Jump to content

Talk:She's All That

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


Section "Cast"

[edit]

I think this section should be changed. I appreciate the way it mirrors the movie by repeating all the bad clichés, but this is really not the place for satire. --91.10.28.217 (talk) 20:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"mixed" Reviews

[edit]

If you think a 25%/75% split is "mixed", you would probably also agree that a 1%/99% split is mixed. It is completely counter to common perception however. Worse, there are some quotes from the positive reviews from RT:

  • "it's often impossible to distinguish what's meant to be cartoonish from what's meant to be dramatic"
  • "She's All That is not likely to make a mark or be remembered by anyone for very long"
  • "hardly an Oscar contender"
  • "In the parlance of American Bandstand it's got a good beat and you can dance to it, but that hardly separates it from the rest of the pack."

So I guess you could say that the positive reviews are "mixed". --91.10.28.217 (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors would present just the scores and avoid making any interpretation, leaving up to the reader to decide what they think 38% means. I'd say 38% is on the low end of mixed, but still mixed. I see that at that time[1] Rotten Tomatoes gave the film 38%, and Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics gave 25%, so I can see why someone might have disagreed with summarizing the reviews as mixed then but with hindsight in think it is much clearer now that the reviews were mixed. WP:MOSFILM has since changed and say not to include the Top Critics score anymore.
Metacritic was not included in the article at the time but it is included now, and it is difficult to ignore the fact that Metacritic describes the reviews as "mixed". The way Rotten Tomatoes does their scores is to sort all reviews into either positive or negative which is very reductive. At the time of writing the RT score is 40%:60 reviews, MC 51%:32 reviews, and breaking down the reviews further RT 24/36 positive/negative, MC 11/16/5 positive/mixed/negative which makes it easier to see that a lot of reviews were in the middle and leaning slightly more negative than positive.
I think "mixed" is and was a fair interpretation. -- 109.76.219.40 (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for Criticism

[edit]

Some quotes form the reviews:

  • "lack of originality"
  • "its characters never begin to rise above the level of cartoons and stereotypes"
  • "a rote set of tiresome events"
  • "it runs out of plot, with 45 minutes to go. "
  • "essentially a formulaic comedy"
  • "a competent regurgitation of a familiar plot"
  • "Those who expect a little more substance will be frustrated."
  • "Unfortunately, the constraints of the script force Zack and Laney into such rigid molds that there's no room for genuine character development or interaction."

Dancing scene my shiny behind. --91.10.28.217 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Way way back, the article included a bizarre claim that the slightly incongruous and unexpected dance sequence, was a source of criticism.[2] It wasn't, as the anonymous editor has shown above, this claim isn't supported by the reviews, and the summary was changed to something more accurate.[3] I was just checking to make sure the article wasn't repeating any mistakes from the older versions, and since I'd gone to the effort to check I thought I may as well include the links here too. -- 109.76.134.237 (talk) 04:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeper Hit?

[edit]

Joining the ranks of "cult classic" on Wikipedia is now the term "sleeper hit." The article reads as follows:

" the film was a sleeper hit and reached No. 1 at the box office in the first week of its release in theaters,"

...Which is pretty much contrary to what a sleeper hit is. A sleeper hit is something that doesn't start out popular and later gains popularity later via word of mouth, atypical exposure, or whatever else. How the hell is a film that hits number 1 in its first week at the box office a sleeper hit??? Patrick of J (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting "sleeper hit"

