Talk:Adventureland (film)

Year of release
According to, the film is slated to be released in 2008. Can anyone confirm that its release is 2009? (IndulgentReader (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC))
 * i dont understand, it says the film is realeased on the 3rd of april, but itsnot out yet what the hell is goin on its really pissing me off ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.20.218 (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Setting
Perhaps there should be some mention of the real amusement park Adventureland that this film is based upon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.196.246 (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, actually to clarify that, the theme park from the movie is based on Adventureland in New York, but the movie is most definitely set in Pittsburgh. (MJuice (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC))

Discussion of cast section
I find the cast section horribly written, so I deleted it and added the appopriate information into the plot summary. This is above and beyond the fact that most of the cast section is completely unnecessary.

For example, these have information that can just be added to the plot if necessary: * Margarita Levieva as Lisa P., a worker at Adventureland she is a Rides person, and dances in front of her ride to draw in customers. She asks James out on a date. * Jack Gilpin as Mr. Brennan. He is transferred to a new job with less pay, and is unable to help James go on his dream tour of Europe for the summer and he won't be able to help pay for his graduate education at Columbia University. * Wendie Malick as Mrs. Brennan. James believes his mother would rather he intern at some fortune 500 company rather than go on to study journalism. And particularly these ones, if they're not important enough to be in the plot section, then we don't need to discuss them: * Kristen Wiig as Paulette, Bobby's wife, who is living her husband's dream (and she likes it). * Mark Miller as Mark, a Games Worker * Paige Howard as Sue O'Malley, another park employee who gets drunk and kisses Joel but quickly loses interest in him, claiming her strict Catholic parents wouldn't let her be with a Jewish boy. * Dan Bittner as Pete O'Malley, Sue's obnoxious brother and one of the park's employees. * Barret Hackney as Munch, one of the games employees, who attempts to impress Em' with his drumming skills. * Josh Pais as Emilys father, a laywer. * Mary Birdsong as Francie, Emilys stepmother. She lost her hair from the stress of a nervous breakdown after her first divorce and wears a wig. If she weren't a "status obsessed witch" Emily might feel sorry for her.

I admit that I did not summarize every detail from the cast section into the plot summary, but that was because it was not necessary (for example, the fact that Joel is Jewish is not crucial to the plot). If someone wants to do that, feel free to do so. If there is a consensus that there must be a cast section, then please rewrite it so it's not painful to read. Jabberwockgee (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The Plot Section needs to be trimmed. The cast section also needs to be trimmed and should not contain honking great big plot details especially not the ending.  I had only started to slim it down. There are details that are unnecessary in the Plot section, for example you need only mention Em hates her stepmother, none of the other character details are in any way necessary to explain and summarize the plot.  If readers want to know more about a character that information is interesting.  There are other details like the implication Em's father is Jewish (goes to temple) and the various suggestions about James father having a drinking problem (the large bottle of alcohol found in the car and dirty looks they give each other as his mother lectures him at the end).  Some of these details can be explained under Cast and Characters adding to making the article more interesting but they just aren't a good reason to bulk up the Plot synopsis.  An example of this is the type of studies James completed and what he plans to do next, interesting but all the plot summary really needs to say is a little more than he needs to get a job. Deleting a whole section is a lot less effort than cleaning it up - give it some time and allow people to try - but that is not a good reason to delete the section and have no Cast and Characters list at all.  By removing the section you are making it difficult that much more difficult to slim the Plot section down to the bare essentials while still retaining interesting information in the article.  -- Horkana (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at the edit history the Cast and character descriptions were a lot more terse before User:Kgman6 added [substantial plot information] and before that the cast list was more like it should be. -- Horkana (talk) 01:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, the older version of the cast section is better. I don't think the plot section is too long (yet). I think plot sections of around 900 words are ok (so it all fits on the screen at the same time and doesn't take forever to read), and right now it's around 780.  Jabberwockgee (talk) 02:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Jack Gilpin is an alcoholic. It's all there for you to see but if I don't explain then it will be marked as citation needed or if I did explain editors would call it original research. It is not clear if is the cause or result of his "move to a lower paid job". He is shown making a drink with a blender (as James is on the phone asking about jobs) which he fumbles and spills. He is shown passed out in front of the tv with a drink beside him (about 10 minutes in). James finds a big bottle of alcohol in the glove compartment of the car when he is on his date with Lisa P. which he later gets very drunk on, and then stares out his father while his mother complains about his drunken binge. I'll add it to the Cast and Characters section when I can think of a suitable wording that balances accusations of either Original Research or not being properly substantiated. -- Horkana (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Out of interest where in the film is the part where we apparently see Em coming out of the abortion clinic? I've seen the whole film 3 times, and also checked through it to see if I could find it but I just can't. -- (talk0 11:57, 22nd July 2010 (UTC)

