Talk:Space Jam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Space Jam was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
November 1, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed

Reference to MIB?[edit]

"One scene references Pulp Fiction, with Elmer Fudd and Yosemite Sam dressed as killers and "Misirlou" in the background. This is also presumably a reference to Men In Black." Didn't Men in Black come out in 1997? If so, how can this film, released in 1996, reference it? Undersea

how old are you wack'd about wiki? This was a childrens movie and was aimed mainly towards them,note the comic actions and exaggerations done by the characters to show they're intentions. This was a great movie that iloved when iwas 4yrs old and still do. this movie beats shaq's Kazaam by a thousand. 19:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)hope.

Actually, I heard one person curse in the film. (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, one coach said "What the hell's going on?"


"Reviews of the movie were generally negative. Many critics compared it unfavorably to Who Framed Roger Rabbit, a popular film in which cartoon characters and live-action humans coexisted in the same film as well.[1] Basketball fans thought the movie to be demeaning to the sport, and to Michael Jordan himself. Many of them also claim it was not canon, despite referencing real-life events."

Who claims it's not canon? Basketball fans? This appears to be saying that basketball fans refuse to accept that Space Jam actually happened to Michael Jordan. I'd change it, but I'm not even sure what it's supposed to be saying Lore Sjoberg 22:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Success or Failure[edit]

Alright, alright, I'm totally confused. The movie was successful or negative? The reception or the movie says that "Reviews of the movie were generally negative.", but the Looney Tunes article says that "Space Jam was somewhat succesful despite it's odd plot". Space Jam is good or bad? User:Leader Vladimir

In the article now it says "The films response was generally mixed". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Answer to your questions[edit]

Actually, the film got negative reviews. The film itself grossed well over 90 million dollars, making it a success. However, negative and successful may lie in the eye of the journalist!


Then, in conclusion, Space Jam is both a critical failure and a financial success. User:Leader Vladimir

Final Score between Monstars and Toon Squad[edit]

I watched the Vcd yesterday and the final score of the basketball game between the Monstars and the Toon Squad was 77-78. How could it be 86-88? User: Ken Seng1991

It's really a trivial detail- it's enough to say "they won". --Wafulz 05:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


I think the Nerdlucks should have their own page. You know, with more specific character descriptions and pictures. I know there is a page for themselves along with the Monstars, but it's much too basic.--Sharpay Evans 07:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think the Monstars page needs to be merged into here. This article is poorly written and way too long. It doesn't need sub-articles right now. --Wafulz 15:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The movie's credits says the names of the five NERDLUCKS/MONSTARS are POUND, BLANKO, BUPKUS, NAWT and BANG. However, the article says that four of them are named NULL, NADA, ZILCH and VOID. I didn't get it.Brazilian Man 14:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Plot summary[edit]

At over 1000 words, the "plot summary" was actually a blow-by-blow account of the film. I've replaced it with a more encyclopedic (and much briefer) one from an older revision of the article [1]. --Tony Sidaway 03:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Props to ya! Thanks; I couldn't seem to accomplish trimming down the plot "summary" myself, as I may be too close to the subject. Once again, thanks! — Cinemaniac (talkcontribs) 03:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The plot summary was brilliant. Whoever took the time to describe every detail of the movie, I appreciate you. Space Jam is a forgotten gem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chachanandler (talkcontribs) 02:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. A plot summary that long violates Wikipedia standards and should be trimmed down significantly to only include important plot points. I myself have attempted to do this several times, but the corrections are constantly being reverted by IP addresses. It would be wise to consider putting a protection lock on the page to keep unregistered users from undoing the improvements again. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Chachanandler. Plus, that user clearly stated that your edits were not, in fact, improvements. (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I seem to be getting no reply. Maybe no one's online. (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read through Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary, because it clearly states that the plot summary should not cover every scene and every moment of a story. The goal is to summarize the story in a short and accessible manner, not regurgitate the details. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I read the summary, and it's just as bad as your previous edit. Try going to my talk page and we'll discuss the situation. (talk) 13:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Well "bad" or not, those are the rules on Wikipedia, and if you choose to continue not following them, then that technically makes you a vandal, which we try to keep out around here. So please start following the rules if you wish to stay here. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hornet coach?[edit]

