Talk:Revenge of the Nerds

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


It's the first in the series so I think it deserves a Mid rating. I'll give all the others a low though. Andman8 23:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Should the TV Pilot for Revenge of the Nerds be given its own page? It starred Rob Stone (of "Mr. Belvedere" fame) and Robbie Rist (Cousin Oliver from the Brady Bunch TV series). - 07:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


Revenge of the Nerds (2007 film) should be merged here because it is an article about a canceled remake of this film. --Chris Griswold () 06:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: Please do not remove the box on the article that notes that the merge has been suggested. If you feel that the two articles should not be merged, make your case here. Thanks. Where Anne hath a will, Anne Hathaway. 20:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


  • Merge - if it ever gets picked up to be made it will warrant a seperate article but until then it's too small and too unimportant on its own. Scaper8 06:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge - as per Scaper8
  • Merge - agree with Scaper8 --Mike Segal 04:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge - do so for now; if there ever is a remake then this can be incorporated into that article , maybe in the production section. --Nehrams2020 04:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge - agree with Scaper8 Matt73 15:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge - agree w/ Chris Griswold Davidweiner23 02:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge - agree with Scaper8 --Baumi 20:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


  • It is its own seperate entity, and there is rumors of it being moved to a different company. Antmusic 22:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Merged per consensus. The Parsnip! 20:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Article for the Soundtrack[edit]

A Revenge of the Nerds (soundtrack) article hasn't been made yet... or should it be incorporated into this article? Antmusic 22:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The rape scene[edit]

The scene were Lewis puts on a mask and pretends to be Betty's boyfriend, then has sex with Betty while she is thinking she is sleeping with her boyfriend... did Lewis actually rape her? I mean legally, was it rape? JayKeaton 03:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure it would be considered rape, yes. --GracieLizzie 17:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I really think that would NOT be considered rape --Davidweiner23 14:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I really think that WOULD be considered rape. Just like huge amounts of alcohol or certain drugs can be used to impair a person's judgment, Lewis used a Darth Vader disguise to impair Betty's, thus making her believe she was having sex with her boyfriend. How is this not rape? Current laws make is statutory rape to have sex with children because their judgment has not developed to the point where they may make decisions about who to have sex in an emotionally and psychologically ready manner, and having sex with a legally retarded person is also considered rape for the same reason. If Betty, because of Lewis's deliberate actions, is unable to judge the situation as she normally would by believing Lewis to be her boyfriend, this is most obviously rape.
Now, obviously, it's not portrayed as rape in the movie and it's not meant to be seen that way. Betty enjoys what happened, the movie ends up in a "they lived happily ever after (until the sequel)" mode, and it's a movie from 1984, a time where the opinions on the subject from the film's main demographic would probably just seen this as a funny romance incident where the good guy gets the girl. Whatever the portrayal and intentions, though, unless you can provide a reason why it is not, it should be considered rape. Think Gone With The Wind, except not as controversial because instead of a violent rape it is an impairment of the judgment (and because less people are likely to have seen Revenge Of The Nerds than Gone With The Wind, =P). Just like in gone with the wind, the raped party ends up enjoying what happened, but that does not mean rape did not occur. Jaimeastorga2000 03:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Rape is when someone has sex with a person who cannot give consent. Being underage means they can't consent, being drunk means they can't consent, etc. Betty gave her consent (just did so under false pretenses) and therefor it's not rape - maybe regrettable, but not rape.JW 09:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What he did was not a crime in Massachusets[1]. Rklawton 03:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

