a page this page is constantly being vandalized.--Jwein (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I can understand the hatred toward it, but this is wikipedia, not an opinion forum. I second locking the page. Nemeses9 (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, i preaty much agree, but it might already be locked as i write this--97.66.205.58 (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC). --71.74.158.197 (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The page says it's protected, but IP users are constantly vandalizing it...Fantasy Dragon (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
lock it. seriously, i came to find actual facts and i find an article bashing on the movie. wtf.
In case of further vandalism, you can request protection at WP:RFPP. As a member of the Anti-vandal patrol, and an administrator, I am finding myself in a really conficting position. I saw the film the other day, and all I want to do about it is replace the article with "This movie sucks", and protect the page so no one can revert it. To be honest, I suspect you could combine the neanderthal writing talents of all the anon vandals of every school, and they'd still do a better job than the ones who vomited out script. However, this isn't the place for reviews, so I can only console myself with the fact that I have managed to shoe-horn my opinion into a post that is giving advice. StephenBuxton (talk) 11:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parodies section[edit]

Isn't this movie supposed to be like a compilation of all their other movies?

Are we allowed to edit the comment "parodies disaster movies" given that this, like every other freaking entry in the whole dreadful franchise, parodies whatever the hell it wants? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.66.2 (talk) 08:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright This article is totally based off the trailer and poster and nothing more. Where are cited sources to prove that this film is acually making parodies of these other films. Some idk how they got on the list. Where the Hell is Cloverfeild? or the Inconvenient Truth? Where is a site that proves all of these right because from what i see this is all just original research and i think it should be taken off the page until another source says or a source if ANY at all proves all this than the trailer. I Think it should only Say Parodies of Recent films and disater films b/c Super heros in a disaster movie is a little eh? --҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 08:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wow just wow at the amazment of retardation that is you.idk bout cloverfield but incovent truth is refrenced in the poster in the article.um IMBD has a list of cast members and there characters where hulk, speed racer, juno, enchanted are refrenced. look at the article for scary movie 3 it includeds 8 jmile among other movies that arent horror BECAUSE IT WAS PARODIED IN THE FILM--Jwein (talk) 03:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I am a idoit? Hum and your stating that you seen the film. Sounds like it saying The list of parodies on the Scary Movies Page is made fun of in the film but the thing is the Scary movie films are already out and can be proven. This film has not been released yet. The Posters, If You look at Saw 3's poster and the movie the villain in the poster is wearing a robe but in the movie u never see a rob on him at all. So what you see in the posters doesn't mean its in the movie for a fact. The poster is not the movie, its to help promote the movie. Until official sites with real info on whats parodied in the film the list can not go back up. Next Thing I know someone will add Pee Wee's Great Adventure to the list and post on here and say that its in the film. -,- --҉

რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 07:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the posters spoof Knock Up? The three posters spoof Indina Jones 4, The day after tommorw, Aramdgeon.

I can keep doing this all day really everyday till August 29 if its not correctly source and everything is being done by Original Research instead of find offical news on it seeing this movie is not out yet. --҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤

ॐ 00:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the trailer for the film, the Juno character is seen parodying the "Is that your foot" scene from You Don't Mess With the Zohan (to the main Sex in the City character), but I don't see it anywhere. Why is that?

I Know its in the trailer but u got to see that looking at the trailers in other movies, not 100% they are in the final movie. Look at the trailer for the new Hulk movie, They thought the guy who played Iron Man was going to be the main character but it was a replacement why idk Other movies do that to b/c they think later on the scene played in the trailer shouldnt be in the movie for some odd reason. Thats why its better to wait for offical word gets out on whats in it. --҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ ॐ 21:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HALF OF THAT MADE NO SENSE JUST STOP TALKING DUDE. ALL OF THERE MOVIES ALL THE TRAILERS USE FOOTAGE THAT IS USED.SO SIT DOWN AND STFU.--Jwein (talk) 05:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed Spoofs[edit]