Does anyone know who played the Charlotte Hornets coach whose reaction was shown after Muggsy Bogues lost his talent? I think it was an actor they used as a stand-in for Allan Bristow, who was the real-life Hornet coach around the period this would have covered. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Eric Gordon[edit]

The Eric Gordon in this movie is not the basketball player for the Clippers. It's a totally different person. He's denied it several times, Michael Jordan has denied it several times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

i've suggested merging Monstars into this article - it's effectively orphaned, and only discusses the plot of the movie - i think it could have better usage in this article -TinGrin 19:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree, Monstars should be merged into this article. Jlhiowa (talk) 05:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. They were really important to the film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Space Jam 2[edit]

Excuse me, but does anyone know a source of reference for this supposed "Space Jam 2" that I read in this article? I find it hard to believe, and there aren't any references for it either... - Smashman202 (talk) 04:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That's totally dumb. You might be talking about Looney Tunes: Back in Action. (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Space Jam itself could recieve a sequel in 2012 or 2013. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Origins of the film[edit]

My memory is a bit fuzzy on this, but didn't the idea of Space Jam come from some commercials? I seem to remember some commercials for Nike that Michael Jordan appeared in, in the early 90s, alongside Bugs Bunny and Marvin the Martian. Marvin was, as usual, trying to destroy Earth, and Michael would help Bugs defeat him. When Space Jam came out, I remember thinking that the idea for it had come from those commercials. (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course!! Railer-man (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Additional Changes to the Film Page[edit]

We are working on a project for english class.

We have a few suggestions to make this page better. For instance,we would like to make a few grammatical changes that we found.(jphodges,talesser,Rkharper8) Also we would like to add to the soundtrack heading, and find more information on the critic review.Additional feedback would be appreciated! --Rkharper8 (talk) 19:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Name of the film[edit]

Does anyone know where the name "space jam" came from? I'd sort of assumed it was some basketball terminology, but it's not listed on the disambiguation page. It would be useful to add to the article if we know. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Space Jam/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC) After reading through this article, I don't think it's ready for GA status yet. Here are the following issues I found:

  • Most importantly, and what makes this an auto-fail, is that there's no production information. Any GA film article is going to have something on the cast selection, production development, etc. Take a look at different GAs, such as Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events and Close Encounters of the Third Kind to get an idea of what's needed for that section. You kind of have a start with the cast section, but..
  • The cast section should be trimmed to focus on the main/secondary characters. Adding in nearly all of them doesn't help much. To throw another film GA out there, use No Country for Old Men (film) as an example of what to make. Cites are not required for the cast and plot section unless a direct quote or controversial thing is noted.
  • The reception section is better, but can be expanded on. Siskel and Ebert's review needs a cite, as does Maltin's. Use a few of the reviews found on rottentomatoes to make a section with some positive and some negative reviews counterbalancing each other. It says that it received mixed reviews, but you don't feel that when reading it.
  • You write that it opened at #1 in the lead, but it's left out of the box office section; add that in there.
  • Pop culture sections are frowned upon. Even if they can be cited my suggestion would be to axe it.
  • The NBA players section can be modified and expanded. I'm sure many of the players have commented on them either being part of their movie, or their playing in the film itself, for those that were bad. That would definitely make for an exciting addition.
  • The plot section is mostly fine. The lead is for now, but after everything else is fixed this will probably need expanding (do that last)

While the article has a long way to go for a GA, I think that the above can make it a GA-quality article. It sounds like a lot, but once things start falling in place it should be a breeze. If you would like help, the Film WikiProject is one of our stronger ones, I'm sure one of them will be glad to give you some pointers. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

"Manner Washington as Jeffrey Jordan, Michael Jordan's oldest son. Eric Gordon as Marcus Jordan, Michael Jordan's youngest son." He has two sons. That should be older and younger. -est os for three or more. (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

En fait...[edit]

I didn't just write the article alone -- a lot of people pitched in, but they just don't know what an encyclopedia is. Railer-man (talk) 21:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't get discouraged. Looking through the article's history, I can see that it has definitely improved. There's just a little more work to go yet. Quadzilla99 (talk) 02:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Improvements to the article[edit]

Here's what this needs:

-Production history, especially!! -More reception -This film's soundtrack should be merged with this artcle. -Expand the lead section, with a brief summary on the plot, development history, etc. -Find sources for the awards!!