[edit]
I agree. Don't know what this wasn't removed from the article sooner (so I've removed it) but as with "cult classic" any claims of this being a sleeper hit should be based on reliable sources saying it, not some Wikipedia editors opinion. -- 109.76.219.40 (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FTR, there are reliable sources describing this film as a "sleeper hit" – e.g. [4] and [5]. Other sources also call it a "cult classic" – e.g. [6] and [7] – though I'd agree that label is less justified.
Also sleeper hit defines it as: "Sleeper hit is a term used in the entertainment industry for a film that plays successfully for a long period and becomes a big success, despite having relatively little promotion or lacking a successful opening." (emphasis mine) So, "A sleeper hit is something that doesn't start out popular and later gains popularity later via word of mouth..." is only one of the definitions. It is easy to argue that this film follows the first definition – a film that "becomes a big success, despite having relatively little promotion". IOW, a film that is not expected to be #1 at the box office, and yet opens at #1 (like She's All That did), does in fact qualify as a "sleeper hit". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The film was promoted with $18 million in television advertising. It opened at number 1. It does not fit either definition of sleeper hit. As for cult film, even if clickbait nostalgia articles say something is a cult film that doesn't mean it is necessary or good or appropriate for what is supposed to be an encyclopedia article.
Contemporary sources would be more convincing, than sources from almost twenty years later. Sources from the around the 15th anniversary [8] [9] did also use the term sleeper hit. This article claimed for so long that it was a sleeper hit that may have been a case of citogenesis. Variety [10] and the LATimes [11][12] comment on it as part of a trend of low budget teen films, targeted at female audiences. (I did try looking at NYTimes, THR, and others too.) Nothing to suggest it was considered a hit, sleeper or otherwise, just that it was another profitable teen film (and THR goes so far as to claim it helped inspired Not Another Teen Movie). -- 109.76.154.143 (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I eventually tracked down the edit where the claim sleeper hit was added to this article in 2012, by an anonymous IP. The same editor made various edits to the article for Rachael Leigh Cook including adding the sleeper hit claim there too. -- 109.76.154.143 (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having found the anon edit that added sleeper hit to both articles I now have no doubts whatsoever that it was incorrect (and I already thought it was irrelevant) and resulted in the Circular reporting when the 15th anniversary of the film came around. If you still think it appropriate or even think it should be restored to the article then we will need to go to WP:3RD and request other opinions. -- 109.76.133.62 (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the original person who added that confused "sleeper hit" with "unexpected hit"? -- unsigned comment by Special:Contributions/68.194.44.253
Possibly. The original mistake was understandable enough, anon editors add unsourced claims like "sleeper hit" and "cult classic" all the time. What doesn't make sense is that despite all logic a Wikipedia editor insisted it was necessary to keep the sleeper hit claim in the Rachael Leigh Cook article. At least he didn't try to force that claim back into this article. This was classic case of circular referencing.
Also please sign your comments using ~~~~ -- 109.76.203.249 (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on She's All That. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Budget

[edit]

Prinze Jr. said the budget was $6 million in 2014 [13] but in 2019 he said it cost $7 million.[14] He further clarified the budget started at $6 million but was increased by $900k [15].

I leave this note here in case anyone else encounters the $6 million figure and wonders why it isn't included in the article. Also if there was local consensus we could probably omit the higher less reliable $10 million figure, but since Template:Infobox film warns not to "cherry pick" figures I've left the higher figure for now. -- 109.79.168.251 (talk) 11:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrospective reviews

[edit]

2018 review from Buzzfeed, film still holds up. (I agree obviously.) Not adding it in isolation, but if there were more retrospective reviews (at least two or three) it might be interesting to add them. -- 109.76.196.65 (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019 review, from Refinery29 is critical of some aspects of the film but says the film redeems itself "by showing us that the person who really needs to change isn't Laney". -- 109.76.196.65 (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 review from Fanside "stands the test of time better than most" -- 109.79.93.233 (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated but here's a short article about the costumes from the film, in case I come back to further expand the production section. -- 109.76.196.65 (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cast list in Infobox

[edit]

An editor is insisting on adding excessive cast to the Infobox.[16] Adding Kieran Culkin and Elden Henson to the Infobox is not an improvement.

Although the documentation of Template:Infobox film advises editors to use the billing block, there is no need to put undue weight on minor roles and the WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE is to summarize key information, a long list of cast, making the list even longer does not achieve that.

For the longest time* (even before the Template:Infobox film documentation tried to set a limit on long cast lists) this article listed the cast list in the Infobox was the 2 leads and the 7 other names that appear in clear large type on the poster. 9 cast members in the Infobox is plenty. Frankly listing only the two cast top billed (above the title) would better WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE summarize the key information. -- 109.79.160.188 (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* this was stable for about a decade[17] or more. -- 109.79.160.188 (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uncredited writer in infobox

[edit]

The template documentation does say that it's typically for credited writers. According to the article, In a 2002 interview, M. Night Shyamalan stated that he polished the screenplay while adapting Stuart Little and writing a spec script for The Sixth Sense. After looking at that, I now think that you are right in removing Shyamalan from the infobox. However, if he did significant edits to the screenplay, it might actually be worth adding him to the infobox. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 00:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record:
Template:Infobox film writer This field is primarily used for films where the writer(s) are credited under "Written by" or "Screen Story and Screenplay by".

Please also note that I was reverting recent changes and restoring the WP:STATUSQUO rather than removing.

The Production section does explain that Shyamalan polished the existing script. (Many films have other writers do uncredited writers and Carrie Fisher often did punch-ups of dialog. Joss Whedon has been an uncredited script doctor on many films.). The mere fact WP:V that he did a rewrite does not mean he should be highlighted in the Infobox, the previously mentioned template documentation documentation discourages adding uncredited writers.
See also WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article. Less is more. The infobox is supposed to be the key facts, extra supplemental details are not supposed to be in the Infobox and only mentioning them in article body is entirely appropriate.
The writers guild has strict rules about who gets credited. Shyamalan's rewrite was polish and was not significant enough to be given any official script credit. The only officially credited writer is R. Lee Fleming Jr.
Adding Shyamalan to the Infobox is WP:UNDUE. -- 109.76.192.85 (talk) 00:47, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:She%27s_All_That&oldid=1219817516"