These are not spoofs, these are references. I propose you change the wording. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.62.35 (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wolf from American Gladiators —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grjasewe (talk • contribs) 14:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amy Winehouse
  • Hannah Montana
  • Phillip Calvin McGraw aka Dr. Phil
  • Giselle the Princess from Enchanted
  • Teenagers from High School Musical
  • John Hancock from Hancock
  • Carrie Bradshaw from Sex And The City: The Movie
  • Samantha Jones from Sex And The City: The Movie
  • Charlotte York from Sex And The City: The Movie
  • Miranda Hobbes from Sex And The City: The Movie
  • Bruce Banner aka Hulk from The Incredible Hulk
  • Anthony "Tony" Stark aka Iron Man from Iron Man
  • Horton from Horton Hears a Who!
  • Ned McDodd from Horton Hears a Who!
  • Morton from Horton Hears a Who!
  • Juno MacGuff from Juno
  • Indiana Jones from Indiana Jones And The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull
  • Paulie Bleeker from Juno
  • Po from Kung Fu Panda
  • Alvin from Alvin And The Chipmunks
  • Simon from Alvin And The Chipmunks
  • Theodore from Alvin And The Chipmunks
  • Bruce Wayne aka Batman from The Dark Knight
  • Hellboy from Hellboy II: The Golden Army
Wow! Do notice, please, that none of these movies are Disaster Movies (except for Hancock, which was a disaster, hehe). Why anounce spoofs that aren't related to the movie's premise or basic concept? Should't the spoofs mentioned and confirmed be DISASTER MOVIES? Besides, should we add the fact that there hasn't been any real disaster movies for the past two years? --Surten (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Surten[reply]

Shouldn't there be Cloverfield because its about "teenagers" trying to get to safety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.129.253 (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's the point of a "disaster movie", not just Cloverfield. Fantasy Dragon (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i'm sorry for editing Disaster Movie because Horton Hears a Who! will be great if it was in Disaster Movie you never know if it in it of not right? Sent me some comments if you see some character cast of Horton Hears a Who! in the movie. Bye! MrBumpFan (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they did parody cloverfield the monster would be michael jackson's nose or britney spears. I hate these insignificant idiots who make these movies. they should be banned from ever touching a camera again. off with their heads i say. 72.192.48.119 (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yeah. i honestly look forward to the day when they announce something like, "We're making another movie: ANIMAL Movie!" and then they get booed and trash thrown at them by every single person within earshot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.85.209 (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irony[edit]

Should it be noted that most of the other films in this series are critical flops? It would seem to me that, by now, the creators are so used to their staggering failures that they've essentially dug their own grave by naming this film "Disaster Movie". -Anonymous, 8/2/08, 10:36 EST. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.120.120 (talk) 14:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not irony. ChesterG (talk) 11:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's already noted in the other films' respective articles. No real need to note it here. Nemeses9 (talk) 10:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, we all know it's going to suck. Why wait for reviews to confirm it? It will be terrible and pointless just like the previous ones. Let's stop pretending here. Hell, why even have a page for it? Why advertise its' existence at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.6.31 (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit, with their chosen name, the critics will have a field day. But nonetheless, if I am correct, only Date Movie flopped all togethor. I mean, I don't believe any of the films in the franchise were taken well by critics, I'd be a true idiot to believe that, but Superhero Movie, Meet the Spartans, and Epic Movie were all hits at the Box Office, not necessarily with the audtiences. Obviously as long as the movies are still making the cash, their gonna still make them. Now I'm actually a fan of the series, and I'm gladly pointing out how disgustingly terrible they are. I say just be glad that they are able to acknowledge what their doing, unlike The Asylum who make the cheap knock-offs. I also believe they should stick to the Scary Movie franchise, since that being the original series seems to get the most detail compared to all of them. This is just my opinion, I respect that you guys don't care for this film-Omeganed0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.238.3 (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason the parodies are hits are because opeople go to see them, hoping that these movies will take the ability say, scary movie one(the last good parody), or the 70 and 80's parodies had them.--Jakezing (talk) 03:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

exposed HTML?[edit]

what the hell happened at the bottom? I'm using firefox 3 on ubuntu 8.04 and I see raw HTML. Is this vandalism? I can't seem to edit out those sections without editing the whole article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony cargile (talk • contribs) 20:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Parodies[edit]

I know there other parodies in the film, but you can't cite a commercial. Added a commented addition to the list, uncommenting it once I or someone else finds a textual reference to flavor flav being in the film. I could have also added commented references to other parodies not currently in the article (many listed in another section above), but I personally didn't want to push the issue on a protected page. Anthony cargile (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LONG (and biased) Plot Synopsis[edit]

While this plot synopsis is very amusing and chronicles this cinematic abortion in all its horrifying detail, come on--it doesn't need to be that long. Somebody clearly pasted in a review they wrote of the movie that was intended for some other purpose. It IS a great synopsis in that it shows no mercy to this "film" (it was so fun to read, in fact, that I'll be saving it on my computer) but it's obvious that it doesn't belong on Wikipedia--it's too long and too opinionated. I recommend a total rewrite (as sad as it makes me to have to say that). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.250.186 (talk) 03:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well fortunately, it'll always be stored in the article's history for future reference. --69.109.162.20 (talk) 04:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

overhauled[edit]

I simply took the synopsis from the official website, and inserted it as a quote. I should indent it; i'll do that right now. That should be sufficient. Miquonranger03 (talk) 04:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove references to IMDb rating[edit]