Those are just a few of my suggestions. I'll work on finding sources. Railer-man (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, here's a page from the official Space Jam site. That could help:

[2] Railer-man (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

List of Looney Tunes cameos[edit]

Hi - of of the key points of this film was the various Looney Tunes characters that made cameos in it. There should be a section here for that in the article. (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that would be a great idea! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


The lead sentence says that it mostly negative reviews, but thats not what the rest of the section feels like. Aside from the rotten tomatoes thing, it sounds positive, or at the very least mixed. Should this be changed? Wikipediman23 (talk) 04:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


What's wrong with this revision of the article? Jdogno5 (talk) 04:22, 19 March 2014‎ (UTC)

It is full of original research, not only in the trivia section, which fails WP:TRIVIA, but with the additional cameo additions, and the character descriptions. As well, there is improper formatting (the bolding of the character names) and the unexplained reordering of the cast. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

What is wrong with listing the characters that make cameo appearances? What is wrong with having character descriptions? Okay, the bolding of the characters' names can come out. I was merely separating the live-action and animated characters from one another. Jdogno5 (talk) 05:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Trivia section[edit]

There has been a recent spate of edits adding a trivia section to the article. Please take note that each claim should be sourced to a WP:Secondary source (i.e. the editor should not interpret the film personally). It is important to supply sources so the informatiom is WP:Verifiable, but also to establish the significance of the content so it does not violate WP:DUE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. To pick some random examples:

  • One scene references Pulp Fiction, with Elmer Fudd and Yosemite Sam dressed as killers and "Misirlou" in the background. This is also presumably a reference to Men In Black
Spotting references to other films is a form of analysis. Even if it is an obvious reference the connection to other films should still should be sourced, because when an editor makes such observations it is WP:Original research.
  • Dan Castellaneta, better known as the voice of Homer Simpson, stars as the male fan who sits next to the aliens at the Basketball game. It is ironic that Castellaneta, who has won several Emmy awards for his voice work, stars in a live action role in an animated movie.
Dan Castellaneta's role is already mentioned in the casting section. The rest is WP:Editorializing. Who is saying that it is "ironic"? You? Wikipedia? Neither of these are acceptable. However, if the makers of the film stated they cast him for ironic purposes then it would be ok to mention that.
  • The movie was inspired by Nike commercials featuring Michael and Bugs against Marvin and an alien.
This is an entirely appropriate inclusion in the article, but it needs to be sourced so it is WP:Verifiable.
  • Bill Murray keeps changing his mind about wanting to play in the NBA.
How is this significant? It may be be worth mentioning in regards to the plot if it is crucial in some way, but beyond that it looks like a severe case of WP:UNDUE.

This is not an exhaustive list but it should give an idea of some of the problems with the section. Betty Logan (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

  • "Spotting references to other films is a form of analysis. Even if it is an obvious reference the connection to other films should still should be sourced, because when an editor makes such observations it is WP:Original research.": Well how do you source those then?
  • "Dan Castellaneta's role is already mentioned in the casting section. The rest is WP:Editorializing. Who is saying that it is "ironic"? You? Wikipedia? Neither of these are acceptable. However, if the makers of the film stated they cast him for ironic purposes then it would be ok to mention that.": Where could one find that out?
  • "The movie was inspired by Nike commercials featuring Michael and Bugs against Marvin and an alien.": Where can that be sourced from?
  • "Bill Murray keeps changing his mind about wanting to play in the NBA.": Can that be listed as a running gag?