However, from that same link, "If the Legislature wants to make fraud an element of rape, it should follow the lead of several other states and change the law, the court said." It seems like, if perhaps not a crime in Massachusetts, it is a crime in "several other states." Jaimeastorga2000 19:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to rewatch the scene but, I would have to say that there is no possible way for Betty to mistake Lewis's body, that of a scrawny pasty-white black haired self-accepting nerd, with that of her boyfriend, a tanned well-built blonde football jock. Even without the costume taken off, this should have been obvious. --Centerone (talk) 23:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. AFAIK, rape occurs only when non-concensual intercourse takes place. In both Revenge of the Nerds and Gone with the Wind, sex takes place off-camera so there is ambiguity as to whether or not consent was made beforehand. In Nerds, it seems most likely that Betty was well aware that she wasn't having sex with Stan. Her response at the end was not a horrified "you're not my boyfriend!" but more a surprised "you're that nerd!" She knew she was cheating on Stan, she just wasn't sure with who. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the charge would be, but I'd liken it to the case of that guy who was calling McDonalds employees and pretending to be a cop in order to get girls to strip. Was he not charged with sexual assault?
It would seem that fraudulently coercing people into sexual situations is a crime; however, I think the real problem with this whole debate is that Revenge of the Nerds, while not exactly Lord of the Rings, is pretty fantastical. As has been mentioned, the entire fact that Betty is tricked is somewhat bizarre, though it would make a great argument that we could assume she, being at a big all day festival, had been drinking.
Yes. The movie is so over the top and ridiculous, the "is it rape" part is trivial, and depends entirely on the state's laws. I think a far more gaping "plot hole" is the fact that they destroyed a house and the police didn't arrest anyone, and that an employee could seriously threaten to beat up his boss without being fired.
I'm really surprised so many people make or defend accusations towards Lewis, because it's just such an insanely silly movie. I always thought part of the humor was that the nerds commit all of these acts that are undoubtedly criminal in nature. (talk) 05:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I continue to be amazed at people's understanding of the law and/or common sense. It is 100% rape. She CLEARLY thinks she is having sex with Stan (she says "Oh Stan that was wonderful" at the screen pans down to them finishing up)...the idea that she gave consent is absurd. She was consenting to have sex with Stan. Not the nerd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gettingitrightthefirsttime (talkcontribs) 00:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Since people are trying to add this again. Consider the time when this movie was made - sex crimes - while they certainly occurred - were not as significant as they are now. Today, that scene could be a problem, but back then, it's part of the comedy of the time, she didn't complain after the fact, etc. etc. It's not appropriate to call it "rape", but of course we can't called it "consensual sex" either. Instead we simply leave it as the movie impressed - she was surprised at how much better it was with the nerds than the jocks, and thus part of the nerds' victory. --MASEM (t) 13:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the editor above ^^. I know it is a sensitive subject but again, as has already been stated, Betty didn't complain, she was surprised, but not combative nor did she stop him. I find it hard to believe that Betty wouldn't know it wasn't Stan. Remember, this is a movie. Obviously the police in the town do not care about other crimes going on in the film either. I suggest too, that we leave it as the movie implies it is.--ḾỊḼʘɴίcảTalkI DX for fun! • 13:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC) 13:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Rape - not an issue way back in 1984. Keep it classy, wikipedos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Update, August, 2012 - I have reverted the attempt to add "rape" three separate times this year ([2], [3], [4]). IF she had freaked out after discovering him not to be Stan Gable, and IF she had then reported him to the police, then (and only then) could the word "rape" be introduced. This did not happen in the film, so there was no rape. Yeeesh... Doc talk 22:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
It certainly was rape. You have a very retarded belief in 1) What rape is and is not, and 2) Your qualifications for making that determination. I think you should refrain from participating in wikipedia editing as you are obviously too stupid to be of any use here, or anywhere else.Jonny Quick (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
@Jonny Quick: You're responding to someone who commented more than a year ago. You should use {{ping}} to notify him. This whole discussion does not include secondary sources. Something as controversial as this should not be left up to editors' interpretations. If we find publications discussing this scene as rape, then we would reference this publications for inclusion. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Given that "rape" has a very negative connotation, and that's not how the scene is played out, it is improper to call it rape - also considering in light of the time this movie was made (when sex and swinging were highly prevalent at the time). Yes, if the same scene was filmed today under today's morale, the outcome would have been vastly different, but we're considering what happened then. Add to the fact that when she discovered his true identity she did not react as if it was not concentual after the fact. So while under today's legal definition that the action would be called "rape", this film does not attempt in any means to portray the action as such, so it should not be called "rape". --MASEM (t) 19:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
This was rape. Pure and simple rape. She says No to him throughout the movie, and he decides to turn it into yes by taking advantage of her by disguising himself as her boyfriend and raping her. Lewis is a rapist. He raped Betty. It doesn't matter that his happened in 1984 or 2014, this was a rape. Also, Masem misspelled consensual, which makes me doubt he knows what it means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djpizzahandz (talkcontribs) 19:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. It's not WP:OR to say that this was rape. According to Wikipedia's own definitions of rape and consent, this is what is depicted onscreen, regardless of whether it is presented as a negative. Connotation and authorial intent doesn't change what is depicted. In Birth of a Nation, racist actions are displayed as just, but that doesn't make them less racist. Intentions don't matter; that's where you get into original research. What matters is a concise description of what is depicted. There's no extra steps being taken to portray what happens as a rape; "rape" and "consent" are being used appropriately to describe at face value what happens onscreen. To be fair, the plot summary for this article in general is excessive, this is a minor detail from the plot, and it should probably be removed entirely. (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
No one disagrees that from a technical standpoint it was rape - it meets the straight-forward definition. The problem is that neither the movie or the culutre at that time depict it as rape - it's a satire/spoof movie. Rape has a very negative connotation and that is not at all suggested by the movie - which is a comedy movie, and that is why we avoid it. --MASEM (t) 21:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree 100%. To simply state that he raped her is totally misleading to the reader, and it's not going to fly. It just is not depicted as a rape (despite what it technically is), and this is a comedy film. To state Louis "raped" her not only has very negative connotations, it has violent ones. It is ludicrous to keep edit-warring this in here; and if we have to semi-protect the article, so be it. Doc talk 22:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Current mainstream publications (link provided) refer to this scene as one that depicts a rape. It does not matter the time period, genre, or really anything about the film or the time of its creation. The scene in question depicts a rape. The film's narrative does not recognize it. The film has that right. A Wikipedia article on the film should depict the facts of the plot. Sex without consent is rape. This happens in the film clearly. Michael Tannenbaum, USA citizen, and a real person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
We can discuss in the reception area that some of the scenes in that movie under present morals would be highly questionable, including that scene. But it doesn't make it "rape" in context of the original work when it was released. --MASEM (t) 23:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

