Talk:Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters/Archive 1

New Logo!
How do I add the image of the logo to the page? I screen capped the logo from the trailer. Do I upload it to my Photobucket or Maj or what? Timekeeper 04:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The Logo as screen capped from the latest trailer. Timekeeper 04:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Uploaded! Looks beautiful! Perhaps we can add the old screenshot in during the article? Possibly around where the clip featuring the image was mentioned? (Information). Timekeeper 04:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Major Article Renovations
I added the Criticism section because I felt it was necessary to report about the bad reviews screenings have been receiving. I cited all these and also added a few more "See Also"s. Should be all good :D Timekeeper 04:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Should the anonymous comments of reactions to an unfinished film really be given so much prominence in an encyclopedia? I'm not sure they can even be considered criticism given how lacking in critical theory they are. I think downgrading their mentions to something akin to "Reactions to early screenings have been unfavorable." would be much better than quoting an entire negative paragraph done by some unknown person that is highly subjective. 71.230.163.26 18:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the film, if it doesn't get well received like the critics have stated, then obviously more criticism will be released and the criticism currently in the article will be downgraded. But as of now as it is the only fan reaction we have to go upon, I vote we leave it. Timekeeper 02:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge?
yeah, that other article should be merged into this one. dposse 05:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What other article? Timekeeper 14:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers
There are a lot of reliable spoilers floating around for this movie, is a spoiler tag necessary to add these? Timekeeper 14:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Added tag finally. Timekeeper 04:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Title of the Page
The official title is The Aqua Teen Hunger Force Movie Film for Theaters so shouldn't that be the title of the article? Timekeeper 02:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The title is actually The Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie for Theaters according to a press release posted on Aqua Teen Central at . KSweeley 10:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, at the time of my posting, the correct title HAD been The Aqua Teen Hunger Force Movie Film for Theaters but was apparently changed because the story over on Aqua Teen Central (love that site) was just posted on the 3rd. This means the guys over at William Street updated it since the Adult Swim title unveilment. Timekeeper 20:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, we need the title altered to Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters (no "the") because that's the title according to the latest trailer and the film's logo. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timekeeper (talk • contribs) 04:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

Yeah that was me. Whoops. Timekeeper 04:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Borat Title Similarity
Should it be noted that the title is very reminiscent of the Borat movie? TheGreenFaerae 21:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

How is the title anything like Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan? There are exactly 0 words in common. Gdo01 22:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The title of Movie Film for Theaters seems to be somewhat broken English, like the title of the Borat Movie. the words are different, sure, but the construction is similar. TheGreenFaerae 00:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

So broken English is automatically Borat now? As far as the grammatical construction, the ATHF movie is :noun noun preposition noun while Borat is :adjective noun preposition verb adjective noun preposition noun. At least the Borat movie title uses adjectives. Gdo01 00:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * First, why are you taking this so personally? I just made a simple observation, no need to take up arms against me, dude. Relax. But secondly, How many American movies use broken English in the title, in a way that makes reference to the fact that the subject is a film, especially so soon after borat's theatrical run, especially since the news came at a time when Borat was still in a few theaters, and preparing for a DVD release. I think it is entirely plausible that the title was at least influenced by the Borat title. I mean, you have to admit that there is a passing similarity. TheGreenFaerae 00:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm writing this because I see no similarity. Its only the "movie film" part that is broken English anyway. I'm just tired of people thinking that Borat is what makes the whole world go round now, broken English existed before he did (Yakov Smirnoff). Gdo01 00:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that Borat was the greatest movie ever made, which it isn't, but the titles are similar, as many other people have noticed. See the following websites:
 * http://www.filmthreat.com/index.php?section=headlines&Id=3542&archive=&match=&page=0


 * http://www.topix.net/content/trb/0588193009015901083616169848960653126305


 * http://boards.adultswim.com/adultswim/board/message?board.id=5&message.id=1070227&jump=true