Jdogno5 (talk) 06:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Please do not carry out any further reverts without providing adequate sources. I do not not know where to locate such sources; since you are the editor adding unsourced content it is your job to find appropriate sources and if you cannot then the content obviously does not belong in the article. If there is any further reverting administrator intervention will be requested. Betty Logan (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Past revision[edit]

Sorry if I'm opening an old can of worms but was the problem with this past revision?

Michael Demiurgos (talk) 07:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The stuff you re-added to cast is debatable; personally I don't like it as most of it is just regurgitated plot summary which isn't really what the cast list is for. The trivia section... no debate there. It's just bad news bears. Millahnna (talk) 10:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

What do you find "debatable"? "personally I don't like it as most of it is just regurgitated plot summary which isn't really what the cast list is for": What do you mean "most of it is just regurgitated plot summary"? Well what is the cast list for besides saying who played which character? "The trivia section... no debate there. It's just bad news bears.": How is it "bad news bears"?

Michael Demiurgos (talk) 11:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Slowly - and you need to read the links I'm providing for you:
1. The cast section. See WP:CASTLIST, which discusses the inclusion of "the real-world context" of actors. There is absolutely no point in providing what the character did in the film - that is what the plot section is for. The cast list either provides a blank list of "Character A, Actor 1", or provides a brief outline, OR the real-life context (why that actor selected, preparations they underwent etc);
2. Trivia. See WP:TRIVIA, which states "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information"
The information you are trying to add goes against the MOS, which is taken as the consensus of editors, and acts as a series of guidelines where disputes arise. - SchroCat (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

How is the information miscellaneous? How does it go against the Wikipedia MOS? What do you mean by "or provides a brief outline" in relation to characters?

Michael Demiurgos (talk) 12:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

As I stressed above: you need to read the links I have provided. All is explained in those pages. - SchroCat (talk) 12:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I have red the links you have provided. I want you to explain how the revision of the article that I have been working on (not created by me that was Jdogno) breaches the Cast List and Trivia policies.

"The structure of the article may also influence form. A basic cast list in a "Cast" section is appropriate for the majority of Stub-class articles. When the article is in an advanced stage of development, information about the cast can be presented in other ways. A "Cast" section may be maintained but with more detailed bulleted entries, or a table or infobox grouping actors and their roles may be placed in the plot summary or in the "Casting" subsection of a "Production" section. Use tables with care due to their complexity; they are most appropriate for developed, stable articles. (Tables are also recommended to display different casts, such as a Japanese-language voice cast and an English-language voice cast in a Japanese animated film.)": "A "Cast" section may be maintained but with more detailed bulleted entries, or a table or infobox grouping actors and their roles may be placed in the plot summary or in the "Casting" subsection of a "Production" section.": This seems to suggest it is okay to expand on the role of a character without detailing everything they do in the film.

Michael Demiurgos (talk) 13:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesn't say that at all. It talks about "the real-world context" of actors: not about what the characters have done in the film. - SchroCat (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Once again, I have red the links you have provided. I want you to explain how the revision of the article that I have been working on (not created by me that was Jdogno) breaches the Cast List and Trivia policies.

Michael Demiurgos (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I have already explained, as above. (MOS says no trivia sections; MoS says real-world context, not a full description of what the characters did). Having explained that to you before, and as the policies state that, you have now moved away from any thoughts of being a potentially constructive editor to being a troll. There is nothing further for me to say here now. - SchroCat (talk) 06:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I concede. I understand now.