On reading some of the articles that call the scene rape (all written very recently and acknowledging the nature of causal sex of the 80s), a good point raised by many is that we have no idea exactly what happened. We know Betty likely felt a sexual high, and she compared Lewis in size to Stan, but we have no idea if they removed their pants or had intercourse (yes yes it's heavily implied but still, it would be effectively original research to say intercourse, much less rape). There's no issue with having part of the Reception of the article discuss the re-evaluation of the film's approach under today's morals, and that yes, many call what Lewis did as date rape, but in the context of the film , set on a college campus in the 1980s, there's no way we can even approach that term in the plot summary. --MASEM (t) 23:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

This is probably a better article to refer to than the above one.[5] Interestingly, there is no mention of the date rape scene in Sixteen Candles in our article, neither in the plot summary or the "Controversy" section. It's glossed over instead, saying, "Jake later uses the excuse of finding them together to break up with Caroline (who had surprisingly fallen for Ted and doesn't mind the break-up very much)." In reality, Caroline believes Ted is Jake in her drunken stupor; so Ted technically "rapes" her in the story. Doc talk 23:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Let's just be honest and call rape rape. Even back in the 80s, rape was rape. Rape by deception is rape. Let's update the plots of these films to be quite clear on the fact that women got taken advantage of, and it's implied that they were sexually assaulted. What is the problem with being honest about rape in popular film? - clifhenning 23:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
No , we can't do that. While rape did happen in the 80s, the prevailing morality at the time would never have considered this as such. It is fair in a reception section to say "omg, that was rape that had in that" from sources published today, but the film no way, no how calls it rape. --MASEM (t) 23:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to Clifhenning's edit, I see we can completely remove any indication this was a sexual encounter for purposes of keeping out plot summary neutral whether it was rape or not. I again say the question is completely fair to write about in the Reception section as a question of hindsight, as there are sources that do clearly say it was straight-up date rape. --MASEM (t) 00:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be a lot of the discussion surrounds whether or not words "sexual assault" or "rape" should be included in the summary based on whether or not the film showed rape, or intended to show rape, and how audiences of the time would have seen it. 1: Based strictly on the on screen actions, this scene easily meets the definition of rape by deception without any original research or extra effort taken. 2: Explaining what the film actually showed, rather than what it intended to show is a much more accurate and less confusing approach. If a character steals something, but within the context of a film the act isn't shown to be wrong, the description still says the character stole something without the discussion over whether "steal" is too harsh of a word to use, because it's the most accurate description. Why is rape any different? 3: How the audiences of the time would have interpreted it isn't relevant, because we're not writing a movie summary for them. We're writing one for people in 2015, people who understand that someone doesn't have to scream and fight back for it to be rape. If this discussion continues, there needs to be a controversy section made because editors have already produced more than enough sources criticising this scene in the film. Kiddyjanna (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Kiddyjanna (talk), just wanted to inform you that there is another discussion of whether or not Wikipedia wants to call rape, a rape. Ah, the white washing of Wikipedia! Please add your remarks here. See [6] MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 07:31, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
While the scene in question could be considered legal rape in some jurisdictions, in others it isn't. When the movie was made, ideas about rape and date rape, etc. were much different. In order for a rape prosecution to go forward, a victim would need to complain. In this movie the "victim" did not complain, and even expressed pleasure from the act. If she had complained, then it certainly could have been rape in some places. Since we do not know the location of the fictional Adams College, it is impossible to say that this was rape as defined by the laws in that jurisdiction. Sf46 (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Douche bag[edit]