Your comment also seems to convey that you are writing more out of an aggravation of Borat fans, instead of a truly non-biased viewpoint. You should not let your bias against the Borat fan community cloud your judgment. To do so is bad wikiqette, and is offputting to a lot of people. TheGreenFaerae 00:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you look through my contributions, you'll see I am one of the Borat fans that I supposedly hate so much. Yes your third article states the similarity but the second only says its longwinded (hardly something that is exclusive to Borat) and the first only says its more precarious than it (just saying thats its a weird title). Either way, if it is based on Borats title, why does it matter? Gdo01 00:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It's just a little noteworthy tidbit that the titles are similar, as a little trivia note. I never said that the title was base doff of Borat, just that it was similar, which is corroborated by all three articles. There is obviously no proof that the title was based off of it, but it does make sense to say that they are similar, as can be corroborated by research. again, though, you seem to be taking this slightly personally. It's okay to disagree, but why is it so personal to you? TheGreenFaerae 00:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's like saying that oranges are similar to Garfield the cat because they are both the same color... or that Cigarettes and Catalytic converters are the same because they start with the letter C. It's just dumb trivial nonsense that has no place in an encyclopedia. ZJH 00:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

that comparison does not make sense. It is trivia, you are right there, but trivia is permitted on Wikipedia, and can be seen to some degree in nearly any movie page. But, speaking of Garfield, there is a similarity, as noted on that page, with an italian film which has been confirmed by Jim Davis to be unintentional. A close similarity, as noted, not just by fanboys, but websites devoted specifically to all movie releases, as the first two links are, signals that it is a noticeable remarkable similarity. Also, your use of the word fanboy violates WP:NPA, and you can be blocked for it. If you disagree so strongly, file an RfM about it, because you cannot just revert a citeable reference.TheGreenFaerae 00:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * He wasn't calling you a fanboy but those forum opinions. The user was probably referring to the adult swim forum link you put which I stated violates WP:RS. Gdo01 00:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well his words still seemed to violate WP:NPA, and his deletion of all references, including the non-forum ones, seems to say that he was targeting the remark towards me. Regardless, thank you for handling this in a mature manner. TheGreenFaerae 01:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn't noting that sort of POV/original research? "Movie Film" isn't too broken. The title simply says that it is a film, it is a movie, it is being released in theater, and it is based off of Aqua Teen Hunger Force. --Jopasopa 01:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I cited external sources, so it is not original research, and the pov would be saying that the titles are the same, which I purposefully avoided. Saying that some people have noted a similarity, as corroborated by research, is not pov, as it does not say that they are right or wrong, just that they noted said similarity. I think it is easy to is the difference between these two statements, but the one I put forth, Some people not ea similarity, is not POV, and it is citeable, so it is not original research. Whether the similarity was intentional or not is a matter of debate, and would be easy to fall into OR, but that sentiment is not on the page in any place, and as such, is not relevant to the discussion. TheGreenFaerae 02:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * But is it really important? It seems very trivial, not to mention somewhat opinionated, and does not help out with the purpose of the article especially since it is the information section, which contains probably the most important/significant information. Maybe a "Trivia" section? --Jopasopa 00:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ye, I don't think a trivia section movement of the information would be out of line. That makes sense.TheGreenFaerae 09:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Aside from length, there is no resemblance to Borat. The Aqua Teen title is playing with redundancy, not broken English. The ATHF joke is funny because a "movie" is a "film" and "for theaters" by definition; whereas "Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan" is a play on the bad syntax common in non-native English speakers. Besides, the working title "Movie Film for Theaters" was announced at the boards at adultswim.com before Borat was even released. There is no similarity aside from length. I vote we remove the reference completely. --murrayjames 01:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Cite your sources for this claim, please. You need to prove that the title for this was released before Borat. TheGreenFaerae 12:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, test screenings for the movie were held as early as February of 2006, according to IMDB, so you will need to find a source that announces the title of the ATHF film from at least January of 2006 to use that argument.TheGreenFaerae

