Talk:Forgetting Sarah Marshall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Related sites?[edit]

http://www.sarahmarshallfan.com/ http://www.ihatesarahmarshall.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Napkin Party (talkcontribs) 20:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ad campaign coverage?[edit]

Have there been any news articles discussing the unusual print ads plastered on billboards and bus stops? It would be a notable point to make in the article. Lawikitejana (talk) 04:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. Here are some articles: [1], [2], and [3]. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 22:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Comparisons between Sarah Marshall and Kristen Bell[edit]

Some news outlets have mentioned the similarities between the careers of Kristen and her character (series cancellation, J-horror with killer phones etc.), some to Kristen's shock and offense, which while Segel maintans is unintentionally would probably add some texture to the article. How should this best be included?~ZytheTalk to me! 16:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

With sources 75.80.82.112 (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The character is based loosely on Jason's ex Linda Cardellini. At the time she was on ER — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.135.183 (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

American self-celebration at work again...[edit]

The article goes on to praise the movie, but most critics in Europe liken Kristen Bell's performance to that of an inflatable love-doll... They also say the romantic thread is pretty weak and only the comedy part works, keeping the movie going. Definitely not 85% pro, rather like 65-75% (which is still significantly better than Hollywood average, where junk in, junk out is the recipe.) 91.83.17.235 (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Arrogant arrogant little title there. 24.222.21.50 (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.21.50 (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. "As of April 23, 2008, the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes reported that 85% of critics gave the film positive reviews, based on 132 reviews - with the consensus being that the film "finds just the right mix of romantic and raunchy comedy."" = Fact, "Definitely not 85% pro, rather like 65-75% (which is still significantly better than Hollywood average, where junk in, junk out is the recipe.)" = Opinion, conjecture, and arrogance.204.210.209.95 (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Can we please get some European reviews on this website? They sound like it would make the website more fair and balanced. I don't think they are necessary if they are not in English - but on the other hand I do not want to hegemonise other countries! Anglocentricism can only get us so far........ I will think about these ideas after I have my dinner. Thank you for reading, God bless. I am from Australia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.253.81 (talk) 08:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
The reviews from RT, which give it an 85 percent approval based on 175 reviews, include reviews from a variety of foreign press, including Austrailian. Wiki users can click on the external link to RT to look at any review they want. That should be sufficient for the purposes of wiki.Fsm83 (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sequel/ Spin-off[edit]

Is it worth mentioning that the next film being made by Stoller, Get Him to the Greek, will see Russel Brand reprise his role as Aldous Snow, making it sort of a sequel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.81.129.226 (talk) 11:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Plot summary[edit]

can someone write a plot summary in the intro that doesnt detail the whole plot - for people who havent seen it to get the gist of what its about. cheers - Noel Gallagher ("not THE Noel Gallagher FFS!") 89.240.162.195 (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. These synopsis always seem to be written by a five year old. "girlfriend breaks up with him while he is standing stark naked..." being naked is a detail incidental to the plot, but it's the sort of thing we come to e/pect from Wiki contributors.

on another note, Wiki has rules against independent research and the synopsis is not attributed to a verifiable source so is it even allowed under Wiki's terms? just sayin. APDEF (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

A plot summary does not need to have a verifiable source. It is a summary of the film, there is nothing to verify. I've seen a lot worse then this one. And obviously it went through a lot or rewrites since that first complaint was filed 5 years ago. Fsm83 (talk) 05:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Forgetting Sarah Marshall. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)