In the scene where Booger says he though he was looking at his mother's old douche bag (but that's in Ohio) he uses 'douche bag' in the way it's used commonplace today. This movie was made before I was born so this is just a thought, but was this the first time douche bag was used that way? JW 09:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The Douche article says that douche bag as a pejorative "goes back to the 1960s". The Oxford English Dictionary has uses from 1968 and 1972. So no, this is not the first use. (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


Even though Revenge of the Nerds is a four-part-film series, the films' articles are not conected. Shouldnt that be fixed. and also there should be an article about the series in general.--JDDJS (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

at the bottom of the infobox is the succeeded by and followed by parameters. the series probably wouldnt warrant an article, since the later ones were forgettable. badmachine (talk) 04:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Revenge of the Nerds V[edit]

I was asked to appear in the 2007 remake of "Revenge of the Nerds" (before it was shelved) after writing a script for "Revenge of the Nerds V: Nerds of the Millenium" in 2001. A short adaption of this sequel was filmed and produced in 2001 entitled "Nerds, Geeks, & Dorks". It can be seen on YouTube.

Can this be placed on the article? Jeanlovecomputers (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


In the article, it says that Lamar is later revealed to be gay. This is inaccurate and should be changed. A viewing of the movie will make it clear that the character is obviously openly gay from the beginning. Just in case anyone is too stupid to understand, this is not an attempt to discuss the movie but to point out what is definitely an error in the article. Therefore, anyone who removes this is a vandal. (talk) 05:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments like this are less likely to get you an answer to your problem with the article. Feel free to change it on your own, but do not resort to personal attacks against editors on Wikipedia. It is against policy and you can be banned for it. --ḾỊḼʘɴίcảTalkI DX for fun! 15:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Maybe next time you won't just blindly revert. Who am I kidding? Of course you will! (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
You do not understand the rules here at wikipedia do you? You should always assume good faith with other editors. Your original question posted to this section was very vague and could easily be misinterpreted. The personal attacks are another thing I will not tolerate. You can't also hide behind other IP address as that is against policy here on the site. See WP:SOCK. I would caution you on your attitude. If you continue I will report you. --ḾỊḼʘɴίcảTalkI DX for fun! 15:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
No, it couldn't easily be misinterpreted. You only did so because you're stupid. (I suspect I'm not telling you anything you don't already know here.) As for sock puppets, I don't use them. If you weren't an idiot, you'd have heard of dynamic IP addresses. It's not something I actually do, it's automatic every time I log on. But, like I said, you're an idiot and that is just being proved each time you comment. Maybe you should quit? The internet records all this stuff, and personally were I you I wouldn't want that kind of gross idiocy recorded. (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Profiling? Hardly![edit]