If you are asserting that Matt and Dave borrowed the idea for their movie title from Borat (simply because it's long and was released around the same time?) then you have the burden of proof here, not me. So cite your sources for this claim, please. Then read my original post again. My point was that there is no similarity aside from length &mdash; the jokes in the titles are otherwise completely different. --murrayjames 17:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not asserting that. Some people have said that they see a similarity, a claim which I did cite my sources for. You need to cite your sources for the claim that this title was announced before Borats. It is very important that you do so, as it would completely win the argument in your favor. If you can prove ATHF's title came out first, which would be in at least January of 2006 or earlier, since Borat stuff was seen in February according to imdb. TheGreenFaerae 22:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I got your message, thanks. I checked the [as] forums for the original date, but couldn't get a page much older than 2007. (I don't know if the forum software archives old posts or if there's a better way to use the search engine--I couldn't figure it out.) Now, that doesn't mean the title "Movie Film for Theaters" wasn't in use before that--I know 100% that it was--but as to your January 2006 date, I have no idea. I didn't even realize Borat was out at that time. I should point out that even in my original post, I said "besides" before I mentioned the forums; I never intended that as my main argument. Let me be clearer about my position. This, for me, is the heart of the matter. My objection to mentioning Borat in the encyclopedia is two-fold: 1) the titles are only similar in their length--thus a comparison on any other basis is unwarranted; and 2) it implies that Matt and Dave borrowed their idea for a movie title from Borat, which seems both unoriginal and tremendously out of character. By the way, I appreciate the message you left and I apologize for being abrupt myself. I just think the Borat reference doesn't belong. --murrayjames 10:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I believe the new words added, i.e. no evidence as to whether or not it was intentional should relieve that argument. The reference merely says that some people have noticed a similarity, which you have agreed to. I would myself suggest do anything you can to find evidence for your other point, as it is the one argument that would completely disprove any argument I could make. I am inclined to believe you, as you have demonstrated a capability to cite sources, so I bet with a little work, you could easily win this debate. Unfortunately, without that evidence, anything more than a simple disagreement doesn't make sense. TheGreenFaerae 09:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This has got to be the stupidest argument I've seen on Wikipedia, and that's saying a lot. The title is reminiscent of Borat only because both are examples of excessive literalism taken to the point of absurdity. If you think that the makers of Borat invented this concept, you're an idiot. End of story.

Title of the Page (NOT Borat Similarity Discussion)
The Last section for this was hijacked into a discussion about similarities with the Borat movie so this section will continue the discussion on the ACTUAL page of the article. Timekeeper 01:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Rating
Will the film really be rated R? Themasterofwiki 15:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes. --murrayjames 01:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Please provide proof. The show's creators both support the idea the film will be rated PG13. Timekeeper 02:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As you know, there's been no official announcement yet. But Sentroid91 (the owner of aquateencentral.com) has posted this on the [adultswim] message boards in at least one place. Also, the early reviews at aintitcool.com say there is uncensored swearing ('F' and 'S' words) in the film.  --murrayjames 17:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I know that uncensored swearing doesn't automatically earn a film an 'R' rating. Until we hear something official, I think the page reads fine as is. But I trust Sentroid--he's privy to a lot of information I'm not, and his website is probably the most reliable place for Aqua Teen information online. Also, do you remember "Deleted Scenes"? LOL, if the movie is anything like the content they cut for that episode, it will receive an 'R' rating for sure :-) --murrayjames 17:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh sweet, thanks for providing the proof, I can full heartedly agree now because ATC is awesome so if Sentroid says it, it can practically be confirmed. I agree that uncensored language doesn't automatically confirm an R Rating although its possible. Timekeeper 20:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

IMDb says it's rated R for "crude and sexual humor, violent images and language." --(trogga) 22:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * An adult swim bump confirmed that it was rated R. TheGreenFaerae 09:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I just saw a commercial for the movie say it was rated R. Hoopesk2 02:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Chicken Bittle
On the trailer, Frylock was wrestling with a crispy-brown thing that resembled a chicken. Perhaps this is Chicken Bittle? Also, maybe it should be included on the page? -Firedracax -28th of February, 2007


 * I can't speculate as to whether this is Chicken Bittle or not. Until the movie comes out, we won't know for sure. :: ZJH (T C E) 10:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

We can't confirm this is Chicken Bittle, but he has been described by people who have seen the film already as a "box of chicken nuggets", and not a chicken shaped nugget. Timekeeper 22:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, Ain't It Cool News described him as a chicken nugget himself, not as a box of the things. Maybe this was changed over the development of the movie. - NES Boy 19:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Movie Ending
The very end of the movie can be seen on Youtube! NOTE: THIS IS NOT A JOKE! Narutothedarkninjaguy08 19:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's just one of the many endings you can get from the official movie website's Worst Game Ever. None of them might be the actual ending, though. Maybe someone should list all of the endings that can be won from it. - NES Boy 19:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah you should read the article if you want to find out more.Themasterofwiki 17:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ha Ha!
dat wuz a funy prank! hahahaha!! I am Paranoid 02:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I could make out 3 bits of info from that little box of a "movie". Of course, nothing is certain until the movie comes out...
 * Dr. Weird is back (yea!)
 * The green and orange aliens and the Cybernetic Ghost were in aqua teen costumes (not really good info...possibly working together?)
 * Space Ghost appears for a second (until he blows up)
 * Tails445 02:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of pranks, what was that Adult Swim did last night? It looked like an endlessly looping bootleg Perfect Hair Forever--67.72.98.117 03:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It was all one big anime-related in-joke. Perfect Hair Forever, obviously, parodies certain anime tropes, cliches etc. (such as poor dubbing, ridiculous quests, annoying mascots, fan service, etc.), and it was played in marathon form unannounced in place of the anime lineup, during which the show was remade to look like a low-quality VHS fansub release, including even poorly-done and often wildly inaccurate (and frequently ungrammatical) English subtitles and those little lines that a second or third or fourth generation VHS copy always has. I thought it was actually kinda funny, though I didn't watch most of it as the joke got old fast (a friend of mine did, though). 4.235.21.135 20:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Plot summary
I started on the plot summary, based on the part of the movie that is actually shown fullscreen on television:

"The movie begins in Egypt, where the Aqua Teens emerge from a sphinx in need of oxygen. Oddly, they are all talking backwards. Suddenly, a giant poodle appears, and Frylock begins holding it off while Master Shake tries to start up a jeep. At this point, the dialouge switches to normal speech (though subtitles still appear with the line, 'In English, please. I'm dumb, but I ain't that dumb.'). Frylock ends up getting mauled by the poodle, so Shake starts fighting the poodle himself while Meatwad inspects the engine. With the poodle quickly defeated, Shake performs a slow-motion backflip off the monster, picks it up by the tail, swings it around and throws it into the distance, where it explodes."

How is it? Or should we wait until the movie actually comes out in theaters? — NES Boy 20:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I say wait, as that opening could have been something random that has nothing to do with the real plot, like the cold openings. Tails445 21:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, one of the official promotional pictures from the movie features Shake, Frylock, and Time Lincoln, and Frylock was clearly in the same condition he was in when he got maimed by the poodle. You can see the picture in question inside this link. — NES Boy 00:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Was the fullscreen part in question the same as the trailer that was said to be the first few minutes of the movie that was released a while back? No biggy, I'm just excited for this movie! And I don't have Cartoon Network on my TV :( . I'm not as disappointed seeing as how the whole film wasn't played unblemished in its entirety though. R-Tiztik 22:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this plot summary, as it is like other movie pages on Wikipedia, misses the point of a plot summary. A plot summary is just that- NOT a reiteration of the entire movie. A good plot summary will be one to maybe three sentences, and will be succinct enough to cover the entire movie from beginning to end. For example, I would use this as the plot summary:

Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie for Theaters follows Frylock, Master Shake and Meatwad as they fight a piece of exercise machinery, as well as discover their own orgins.

Short, simple, and to the point. I would like any other opinions, and if all is willing, I move to overhaul the Plot section to be something a lot like the above. Jason Keyes 02:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that was the same scene that was featured (except the subtitles were white). In fact, it was the full scene, ending with Master Shake throwing the poodle into the distance. Just as the next scene begins (a shot of Shake talking in a different location), that's when the movie went into the Picture in Picture format that it was in the rest of the night, with an episode of Futurama already in progress. — NES Boy 00:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this was the first tow minutes of the movie, but they are trying to hide the main context of it. As the picture shrank, Shake said something like "And that's how it..." which leads me to believe that the first two minutes is a bullshit story Shake is telling Meatwad to mess with him, as is usual.TheGreenFaerae 09:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I saw the movie last night, and indeed, tis a bullshit story. The story continues after another minute: They arrive at Abe Lincolns house and play video games with him, then try to revive Frylock from the dead. However, the police show up, and they all escape before he's fully recovered. Abe helps them escape in a wooden rocket ship before he starts to teleport away; then gets shot in the neck with a dart by the police. Whoa... this parallels the ending sequence! Egypt, Abe lincoln and a wooden rocket. So friggin awesome. Alcnolien 15:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I changed "heavy metal band Mastodon--animated as half a pickle..." to "heavy metal band Mastodon--animated as a gum drop..." gum drop is what the singer is called in the dvd commentary.Nukeguy04 (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Box office
Be careful about reporting box office receipts by using BoxOfficeMojo.com. The most reliable reporting service is Entertainment Data, Inc., owned by A.C. Neilson. However, EDI won't report a day's receipts for 48 hours (e.g., Friday comes out Sunday). Total weekend B.O. won't be known until Monday evening. Additionally, claiming that the movie "made back its budget" on Friday night alone is incorrect. Roughly half of all box office receipts stay with the local theater; the other half goes to the studio. No one is really sure of the budget of this film except for First Look Features. But even if the budget were $750,000, this does not include prints and advertising. Cartoon Network spent a fortune advertising on their own network (yes, those costs must be reported as an expenditure; there is no such thing as a free lunch) and in other places. U.S. advertising alone may well have reached $10 million. If so, the film would need to pull in more than $22 million in box office (domestically) before it will break even. - Tim1965 19:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well now it's made $6 million, and that's quadruple the budget. The movie was only $750,000 to make, but with promotion, it was still only $1.5 million. They didn't advertise anywhere else besides [adult swim]. It's official made its money back and is not a flop. ChesterG 02:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There were good reviews for this movie.
This site lists some of the major publications that liked the movie. How come Wikipedia is only listing one of the points of view about the movie? -- Sir Crazyswordsman  02:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Then add one or two. Dlong 02:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's been in the article since the day the premiere aired. R-Tiztik 03:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

References to satan
Anybody else notice the references to satan in this movie? I mean i like aqua teen but honestly the culture and flavor of the movie may be saying something about the religious views of the cast members that's all. and yes in the opening animation with the theme song on a guys shirt and the ground are images of upside down pentagrams... (hate that logo) just stating that References to satan don't have to mean anything —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

ATHF:MFFT Airing on March, 30
can anyone please find out if Adult Swim is pulling another ATHF:MFFT movie airing prank on March, 30 like they did last year on April Fools Day. i can't really trust the TV listing on Adult Swim for March, 30 at 11 PM EDT/10 PM CDT.--Boutitbenza 69 9 (talk) 04:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

someone want to mention that its up right now on adultswim.com to watch for free? the whole movie, free to stream —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.249.208 (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks for that info, i still can't believe it aired, but i did enjoyed it--Boutitbenza 69 9 (talk) 07:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hilarious plot summary
First paragraph: The movie begins... Second paragraph: The movie proper begins... Third paragraph: The film opens with... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeoncowboy (talk • contribs) 08:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Mistake?
I'm not convinced that "Girl Quest 2005" is a mistake. There are regularly discrepancies between dialog and animation on the show. For instance, in "The Clowning", Carl holds up a six pack of beer and says "Let's see where this 12 pack takes us." Also in "Spirit Formation Journey Anniversary", Zak Wylde calls his microphone "a stick with a marshmallow on it" which clearly has two. If it can be cited that this was not the intention of the creators, the section should be merged in with Trivia, and the speculative comments removed. Orbnauticus (talk) 03:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Trivia
During the scene with the giant poodle, Frylock says (backwards) "It's the poodle from the prophecy!" But 'prophecy' is incorectly spelled as 'prophesy'. Whether this is a gag or a mistake is uncertain... —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainFrylock93 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops...
My previous statement should be merged with Mistakes?. Sorry Orbnauticus... —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainFrylock93 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Start-class
I think this article is ready for an upgrade past start-class status. It is relatively detailed for a movie article and has gotten some references.User:Game& (talk) 05:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Death Fighter
I thought Death Fighter was coming out in 2011. --Sgctc (talk) 10:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Death Fighter isnt a real movie, it isnt happening. Its a joke. Some overly hopeful gullable fanboys may disagree.Yonskii (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and just remove it since it's still there and the source pretty much contradicts itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolbutlame (talk • contribs) 21:42, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Chicken Bittle toy
A toy of Chicken Bittle was made. Shouldn't there be information about it on the article? Therabbot (talk) 16:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Air dates in overview
Do all the air dates need to be in the overview? The film will probably be aired many more times. I'm going to take them out, and leave the original air date, but even that may be unnecessary. Edit: forgot signature: Nucleargrass  (talk) 08:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Proper
The movie proper begins in Egypt, where Master Shake, Frylock and Meatwad escape from the Sphinx, and are attacked by an oversized Poodle who kills Frylock before being destroyed by Shake.

The movie proper?!? What you probably mean is the movie "properly begins in Egypt". You should consider fixing it. You can find this error in the first sentence of the second paragraph in the plot section. Thank you.-James Pandora Adams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.126.18.254 (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Word selection
"The movie is mostly uncensored; is never censored, and while the movie is censored it is..."

The above text is not informative. I assume it's supposed to call attention to the fact that some things are "bleeped", and other things are not. Whichever, that is a terrible sentence and is below the qualities of Wikipedia. I'd rather someone experienced change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.207.143 (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)