On other film articles (including The Dark Knight), the IMDb rating is not included, as it's a voting system open to the public, and as such vulnerable to bias, fanboyism etc. So, the references to this film's IMDb score should be cleared ASAP. --Dario1250 (talk) 09:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It also has at least 3000 1 votes from people who voted before it came out and never saw it (they don't deny it). Nearly every review on the site isn't a review but instead just complaining about the trailer. IMDB's list can just be forgotten entirely. DeathWeed (talk) 03:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also They were not really behind Scary Movie. They wrote one scene in Scary Movie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.62.35 (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot & References Removal[edit]

I removed the plot section as it was a direct copy violation (and stated as such). The list of references was not notable and failed WP:TRIVIA. If you disagree, please give a read of the policies and discuss it here. Fin©™ 22:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. I'm sorry about that. The only area of Wikipedia I have little experience in is with copyrights. Miquonranger03 (talk) 07:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, it's just not a good idea to copy stuff directly from a website (even if you state you're doing so). Copying it and changing it into your own words in the process is fine though! =) Fin©™ 09:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that would be why there's no plot section at all, which seemed a bizarre omission. Hopefully someone can rectify this. :) 86.136.250.66 (talk) 23:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think the list of references is trivia. It's not a group of unrelated facts, like "The star wore a wig during filming" and "The movie was released on the birthday of the guy who wrote the book the film was based on." It's a specific organized list of other media referenced in the film, and for this particular film, where the entire POINT is references to other work, I think it's notable enough for inclusion in the article. Propaniac (talk) 13:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spoofs[edit]

•The Day After Tomorrow •Juno •10,000 B.C. •American Gladiator •Superbad •High School Musical •Hanna Montanna •The Love Guru •Jumper •Twister •Hellboy 2 •The Hulk •Iron Man •An Innconvient Truth •Sex In The City •Wanted •Wrestling Divas •Indiana Jones: Kingdom Of The Crystal Skulls •Chronicles Of Narnia: Prince Caspian •Speed Racer •Alvin & The Chipmunks •Night At The Mesuem •Beowulf •Kung-Fu Panda •Enchanted •Step Up 2: The Streets •Horton Hears a Who —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrBumpFan (talk • contribs) 19:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC) •AT&T •Head On •007 Casino Royale •Wall-E •Justin Timberlake •Jessica Simpson •Calvin Kline •Amy Winehouse —Preceding unsigned comment added by J-Grizzle358 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

whats the alvin chipmunks' metal song called?[edit]

whats the alvin chipmunks' metal song called? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.234.229.251 (talk) 00:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC) anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.234.229.251 (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chipmunks Song #3, if I recall correctly. You can guess which songs came before it... DeathWeed (talk) 05:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Budget[edit]

When it comes to Friedberg/Seltzer spoof comedy movies, the production budget are usually $20 million. However, I feel the film was more expensive due to the "disaster" than the last three "movies" they did. According to IMDB, they estimated the production budget was $25 million though Box Office Mojo states the budget was $20 million. Which can I go with? talk 22:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has less known actors, so I don't think they spent as much on the cast. Even if Fred Willard and Jennifer Coolidge aren't top-salaried actors, they probably still get more than Kim Kardashian and Matt Lanter. Plus, the MadTV people ate up about 15 roles between the three of them. I'd say it's still $20,000,000. DeathWeed (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you add to the article please?[edit]

There is one parody missing from the list - when protagonists with the "princess" hide in the warehouse (before encountering the chipmunks) there are shadows and indistinguishable noises in the background and mannequins standing around. This is a reference to I Am Legend movie, where that black bloke goes into the direlict supermarket filled with zombies and mannequins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lioshenka (talk • contribs) 14:43, April 12, 2010

Edit request from 70.138.34.87, 13 July 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} Change the Following

70.138.34.87 (talk) 01:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.  Davtra  (talk) 02:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 217.91.86.249, 23 August 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} Right paranthesis is missing at the end of this sentence:

Later, Will has a dream where he is a Jumper and accidentally impales himself on Prince Caspian's (Barinholtz) sword (Caspian identifies him as "the guy who ruined Star Wars".


217.91.86.249 (talk) 13:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North American egocentristic point of view?[edit]

As many other articles in Wikipedia, this article, the content of the references and material used on it, it is written from, the North American egocentrictic point of view. In any evaluation it is considered the other cultures and rest of the world film making. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.80.224 (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On "worst film" list.[edit]

It may be worth pointing out that Disaster Movie was on Total Film magazine's66 Worst Films of All Time list [1] and Empire's The Fifty Worst Films Ever list [2].176.61.97.121 (talk) 12:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protected??[edit]

Unlock please, (basic grammar errors) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.250.240.67 (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Disaster Movie. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 03:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Disaster Movie. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Disaster_Movie&oldid=1206981936"