Michael Demiurgos (talk) 04:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Critical response summary removed[edit]

JesseRafe Regarding my recent removal of critical response summaries here and here, the following notes. "Mixed to positive" "negative to mixed" etc. is meaningless drivel that is shunned by the WikiProject Film community. Please see the archives At the very least, the phrase represents WP:SYNTHESIS because we are presumably combining multiple sources to arrive at "mixed to positive". RottenTomatoes doesn't say "negative to mixed". Rotten Tomatoes has a pass/fail system. So where did the wishy-washy "negative to mixed" come from? Doesn't "mixed" already connote positive and negative? Critical response summaries can't be summaries of cherrypicked reviews. That would mean that anybody could pick a variety of good reviews and say "Critics loved this film!" Too susceptible to POV. MOS:FILM does not mandate critical response summaries. It does, however, say that if any form of paraphrasing is in dispute (I have disputed the summaries), that sources be quoted directly. So who are we quoting when we say "negative to mixed"? Jurassic World is a real-life example of how we don't need to make proclamations about how a film was received. The summary in that article describes what was liked and disliked without deciding for the rest of the world how all critics felt. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems like you simply don't understand the plain meaning of words. You say in an edit summary, "Might as well say "despite receiving all possible critical response" Mixed = positive and negative." -- This is patently false. A "mixed" review is a single review saying the film was middling, think of it as two stars. One singular critic in one singular review can say some aspects were good (positive) and some were bad (negative). There is no confusion except on the part of you of what "negative to mixed" means. Also, nowhere in the policies that you've cited does it explicitly say to not have a lead-in sentence which almost every single film article's critical reception section contains. This is a pet agenda of yours, perhaps? JesseRafe (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
JesseRafe I've never heard of one single review being described as "mixed". Can you substantiate this, please? That's only for my personal edification, as it's not relevant to this discussion and I'm happy to be wrong about that. You are carefully ignoring my other points which are (again) 1) The phrasing "negative to mixed" (and similar "mixed to positive", "mixed to negative") is shunned by the community. What alternative do you have for language that the film community is formally against? 2) From MOS:FILM "The overall critical response to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources. Avoid weasel words. If any form of paraphrasing is disputed, quote the source directly." What source are you quoting directly that describes the film as "negative to mixed"? From my perspective, your summary is synthesized. You are concluding, based on the eight or so cherrypicked reviews in the article, what the critical consensus was, and then using a problematic phrase to do so.
Note also that the film community is divided on the inclusion of critical response summaries in these articles. I know that my colleague Flyer22 is strongly in favor of them. I know that another colleague SummerPhDv2.0 is strongly against them. You saying (paraphrased) "they're in every article/ever other article/almost every article" doesn't mean that everybody's on board with them, especially when the phrasing is so wonky. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with simply saying what the sources say: "On the critical response aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds received a rating of 35%, based on 49 reviews, with an average rating of 5.1/10." (Minor point: We don't know that it "holds" the rating, only that it did at the moment we looked at it.) Why isn't that sufficient? If the "summary" of "negative to mixed" is plainly indicated by the score, the summary adds nothing. It would be redundant, repeating information that is already there, saying the same thing more than once, making the same point over and over again. Would you write, "Joe Blow liked the film, saying, 'I liked the film.'"?

If, OTOH, 35% does not obviously mean "negative to mixed", the "summary" is WP:OR/WP:SYN.

Rotten Tomatoes does not say "negative to mixed". It says "35%, based on 49 reviews, with an average rating of 5.1/10." (For the record, one review can be mixed, in a way: "It is an inspired, original treatment of the classic tale, with an energetic script. Purists will not like the departure from the original and may find the pace a bit too rapid..." (saying the movie is good and bad). More often, reviews may be described as "mixed": there were good reviews and band reviews. "35%...5.1/10" does not tell us that this is the case. This tells us that 35% of the reviews that RT used were somewhere better than average (somewhere between calling it the best film of all time and ever-so-slightly better than average) and 65% were somewhere below average (somewhere between calking it the worst ever and ever-so-slightly worse than average. Let's say it was 12 reviews, 33.3% and an average of 5/10. Now, was that 4 reviews that gave it a 10 and 8 that gave it 2.5? Maybe it was 4 reviews that gave it a 5.1 and 8 that gave it 4.95? Both would give the same reading from RT, thought the numbers are very different: The first set is sharply divided, the second set shows more agreement.

