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
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Illinois (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Basketball (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Basketball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Basketball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
WikiProject Chicago (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Film (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Animated films task force (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Animation / American / Films / Warner Bros. Animation / Looney Tunes (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject National Basketball Association (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Basketball Association, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the NBA on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

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.24.66.94.140 19:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)hope.

Actually, I heard one person curse in the film. 99.19.92.173 (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Canon[edit]

"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 220.239.44.204 (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!

By JS

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)

Nerdlucks[edit]

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. 99.19.92.173 (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I seem to be getting no reply. Maybe no one's online. 99.19.92.173 (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. 99.19.92.173 (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 99.149.17.32 (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 202.163.72.150 (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. 99.19.92.173 (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Space Jam itself could recieve a sequel in 2012 or 2013. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.142.141.65 (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.

69.204.31.191 (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.24.12.72.50 (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. 96.238.196.23 (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that would be a great idea! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.85.7.191 (talk) 14:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Reception[edit]

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)

Revision[edit]

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)