Talk:Blues Brothers 2000

Introduction
I have made some changes to the introduction. It seemed inadequate, failing to clarify what the article is about, and it seemed like it was written from a point of view that anybody knows what's it about, who are the actors and that it is a sequel to the famous The Blues Brothers (film), though not specifying it at all, but rather mentioning an endless list of cameo appearances and cars and who-knows-what.

For more information about writing an introduction, read Article development.

Ido50 23:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikify Table
I have added a Wikify template to the "Cameo Appearances" section. The table is done in HTML, and should be wikified. I'd do it myself, but I'd most likely mess up the entire article. I think wikification would be good; it should let the bullets appear as bullets rather than "*"s. -- Tuvok  ^ Talk 18:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Zee/Zeke Blues
I have changed "Brother Zeke Blues" to "Brother Zee Blues". Every fan knows that Jim Belushi performs as Zee, the blood brother of Jake.

Copyedit/clarify
If anyone can determine what this sentence is trying to say, by all means fix it up. I'm stumped: "At the battle of the bands they compete against B.B. King's band, which by ironic, for the writer plot started the band only after Elwood bought a police car from him in the beginning of the film."  j e f f j o n  20:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that this needs a bit of clarification too: The Russians break into the club and burn it down (narrowly killing Elwood and Mack in the process) - I’ve not seen it in a while, and I know that the films have a certain supernatural element to them, but I don’t think Elwood and Mack are killed, narrowly or otherwise… Jock123 (talk) 10:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Merge
This is to discuss the merger of The Louisiana Gator Boys stub/list into the Cameo appearances section of this article.
 * Support: As long as WP:MERGE procedures are followed, and information from the separate listing is presented correctly and concisely, I have no problem with this merger. — WiseKwai 07:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support but do not include any information that cannot be sourced to published sources. It's not clear that this "supergroup" has been presented as such outside of the film thus I do not think it should be described as one. Savidan 13:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Understood. I think it is safe to describe the Gatorboys as a fictional supergroup that exists only in the universe of the film. — WiseKwai 14:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The merger has been completed. — WiseKwai 10:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Trivia?
A group of 13 fans (including a 3-month old child) of the original film from Melbourne, Australia, went to USA and Canada for the filming of BB2000, with the blessing of the studio and Landis. They appear as extras in the crowd at the Cynthiana state fair scenes. I want to add this info to the article, but not in a trivia section. Is it appropriate, and if so, where should it go? I've got references. Wocky (talk) 17:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

A few years late on the comment, but it could be argued that this particular reference could go in the cast & characters section. On the topic of the original movie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blues_Brothers_%28film%29), it has a more than trivial place within the Reception section. Either way though, I do think it is note worthy, and does belong on this movie's page as well. 32.212.104.223 (talk) 20:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Irrelevant, Non-notable, and Trivial Castmembers
Please refer to WP:FILM for the protocols on the cast section. As is, this article is already vastly overlong, but due to its ensemble nature, some leeway should be provided. However people listed as "uncredited" do not belong UNLESS they are notable, like a famous actor or director appearing in a cameo. Further, three people (whether or not they are sisters) who are not named but another character's "friend" are also completely unnotable. They should not be added by back by the IP-hopping vandal and stalker. JesseRafe (talk) 21:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to be the only one that has a problem with them. Those names have been there for 8 years. Why now do you have a problem with them?

But the question is, have you even seen the movie? The Ridgeway Sisters were musical guests, and if you had seen the movie, you'd know exactly who "Mrs. Murphys friends" were. And Rick Marty, who I thought went by another name for the film, he should be listed as a Louisiana Gator Boy instead of musical guest. Probably not notable at the time of filming to non-musicians who only listen to top 40, which could be why he was uncredited, but has become notable. Listing him today as part of the film is more about crediting who he became than who he was. However, I am curious as to why you left Tommy McDonnell, since he appears to not be notable either due to a lack of a Wikipedia page? Why be selective in your edits?50.153.173.32 (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Nothing more has to be said on the subject beyond what I stated initially as you have ignored the substantive issues. Nothing you say here is relevant. You ignore the reasons, rationales, and posted protocols for dealing with this situation. You have already cursed at me at several times and more than a little uncivil. You have been consistently violating warnings about vandalism and harassment. I have recorded your multiple IP addresses and if you continue to revert or stalk or otherwise harass me, I will begin proceedings to look into your behavior. JesseRafe (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Quite the opposite is true. You're the only one consistently vandalizing the page. And why is everyone, according to you, some sort of headcase. 50.153.173.32 (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Quite the opposite is true? How praytell? Are the three Ridgeway sisters's characters named? No. Are the actors notable? No. Is the stage hand even credited? No. Is the performer notable? No. Is the performance notable? No. ERGO they are all non-notable. In a similar fashion you under your multiple landline and mobile IP addresses have committed documented and verifiable acts of vandalism. In addition to which, you have outright admitted to wiki-stalking and have multiple instances of acting uncivil. All of which are grounds for blocks, which I have not pursued, but will if you continue this pattern of unacceptable behavior in violation of Wikipedia's standards. JesseRafe (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Because the only way multiple people could ever possibly disagree with your assessment is if they are all the same people pretending to be different people? 50.153.173.32 (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The idea that the onus to prove your identity is on anyone other than yourself is laughable. All of your recently used IP address accounts have links on their Talk Pages to easily create an account and a brief synopsis of the benefits of doing so. Without which, yes, it is quite common to assume anonymous IP addresses that exhibit the same behavior are the same person. Further, to your point: Multiple established editors have passed through the page since these edits began and not one has objected to the uncontroversial deletion of extremely non-notable persons. Trying to pretend to be more than one person (so as to appear to have broad support) is known as sockpuppetry and it is not tolerated in the Wikipedia community and if substantiated, it is grounds for immediate blocking. JesseRafe (talk) 18:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * again, you bring up imaginary people, who apparently are OK with these edits being removed during the few months where you have been the only one removing them. But you are ignoring the multiple years of editors who left them there.

50.153.173.32 (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Every article has its watchers. This one has thirty of them. I'm among the imaginary that haven't objected to removing non-notable cast members. Willondon (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * But you must not have had a problem with them being there either, because your name isn't the one that has repeatedly removed them. You just watched as they sat there. Noneof yourbusiness48 (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes. Willondon (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was a bit blunt there for lack of time. To expand, yes, I didn't have a problem with them before, and I watched as they sat there. Though I can't say for sure when I put this article on my watch-list, it was probably with my first edit here on 20 July 2015. I also haven't protested their removal over the last few months. A lot of content remains on Wikipedia through inertia and lack of will, but WP is an evolving organism.
 * I view us editors as the raw fuel that powers Wikipedia. The guidelines and talk pages are part of what shapes the effect. Some things stay on WP until circumstances change, opinions evolve, editors find the time and interest to make improvements, or someone takes the initiative to hash out an issue on a talk page. I do consider it important the length of time an edit has stood without question, but at this point, WP:FILMCAST and WP:NACTOR seem to be the most appropriate sources of guidance. Willondon (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know one way or the other what is considered proper "nobility" when it comes to having a page or being listed on a page. But, as previously stated, if you take the time to watch the movie, there are easily a few people listed that shouldn't be if you consider some of the others unworthy. Noneof yourbusiness48 (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So now that you've finally admitted that you don't know what constitutes notability (not to be confused with nobility), please consider following any of the umpteen links that have been shared with your various accounts that instruct one on the pillars of wikipedia and the myriad policies we have here. Just because something that was bad/wrong/less-than-ideal existed for x amount of time doesn't mean it is good, it just means that no one fixed it yet. The policies and links were pointed to each time the offending material was removed. Instead of being argumentative and edit-warring (itself in violation of rules) you could have simply looked them up. Especially as you so freely admit that you were entirely ignorant of them. As I've said multiple times, nothing on WP:FILM supports your claim that every single person should be listed. JesseRafe (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you really just say that?Noneof yourbusiness48 (talk) 11:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

New Plot summary
I've gone ahead and created a new plot summary outlining the whole movie, This is my first time writing one so I am definitely certain there is going to be room for improvement and errors to correct. I tried to model it on the plot summary from the first' movies page The Blues Brothers (film)

I hope it will serve as a staring point so better editors/writers can refine it.

Silver007 (talk) 04:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Spelling of Moussette
The credits of the Blues Brothers 2000 film shows the name of the Queen spelled as Moussette, not Mousette, so I have corrected the article. Amazon.com also shows Moussette in the Product Description, which I presume is from the film company. Unfortunately, other sources such as Rotten Tomatoes, tcm.com, and imdb.com show the incorrect spelling. Wikiquote.org shows both spellings. Since the film credits are the original source we should use that spelling. Curious Eric  14:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)