It's hardly "profiling" to point out the one Japanese exchange student, or the sole black member of Adams' Tri-Lamb chapter. The former is a key plot point. (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Remake Reworked?[edit]

I cannot prove this with 100% accuracy, but I believe that after the remake was shelved, its script was rewritten as American Pie Presents: Beta House. American Pie Presents: Beta House was released in 2007, around the same time the Revenge of the Nerds remake was supposed to be released. Also, the plots are very similar. Both films involve two frat parties in major competition with each other. The only difference is that in American Pie Presents: Beta House, the nerds are seen as the antagonists and the jocks are the protagonists. It just seems odd to me that a film with a similar plot to Revenge of the Nerds gets released shortly after it gets shelved. Jeanlovecomputers (talk) 01:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That they were even planning on remaking Revenge of the Nerds is a travesty, and I was unaware of that idiotic plan. There are no ideas left in Hollywood it seems, and there is simply no way to improve on something like this classic except to make a quick and cheap buck. If the creeps that keep coming out with the ridiculous American Pie movies ripped something off, I hope they get sued back to the Stone Age. Doc talk 02:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Who could forget...?[edit]

There's no mention of Booger's famous ten second-belch anywhere in the article. Was that scene ever singled out for recognition? Maybe in a 10 Funniest Moments, or Longest Eructation on Film? Anything? --The_Iconoclast (talk) 07:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

This Is Getting Increasingly Annoying[edit]

The "rape scene" thing continues to surface. It appears we have an editor in Jacksonville, Florida that believes if they insert "the rape thing" using different IPs from the University Of North Florida that it somehow (magically?) will get into the article.[7], [8] It will not. I would again strongly encourage this editor using his/her school's IP addresses to stop attempting to add it. We can always protect the page or set up a rangeblock if necessary. We are tired of reverting your stupid edit. Stop adding it now. Doc talk 01:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: Get used to it and continue to revert. I say this not to belittle your frustration, but as someone who watches several pages with "childish" IP editors who like to insert their OR nonsense. So I can tell you that they don't read Talk pages (either for the page they edit or their own) and the act of acknowledging them only fans the flame of their stupidity. Also this page doesn't even come close to the number of malicious edits to qualify for a block. I'll continue to revert the same, but until he gets really malicious, the situation is what it is... Ckruschke (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

There's more than one editor trying to insert this, and this is a warning to them all. The page has been protected in the recent past for the same reason, and it will happen again if this continues. Doc talk 03:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

As it has come up again, I have started a broader topic at WP:VPP on the question of how to present situations like the one in this film that were once acceptable when the work was made, but are not at the present time. See [9]. --MASEM (t) 16:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I've removed it again. Doc talk 22:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

It keeps coming up because it really does need to be included, if not in plot than in the reception section. Whether or not what occurred would have constituted sexual assault when the movie was released and whether or not it was recognized as such by the film's creators or the original audience is irrelevant. People reading the page are reading it in 2015, and in 2015 the events as they occur in the film depict a sexual assault under law in almost all common law jurisdictions.

For example, section 265(3)(c) of the Criminal Code of Canada states that "... no consent is obtained where the complainant submits or does not resist by reason of... (c) fraud". In a case with facts more bizarre than fiction & involving identical twin brothers, the Ontario Court of Appeal held that "the complainant’s mistake about the identity of her sexual partner meant she did not consent to the sexual activity", and therefore that having sex with someone while disguised as someone else constitutes a sexual assault under section 265(3)(c) of the Code. R v Crangle (2010) ONCA [1] MyNameisLara (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

We can include in the film's reception that the scene, viewed through today's eyes, is considered rape, and hence why the film may be seen by some as morally deplorable. There's actually a reasonable number of sources on that. It's just that, per the linked discussion above, it is improper in that it was considered rape in the context of the film's crude humor. --MASEM (t) 02:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd say it was considered rape in the eighties. This film was made for thirteen year old boys who couldn't get into porno's yet. The women in the film behave exactly like women do in porno's. And the reason these types of films don't get made anymore is because there's zero market for them due to the internet. --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 19:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

"it is improper in that it was considered rape in the context of the film's crude humor"- I don't know what this means. Do you mean that it shouldn't be included in the plot section because it wasn't intended to be seen as rape?MyNameisLara (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Basically, there's a whole bunch of men on Wikipedia who prefer to see a whole bunch of rape scenes as not rape. Its a huge problem that's impossible to fix. There are certain things that Wikipedia gets wrong all the time, this is one of them, and will forever continue to be one of them. --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 19:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
No, that's not the issue. Again, review the discussion from VPP here [10] (archived). In the context at the time, while it absolutely fit the definition of rape, no one then - not the film's producers, actors, critics, or audience, blinked at the scene and considered it rape - it was crude college humor. Today, we are vastly aware that that humor doesn't sit well and the scene, rightfully, is highly criticized in modern sources; we should absolutely document this modern reaction as part of the film's reception. But it is improper per WP:PRESENTISM to reframe the scene as written in the plot section in the light of a modern moral scope when it clearly wasn't originally produced with that moral scope in mind, as per that VPP discussion. --MASEM (t) 19:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Effectively yes. --MASEM (t) 18:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

So... Why isn't there a section in reception on this issue? Shall I add one, since we seem to be in agreement that "we should absolutely document this modern reaction as part of the film's reception"?MyNameisLara (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

To be fair here, it's considered a modern reaction mainly because of the internet. Had the internet been in existence then like it is now, I'm sure the reaction would have been the same. If one goes here [11] to Cullen's comment even they say that this type of behavior was considered sexual assault at that time. --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 23:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Except, the problem is, there are no clear sources that call it that. Raunchy college humor films were popular back then, and the poor morals they showed then were taken by society as little to get worked up about, on average. There more than likely were people that were outraged by that scene at the time of the film's release, but if they voiced their opinions in a manner we now can use, no one has been able to produce any reliable source. If there was a significant reaction as you see now for the film, you would have expected to be documented in newspapers or entertainment trade magazine. Now since then, there has been a drastic change in society's morals, with more awareness on the various harm that can come from a situation like the film is just not right. That's not because of the Internet, though the Internet gives people more places to speak out about it that we can now use. It's just as a society we have matured in that way that now makes the film overall feel wrong, while at the time it was just yet another college humor film. --MASEM (t) 23:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Except these types of films were not made for college-aged individuals. They were made for high school males and there's zero market for these types of movies today due to all the easily accessible porn available on the internet which is why they aren't being made today. --MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 23:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
You'll note I've added a paragraph to the reception section on this. It could probably use a few more sources to get the gist. That said, when reviewing the sources to add it, all of them seemed to indicate that when the film was release, no one really considered it an issue as , as one sources puts it, "people were stupid about date rape" back then. We as a population have gotten smarter, we have realized that male-dominating thinking (in which, as Revenge has it, women were seen as trophies rather than equals) is not good, and hence why now there is more outrage about the film. Films with similar nature haven't stopped being made just because there happens to be easy access to M-rated materials on the Internet, just that they make people wince when they are overly masculine and misogynistic in tone (see nearly any review for Pixels). In any case, such a needed paragraph has been added to reflect that now we as a whole see this scene as a problem. --MASEM (t) 18:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
As long as it builds on reliable sources I know I won't stop such a section from being added; I just haven't had time to pull all the sources I know exist on that factor. --MASEM (t) 22:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Plot section in general[edit]

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). Part of the problem is that the entire plot section is far too detailed. There are a lot of minor details that could be cut. Summarize the plot, don't simply retell the story scene by scene. Blueboar (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

It has been trimmed down already, and falls under WP:FILMPLOT's 700 word (685 just checking now). Its definitely not a scene-by-scene retelling. --MASEM (t) 00:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Revenge of the Nerds. 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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 06:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The little one[edit]

Should this article say that there is a little lad in the film who is obviously younger than the rest of the cast, who did not really want to go to university but his parents insisted he did because of his bright talents? Vorbee (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Deleted sections[edit]

An IP has deleted two sections in the article. One section deals with the more recent concerns about this film's "rape" scene (which has been discussed well before in this talk page), which had consensus to be there. The other is a section relating to the show King of the Nerds, which was created by two of the stars themed after this film, which seems wholly appropriate here. I won't restore, but I strongly feel they should be restored. --Masem (t) 22:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Sourced commentary should stay in the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)