Formatting
The Soundtrack section was made into two collapsible objects. I was skeptical of the change of the second section from adequate prose into a more dull list. Changing that list into a table is overcomplicated even if the table can be now hidden. Having two collapsible boxes is messy and cluttered. If you could make it so the whole soundtrack section could be collapsed in one go instead of two boxes it might makes some sense. This doesn't really make sense at all if it is not part of a policy (or some kind of consensus) that others are working to apply to the Soundtrack sections across other film articles. -- Horkana (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I was looking at the featured articles list, and can not find (during a short search) any movies that list all of the songs on the soundtrack (see Mulholland Drive or The Mummy) or else they have a separate page for it (see Casino Royale).  This is not the case for all pages (see Moulin Rouge! or Repo! The Genetic Opera), but those are musicals (if you consider Repo! as such) and have not been featured articles.  Perhaps there is a counterexample, but from my perspective, films that don't depend on the music to further the plot don't need a music section, or should have it on a separate page, with pertinent information about the music on the actual page (as with the Casino Royale page).  For example, if you feel the need to talk about Munch trying to impress Em with that song, then put it in the music section, NOT after the name of the song.  It's distracting and looks less professional.  So, my solution in the meantime is to make the plot section collapsible (I actually meant to make it collapsed when the page loads, but I seem to have done it wrong).  Jabberwockgee (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, can I get rid of the infobox? There's nothing necessary in there that can't be moved to the music section itself.  Jabberwockgee (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * From my limited understanding of the Wikipedia soundtrack project they seem to prefer using a separate page, that would be a good way to keep this all consistent. This article I think will more than detailed and be long enough on its own.  Infoboxes tend to be redundant, a summary in a way. I would NOT encourage you to delete it and any way if you do decide to create a separate page it will look better to have it.  I notice now that by using a table you removed the numbered track listing, the use of a numbered list was very much intentional there. (I did remove the use of a numbered list on the additional songs because putting a numbered order on them didn't make sense, I'd still be tempted to revert back to the prose explanation of the additional songs and try to clean that up.) Go for it. -- Horkana (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've discovered there is a Tracklist Template. It isn't as simple and straightforward as using a list but it is a lot less ugly than using a table. I strongly encourage you to use it or revert to the numbered list which was there before. -- Horkana (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have changed the one that has numbered songs to a numbered list. Jabberwockgee (talk) 17:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * For an example of a page that has collapsed soundtrack information, see Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 3. Jabberwockgee (talk) 01:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Example 2: American McGee's Alice Jabberwockgee (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't like it but I'm not going to try and block you from doing it. I urge you think if it is really a good idea and if it shouldn't just be separated out into another article. -- Horkana (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * All of my corrections have been reverted. Congrats on having an ugly page again, everyone.  Jabberwockgee (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Commercial reception
Along with the discussion of mismarketing, the Reception section makes it sounds like this film was a commercial failure: "In its first week at the box office Adventureland opened moderately wide in only 1862 screens grossing 5.7 million ranking #6 at the box office. Despite opening up in fourteen more screens in its second week Adventureland only took in 3.4 million, falling to #9 at the box office."

If it made 16 million on domestic, not even counting overseas, DVD sales etc., isn't that a resounding commercial success for a film with a budget of 9.5 million? Skomorokh, barbarian  17:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Feel free to change it if you think it represents the facts incorrectly. Jabberwockgee (talk) 03:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If I was sure I was right, I would have just gone ahead and improved it myself; but I am not. Is my reasoning above sound, or was the film a commercial disappointment or failure due to hitherto unseen factors? Skomorokh,  barbarian  06:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It is very hard to judge if a film is a success or failure. Film makers have been known to lie about the budget (and were not just talking about The Producers (1968 film)). The production budget may not include the marketing budget which in some cases could double the actual cost. Some films simply may not have done as well as the studio had hoped and be judged a failure despite making a lot of money, just not making what they considered enough (Superman Returns). I don't have a source but as far as I recall Hollywood studios usually expect to make more than their budget back on their domestic takings before they consider a film sucessful. Then there's the old stories about films never officially making a profit so that those foolish enough to accept a cut of the profits instead of the gross get left with nothing. So many stories ...
 * Mentioning only the domestic/US box office is a bit misleading, so it is better to mention the international box office and state the budget. You could go further and include details about DVD revenues if they are easily available. Unless you have a source to say "commercial success" or "commercial failure" though it is best to just state the facts and let the readers draw their own conclusions, even if the figures might be slightly misleading. -- Horkana (talk) 01:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Soundtrack
Someone (not me, I'm terrible with this stuff) should create a separate page for the soundtrack, not only is it brilliant (by itself or taken with the other songs used in the film), but the other songs used within feature a prominent role in the movie, as evidenced all the Lou Reed, Neil Young, Husker Du, Big Star references, shirts, etc. From a purely clerical perspective, the soundtrack section is rather large...typically you'd just see a track listing (not that I'm arguing for someone to just wipe it out and not put up a new page - don't!). ````Jason H —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.197.19 (talk) 05:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Jabberwockgee (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)