Talk:The Goonies

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

Film novelization[edit]

The movie has been novelized by James Kahn in 1985. Translated in French in the same year, then translated in portugese (bresilian) in 2013, then in spanish in 2019.

Proofs :

https://zupimages.net/viewer.php?id=23/22/pv1z.jpg

https://zupimages.net/viewer.php?id=23/22/rfmk.jpg

https://zupimages.net/viewer.php?id=23/22/toc1.jpg

https://zupimages.net/viewer.php?id=23/22/yv78.jpg

A novelization being a kind of "derived product" exactly as a video game, it seems relevant to quote this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:A36:1630:A88D:1D8:F5B:5BE7 (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikicheck[edit]

Validation of article performed by WIKICHECK. February 8, 2006 5:42pm. WikiCheck 22:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

There used to be a review-marked as such- in this article. Someone could replace it with a commentary section, but, for now, it's gone. Sean Black 17:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Steven Spielberg, producer or not?[edit]

This page states that Steven Spielberg produced the film. However, he is not listed under 'producers' in the key. He's only listed under writers. This is confusing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.175.26.126 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 19 February 2007.

He was credited as an executive producer, which appears to be the source of the ambiguity. I've removed the "produced by" mention of him in the first sentence. --Mrwojo 20:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshi's Island/Story[edit]

I think that the mention of the Goonies in the two Yoshi video games should be removed. It has nothing to do with the film, and are instead references to "Goonie Bird," which is another name for an equatorial albatross, which resembles the seagull.

Main Paragrah[edit]

"The film is noteworthy for containing an unusually large number of some of the most easily spotted editing mistakes in cinematic history. Though it is not uncommon for easily missed mistakes to pass into a completed film (only to be spotted later by scrutinous viewers), "The Goonies" contains some blatant editing errors. Many of them are due to major subplots that were filmed but removed. One of the most commonly cited is a reference by the kids to an octopus that was "very scary," a scene that was completely edited out of the finished film. It, with other deleted scenes, was included in the DVD release bonus features."

I dispute this paragraph on two points. First, other than the Octopus Scene, there are no other examples provided. My second point of dispute is with the mention of the Octopus Scene as an editing 'mistake'. The comment that Data makes is 'there was an Octopus' or something to that point. The fact that the Octopus is not actually seen should not be considered an editing mistake as the comment does not create an hole or other inconsistency in the story or plot. An example of an editing mistake, or more appropriately a continuity error, would be a person saying 'We at Burger King' when in fact they obviously ate at McDonalds.

I removed the paragraph from the article. It would need to cite sources as well (examples aren't enough, it asserts that it has more mistakes than other films). --Mrwojo 02:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Some very interesting spelling errors in the above, especially since the author is attempting to sound like an editing authority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.123.120.99 (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chunk Addresses Congress[edit]

I added that because it's relavent... and very funny.

Sorry to revert your change, but YTMNDs are pretty much the definition of non-notable. This has none of the features of a useful external link. rspeer 01:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For the curious, this is the edit in question and, while it isn't relevant to this article, it's—if anything—even more effective commentary these days than when it was first posted. If someone at the NY Times could pick this up, it might merit inclusion on the US Congress or Government of the United States pages... — LlywelynII 03:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

escapist and misfit[edit]

The introduction states it is an 'escapist' film, with 'misfit' kids. However, never is it explained why this label is attached to the movie, and why exactly these children are 'misfit'. This needs to be further explained or deleted. --(comment by User talk:81.70.252.138)

I agree. (Don't forget to sign your posts using four tildes ~~~~.) --Mrwojo 22:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ataris?[edit]

I could've sworn that the album, So Long, Astoria, was actually in reference to Astoria, New York, where the band is from... does anyone know anything to back this up? --Gregoe86 21:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it's referring to Astoria, Oregon and The Goonies. Reviewers and others seem to think so too [1] [2] (fan). Is the band actually from New York? The Ataris article doesn't mention this.
In addition to the title, the song's lyrics mention pirate ships and a map to buried treasure. The last two lines are the most convincing, since they appear to quote Mouth in a rather dramatic moment. --Mrwojo 04:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Commentary[edit]

At one point in this article, it says Sean Astin has to leave the commentary, which implies he has other thiings to do. At another point, it says he walks because the others were making fun of him. Which is it? Chaz 15:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I figure he left because he had other things to do, probably with his family. About 43 minutes into the commentary you can see him hand-sign "I love you" to someone offscreen and he leaves before the next time the cast is shown. The last paragraph in the Production section seems gossipy. --Mrwojo 18:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"One-Eyed" Willie[edit]

Does this name refer to a part of the male anatomy?

Yep. Which bit confused you? --Dudesleeper 20:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goonies 2 direct to DVD[edit]

I'm deleting the new section on the Goonies 2 DVD. All of the rumors can be traced back to [3], which cites an unnamed source of questionable reliability. I'd love for the movie to be made, but I don't see this as much of an indication that it will be made. Travisl 22:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Swearing[edit]

No offense, but I have reservations about swearing (as for me, I never swear). For this reason, I changed the sentence that addressed it. The point is, they swore numerous times throughout the movie. That's all that really needs to be said where a family film is concerned. Brittany Ka 22:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a European, I feel offended. Swearing is better than guns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.253.186.62 (talk) 18:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. If Brittany Ka believes that swearing is something negative instad of it being free speech and should not be displayed in a "family film" (whatever this is supposed to be), she should feel reminded that it is her very own obligation as an adult then to keep her minors away from such, and not the obligation of society. By the way, Brittany Ka has obviously not even noticed the the clearly sexual (oooh!) name of the pirate either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C0:DF02:6400:E4B9:48AC:A4DF:C10A (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chunk's paragraph[edit]

Is the paragraph of what Chunk said to the Fratelli brother necessary? Codelyoko193 17:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear to be. Go ahead and remove it. Oh, you already have... - Dudesleeper · Talk 19:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cindi Lauper/Lou Albano[edit]

Shouldn't some mention of "girls just wanna have fun" be included? It was an important song, both culturally, and to the movie. Maybe I'll do it... Llamabr 01:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The song "Girls Just Want to Have Fun" came out years before this film, was not IN the film, nor on the soundtrack, and thus has nothing to do with the film whatsoever. TheGoonSquad 20:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really? So I guess I just imagined the scene with it on the TV, and the fact that it was played afterwards? Wrong. It WAS in the movie! Try watching it again. Draknfyre 13:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a possibility. ;-) As stated in the article, Lauper is performing "The Goonies 'R' Good Enough" on the TV. It also plays when the credits roll. --Mrwojo 19:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The song "Girls Just Want to Have Fun" unquestionably does NOT appear in the film "The Goonies". There is a brief segment of the film where the kids are in a room with MTV on and a close up of the TV is shown with Cyndi singing; she is singing the song "The Goonies R' Good Enough". This song permeates the film in several places. She also sings the song "What a Thrill" on the soundtrack. If you would like to specify exactly what scene you think you heard the song "Girls Just Want to Have Fun" playing in the film - describe the scene, or the time code of when the song appears in the film - perhaps I will be proven wrong...(but I won't.) TheGoonSquad 17:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, "That's a possibility." was a flippant reply to his question ("So I guess I just imagined [it]?"). I don't question that it wasn't in the film. --Mrwojo 22:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right. So, does it go in the article? Llamabr (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't. — LlywelynII 03:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fratellis[edit]

There is a fairly successful British band called the Fratellis. Presumably they are named after the characters in this film. 82.152.206.159 22:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.101.104 (talk) 13:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Cohen as UC Berkeley student body president[edit]

I corrected the portion pertaining to Jeff Cohen serving as UC Berkeley student body president so that it reflects the correct year. I remember this vividly, because Cohen was president during my first year at Berkeley. It was quite impressive meeting him my first day there. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.60.226.88 (talk) 00:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is trivia appropriate on movie pages?[edit]

For example, I'd like to start a list of all the foods seen in The Goonies so that fans attending Goonies-related parties can bring foods seen in the film. However, it seems inappropriate to open the floodgates of trivia on the main movie page (though the awesome list of songs inspired by the film gets rather close to this). But is there then a certain kind of page that should be created for movie trivia? Or is Wikipedia not even the right place for that kind of thing? I mean, it sure seems appropriate, since it's the kind of thing a number of people would be able to help add to, but I don't want to mess up any article standardization efforts. Basementwall (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, lists of trivia are generally not appropriate to Wikipedia. See the linked policy. You could conceivably include it if you properly cite the information from a verifiable source other than the film, a source which is not original research on your part. I know of no such sources. I also doubt that such a list would be considered encyclopedic, and is probably an indiscriminate collection of information. Travisl (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A list of all the food seen in the film can in no conceivable way be considered appropriate for Wikipedia. I don't know if there is a Goonies fan wiki out there but that would be the place for it. Mike R (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that explaining the choice of the title is "trivia" -- the following was deleted from the page: "Goonie" is also an old name for the real life bird associated with the north pacific coast and is the subject of a mythical poem, aka the Albatross.

Bloopers[edit]

Granted, there were a few details in the "Bloopers" section that can be merged into the article. The majority of it, however, was fancruft. - Dudesleeper / Talk 23:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot clean-up[edit]

Would anybody be willing to clean up the plot section? It appears to colloquial and like somebody is telling the plot to a friend. However, I don't particularly know how to go about it... Ryoga-2003 (talk) 18:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other characters[edit]

I removed the following from the article, and bring it here for discussion:

  • One-Eyed Willy is a background character, never directly appearing on screen. His life takes place before the events of the film and provides the basis for the adventure. He was a pirate from the 17th century who finally hides his treasure near Astoria.
One-eyed willie does appear on screen, dead for a whole scene at the table in on the ship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.248.161.33 (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chester Copperpot is another background character. He is an explorer who tried to find the treasure in the 1930s.

These are not characters. Other than Willy's skeleton, they never appear in the film at all. Even referring to them as "background characters" confuses the issue. A comparable "character" is Abner Ravenwood, from Raiders of the Lost Ark, who is only spoken of, and never appears in the film. Hence, he is not listed as a character in the Raiders article. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 18:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One-Eyed Willy *is* seen in the film, as a corpse. Chester Copperpot is also seen in the film - he appears in a black-and-white photograph in a framed news paper clipping at the beginning of the film. This newspaper clipping is discovered in an attic by one of the main characters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jharrison02 (talk • contribs)

25th Anniversary[edit]

In June 2010, the original cast gathered together on a couple of occasions to celebrate the 25th Anniversary of the movie. Warner also released a 25th Anniversary Collectors Edition DVD and, I believe, there was some sort of board game released as well. The town of Astoria announced "Official Goonies Day” on June 7, where the town plans to commemorate the release of the film each year. There was also an "unofficial" documentary on the movie released in June..... there have been plenty of new items not listed in this article. Jhazon (talk) 02:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This would seem notable enough to merit inclusion...-if- there's reliable sourcing. Doniago (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Truffle Shuffle[edit]

I got redirected here (main page) looking for the Truffle Shuffle but there is no mention of it. As this seems to have a 'revival' on the net I think it is worth mentioning.--94.212.169.79 (talk) 08:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe my comment above regarding reliable sourcing applies here as well. Doniago (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not sourceable then the redirect ought to be removed: it's useless without a mention in the article. 86.136.110.44 (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to nominate it at WP:RFD. DonIago (talk) 14:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish dubbing[edit]

In the Spanish dubbing, the Spanish-language lines (with Rosalita and the old map) are substituted with Italian (She becomes "Rosanna"). --Error (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like WP:TRIVIA to me. Doniago (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A convenience store?[edit]

I am unsure about the line in the article talking about the boys in the convenience store nearly getting into a fight with Troy before Brand shows up. This is not in the DVD release of the movie and the plot hole this would create - the boys flee from Brand in the house, get saved by him in the convenience store, and then escaping him again to go to the beach - doesn't seem consistent with the rest of the story.

Was this bit in the theatrical release or can we clean up the plot synopsis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.2.212 (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was a deleted scene, and I believe it would've occurred before they fled Brand. I've removed it from the plot synopsis (it's still mentioned as one of the deleted scenes under the DVD section). —Mrwojo (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not enjoyable by adults[edit]

While many adults and parents found this movie funny or enjoyable, there is also quite a lot of adults who found this movie not enjoyable, and I am such a person. I think this deserves a section. I personally would have found this movie 'overall funny with scary moments' if I was a kid, but as an adult now I no longer appreciate this movie, especially the references to drugs and the scary disfigured looks of Sloth, for only these two reasons I discarded my VHS tape in the trash. I trashed my version also simply for the improper rating, for the MPAA abuse. Due to lower PG rating a lot of parents show this to their kids or ados, then realize their mistake. Imagine a 3 year old kid seeing the face of sloth when a year ago he was watching baby Einstein, totally not appropriate, it does not make it OK to show a monstruous face to kids by just affixing the label 'PG' on a tape. It should definitely be PG13 not PG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.105.246.2 (talk) 04:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We would need sources to support this view, otherwise it is just original research and personal opinion. --MASEM (t) 04:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References in popular cultures[edit]

The episode The Belchies of Bob's Burgers is inspired by this movie. There are several references to the movie in episodes of Family Guy [4] --Ochrid (talk) 17:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sloth: Goonie or Fratelli?[edit]

While Sloth is a member of the Fratelli family, I believe that he managed to become part of the Goonies by the end of the movie. If Andy and Stef, who are not even residents of the Goon Docks, are listed on the Goonies Cast List, I believe Sloth has earned his right to be moved out of the criminal organization of the Fratelli's Cast List and into the hero's spot. Matt.coelho (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to have been resolved through having the subheadings removed. I didn't do it, but I might have if left to my own devices. DonIago (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The Goonies. 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Classical music in the opening scenes?[edit]

I couldn't figure out where the classical music in the opening scenes come from ... Can someone help out on that? Thanks! --2003:E3:D70F:A200:DC71:9EAD:4734:F1A (talk) 10:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific as to which scenes? If you mean the car chase and all, that's not classical music; it's part of the film's score. DonIago (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cult Film?[edit]

The Goonies was a very successful, and popular film when it came out. And continues to be well known and a mainstream property. It does not seem to fit the definition of cult film given in the wiki page Cult Film. --SJCreecy (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anything with a dedicated fanbase eventually gets called "cult" by some source somewhere. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Walsh's House[edit]

The house in Astoria continues to be a private property. However while the interior of the house itself is off-limits (as a residence), and cars are not allowed up the drive to the house, the residents expect and even welcome fans of the movie to walk up the drive and take pictures of the house. (There's even a neat donation box, complete with Venmo link, for upkeep of the house.) The article merely mentions that the house is not included on tours--should the aforementioned details be added? Oregonianne (talk) 07:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have they been discussed by a reliable source? DonIago (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As of January 2023, the house has now been acquired by a fan who plans to renovate the house as faithfully as he can to the original set. https://www.koin.com/local/oregon-coast/new-goonies-house-owner-this-was-a-purchase-to-preserve-a-landmark/ Now to figure out how to get it into the article.. -- Tytrox (talk) 05:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Goonies&oldid=1210539013"