RT gives us their summary of the reviews they looked at (which, BTW, is some critics, not "critics"). Sometimes Metacritic gives us their summary of the reviews they looked at. Why we would be summarizing summaries that we have already quoted is beyond me. Yes, some articles do this anyway. Others do not. Some articles do lots of things that others do not. Some articles are great. Some articles are horrible. The good articles have their flaws and the bad ones have their strengths. Following what "other articles" do does not ensure that those articles are right, only that this article will be as right or wrong on this one point as they are.

Long story short: We do not have a source that says "negative to mixed". We have a source that says something that might be based on data that someone might describe as "negative to mixed". This is synthesis. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Another example of a summary being removed here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

At some point, a summary was re-added: "mixed to negative", then changed to "mixed". This is POV. Some editors feel the numbers indicate the reviews are "negative", others "mixed" and still others "mixed to negative". It is obvious that the sources do not clearly say any of these things. - SummerPhDv2.0 01:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I just saw an RT review a few days ago—lessee...I think it was this one. Black Mass. 6.5/10, with a 92% approval rating, 12 reviews counted. If I got 65% on a math test when I was a kid, that would have made me happy, but my parents would have been pissed. No idea why that translates to a 92% approval rating and I doubt that anyone else here can properly interpret these averages sufficiently to draw a learned conclusion, be it "mixed" or "mixed to negative" or any such fluff. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
"Reviews were an inch deep and a mile wide"? - SummerPhDv2.0 02:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
"Pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty much." - Larry David? -- Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


No mention of the Space Jam website? It's pretty notable in its own right:[3] Perhaps this article needs a 'Legacy' section on the movie's enduring influence on popular culture, or something. Robofish (talk) 14:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Write it. JesseRafe (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Starring "Bugs Bunny"[edit]

Does Gone With the Wind star Scarlett O'Hara and Rhett Butler? How about Noah, starring God?

Strangely, Cinderella (2015 Disney film) thinks it stars Cate Blanchett and Helena Bonham Carter, instead of... whatever the fictional, animated roles they provided voices for.

Bugs Bunny is not a "principal performer". Yes, Donald Kaufman won the BAFTA Award for Best Adapted Screenplay (for Adaptation (film)). "Donald Kaufman" was a fictional character in Adaptation. The Donald Kaufman who won the BAFTA (and was nominated for an Oscar) is not the fictional character. - SummerPhDv2.0 01:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I was unaware of the history of this issue when I edited. I've weighed in at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Bugs_Bunny_gets_a_starring_credit_in_Space_Jam.3F where this issue should be discussed. (While it's early for a consensus, I think it'll snow soon enough.) If anyone feels strongly that Bugs should remain listed as a star pending the outcome of that discussion, feel free to restore it. - SummerPhDv2.0 01:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
JesseRafe: Your edit summary was cut off mid-thought. Please use talk pages for discussion. This topic is being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Bugs_Bunny_gets_a_starring_credit_in_Space_Jam.3F. The issue will be resolved there and applied to this article. Please discuss the issue there. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:53, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
This is ridiculous false equivalency and strawman arguments. Nobody ever said anything about GWTW or Wayne Knight any other nonsense you spew. First of all, there never has been a rule that fictional characters cannot be credited. You simply made that up. Second of all, Bugs Bunny is on the freaking poster listed as a starring character! Third through fifty of all, fictional charcters have a long history in film credits. Donald Kaufman was even nominated for an Oscar for Adaptation! This is to say nothing of all the Alan Smithee and other psuedonyms who have written or directed numerous well-received films. It's simply not a bone of contention. At all. JesseRafe (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Discussion is taking place at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Bugs_Bunny_gets_a_starring_credit_in_Space_Jam.3F. As explained there, there is indeed a fictional "Donald Kaufman" in that film. There is also an real person named Donald Kaufman who received an Oscar nomination. - SummerPhDv2.0 13:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The apparent consensus is to not list fictional characters as stars. - SummerPhDv2.0 18:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The solid consensus is now archived here. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


There should probably be a production section for the film, like there is for most movies. (talk) 07:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2016[edit] (talk) 15:13, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER 15:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC).