Talk:Dazed and Confused (film)/Archive 1

Trivia (Is Renee Zellweger in this film or not?)
I removed "* Renée Zellweger has an unbilled non-speaking appearance in this film as one of her very early roles. (She may be uncredited but she does have dialogue in at least one cut of the film. She apologizes to a few freshmen girls for the hazing they about to endure.)"

I think whoever wrote this comment confused Renee Zellweger with Joey Lauren Adams, who is the credited cast member who spoke the lines referred to.

This is the top article from googling "Renee Zellweger" and "Dazed and Confused". However, if you read down the search, there are a lot of other articles independent of each other which say the same thing, that Renee Zellweger appeared or at least filmed scenes for this film (including her own wikipedia entry). I'm going to put this back into trivia in a few weeks time if no-one objects or wishes to beat me to it because they can verify it.

http://www.hollywood.com/celebs/detail/id/188546

"A blonde, bee-stung-lipped rising female lead, Renee Zellweger has gone from Gen-X movies to Hollywood property. She made her film debut while still a teenager in "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2" (1986) and later was Jenny, the terrorized wallflower, in "Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (1995). But it was her turn as Starlene, the moll to fleeing Gil Bellows, in "Love and a .45" (1994) that made Hollywood take notice. In between, Zellweger also had small roles in "Dazed and Confused" (1993) and "Reality Bites" (1994).... "

OK, I asked treasly on imdb and the consensus seems to be that Renee Zellweger was in the movie but uncredited. Someone also showed me some screenshots, so I'm going to put back in the trivia that Renee Zellweger had an uncredited appearance if that's OK with everyone. Shan246

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:LcbOi61DyicJ:www.geocities.com/Heartland/Park/3369/dazed.htm+dazed+and+confused+%2B+nesi&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

Any reason why this keeps getting deleted from the trivia? It seems to be a true fact on what I can find and I would have thought an uncredited appearance by an actress who went on to win an Academy Award in the future amongst other things would be reasonably significant. Certainly more so than some of the other (though still significant enough to be included) trivia here. Shan246

In watching the movie, she definitely does not receive a credit. She may be in a brief scene at the Moon Tower outdoor party where she is holding a hose and funnel while someone is drinking beer from it and some of the main actors are walking by in conversation.

Trivia (Other)
I removed "This is one of the first few high school-themed films to show the realism of classes and life." it's poorly written and unsourced and also unspecific. Does the film show realism? I'd argue it's 'exaggerated realism'. Eine 01:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

While it might seem somewhat exaggerated, once you get into the CURRENT teenage culture in high school, let alone '70s high school culture, I'd say it's fairly accurate.

Is there any real purpose in the "When the nerds discuss then president Gerald Ford Mike (Goldberg) replies with "Who cares he's outta there this fall!" He ended up being right 6 months later in November when he was defeated by Jimmy Carter" entry? The film was made in 1993,, so it wasn't much of a guess.

Trivia ('man')
In this wiki, it is claimed that the word 'man' is said 185 times. However, on IMDB's trivia on Dazed and Confused, it states the 'man' was said 203 times. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0106677/trivia Chord 1-12-07

Filming Location Discrepancy
The majority of this movie was actually filmed in Georgetown, Texas.


 * IMDb also mentions Seguin, Texas. Reliable sources anyone? Roponor 15:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Paddles
Could anyone watch the movie and list what was on each character's paddle? --Richy 19:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Afflects says FAH Q on one side and O.B./Badass on the other, mels says soul pole, and one (i dont remember which) says 17 years (the difference between the year the movie was set and the year it was made) ill watch the movie soon and get everyones paddles) --Ninandnirvana 06:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

i think the redheaded guy (i forget his name) has a shark bite taken out of the top edge of his, with red paint around the "bite" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.198.207.11 (talk) 06:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Cars
I'd rather see a specific listing of the cars driven by the main characters, but I'm too lazy to do it myself, outside of Wooderson's 454 Chevelle.

You can find all of the cars and which character drove 'em, here. -- Count Ringworm

I'll do it heres a rough draft

Pickford:
 * 1) Name:The Judge
 * Make
 * Said to be 1970 Pontiac GTO,
 * Is actually: 2 cars (both repainted for the film) 1967 GTO (Black stunt double) 1966 GTO (gold real)

Slatter:
 * 1) Name:Boogie Van
 * Make:1972 Ford Econoline Van

Wooderson:
 * 1) Name:Melba Toast
 * Make:1970 Chevrolet Chevelle SS

O'Bannon:
 * 1) Name:Grey Ghost
 * Make:1972 Plmouth Duster

Jodi:
 * 1) Name:N/A
 * Make:1969 Volkswagon Beetle

Coach Conrad: Make:1969 Ford Bronco
 * 1) Name:N/A

Julie: Make:1972 Ford Maveric
 * 1) Name:N/A

Pink: Make:1975 El Camino
 * 1) Name:N/A

Benny: Make:1972 Chevy C10 Pickup
 * 1) Name:N/A

Darla: Make:1975 GMC
 * 1) Name:N/A

Clint: Make:1974 Trans Am SD-455
 * 1) Name:N/A


 * note from me

all information is from http://www.dazed-and-confused.net, which took the info from the "Dazed and Confused Movie Book".

And i posted it in the discusion page first since im only 15 and i would like someone alittle more confident with the english language to proofread it. Also im new to editing wikipedia so someone with more experience please format it --Ninandnirvana 05:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin
The article doesn't mention nothing about the "Led Zeppelin" song called "Dazed and Confused".

It is unrelated to it. Read end of Dazed and Confused (song) article.BauerPower 17:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ, the song's page actually says this:
 * "The song was also used as the basis for the title of the 1993 film Dazed and Confused, which chronicled the lives of various American youths on their last day of high school in 1976. However, it is not found on the film's soundtrack. Richard Linklater appealed to Led Zeppelin band members to use some of their songs in the movie but, although Jimmy Page agreed to this, Robert Plant was opposed, so the songs were not used."
 * Now it is unsourced, so it may or may not be accurate. But regardless, the title is a blatant reference to the song, and as thus should at least be mentioned in the trivia section worded perhaps as such "The film shares a title with the Jake Holmes/Led Zeppelin song of the same name." or something to that effect. Blaiseball 03:47, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The director has suggested in interviews that the name of the film was derived from the song. I have added this information to the article Edelmand 15:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Quotes
I am removing the quotes section since it already has a decent sized wikiquote page laters --Ninandnirvana 02:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Plot
I rewrote the plot listing, which was very rambling and hard to understand. I realize that this is not the easiest film in the world to summarize, but I think I've done the best I can with it. If anyone has any objections, please say so, but I don't think we should really severely edit the plot without further discussion. I can easily see it being turned into an Analysis of the film itself. Nqnpipnr 03:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

sorry to be nitpicky but i think "starting quarterback" is more accurate than "star football player" to describe Pink. Lord mortekai 23:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Is the lawsuit mention correct?
"The people who claimed to be the basis for Slater, Wooderson, and Floyd all unsuccessfully sued director Linklater in 2004 for defamation."-- I've found several news articled that say 3 of Linklater's former classmates whose real names are Wooderson, Floyd, and Slater filed a lawsuit in Dec 2004, but I haven't found any that say the lawsuit was unsuccessful. Was the case dismissed or is it still open? The mention needs to be sourced at least and maybe expanded.JeffStickney 00:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm also baffled by this; I find several (rather few) news accounts that the suit was filed in New Mexico, most of which are sourced from a single article, but I don't find any subsequent coverage of it, and a quick Lexis search did not turn up any relevant cases in New Mexico searching on "Wooderson" (the case caption is Wooderson, et al. vs. United Studios Inc.) - but then, my Lexis skills are rudimentary. - Corporal Tunnel (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Dazedandconfused.jpg
Image:Dazedandconfused.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Evenmoredazedandconfused.jpg
Image:Evenmoredazedandconfused.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Themes
I added a themes section, as the film is interesting for both its plot and fun quotes, but also as an interesting slacker and coming-of-age story. Frogan 22:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

off this "themes" subject- but how bout mention of references to this film in other media? such as several scenes of Family Guy-- one which parodies the end scene of the film, when the freshman lays on the bed w/ his headphones, or the scene with Matthew Mc outside the Rec. hall talking about high school girls? i'm sure Family Guy isn't the only thing either. I'm sure we can find some other references as well! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.198.207.11 (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fgdazed&confused.png
Image:Fgdazed&confused.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 11:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Nazareth problem
On the first soundtrack listing the link for the band Nazareth (they sang "Love Hurts") redirects to Nazareth the city in Israel. I made the correction; however, I can't figure out how to keep the proper link but not have it as "Nazareth (band)" on the actual article. Somebody who knows how to do this should fix it and then tell me how you did it. Thanks... - tbone (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Never mind, I figured out how to fix it. - tbone (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Original Ending
I heard the original ending was the four driving Melba Toast to get tickets and driving over a ridge, collided with an 18 wheeler and all the people getting killed, thus reinfocing the live for tonight theme. As told, the test audiences left the theater in tears, thus compelling a fade to black ending....

Can anyone confirm this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.170.104.37 (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It sounds strange, it's a coming-of-age film, as much as a carpe noctem-film, besides I think only part of the main characters wanted to see the concert, anyway. A sad ending seems somewhat forced to me. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles

 * Smoke Got in Their Eyes
 * The Spirit of '76
 * MAKING DAZED-Catch you later dude … ten years later.
 * to use for this article--J.D. (talk) 13:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

local middle school ?
I'm not sure about the movie since I'm not an expert, but wouldn't be a junior high school given the year in which it is set? I get that the two terms are somewhat interchangeable, but in this case it seems that junior high would be simply more accurate... Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 08:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your assumption is incorrect. Linklater's book Dazed and Confused describes a four year high school and refers to the incoming freshman as eighth-graders. Piriczki (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So there's no chance that this was a 7th and 8th grade junior high? I guess it would help if we actually knew the name of the school. I'm not sure if it's visible in the movie or not... Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 08:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah.. just listened to the movie. It's clearly a junior high school. When they are driving up to the school, it's clearly spoken "those junior high kids are dead meat." I'm changing to reflect. I guess you can revert if the movie itself isn't authoritative. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 08:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Although some junior highs worked up to grade 9, most seemed to work on 7th and 8th grade. Also, is the same line in the book? I don't have a copy. Is there dialog when they're actually driving up to the school? It _would_ be interesting if they said "those middle schoolers are dead meat," but given the year this movie takes place, it's just doubtful to me that when they say "those junior high kids" they mean kids at a local middle school. Seems more likely that when they say "junior high" they really do mean junior high. The line is about 9 minutes into the movie. Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 08:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible move
I have reverted Timeshifter's moves, as any time someone asserts a change in primary topic, the issue needs to be discussed. So that the discussion can be all in one place, please leave comments about whether or not the names should be changed at Talk: Dazed and Confused (disambiguation). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Dazed and Confused (disambiguation) - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 11:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Set in Austin?
I would think that D and C was set in Huntsville rather than Austin, hence the line about "driving down to Houston to pick up some Aerosmith tickets." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.219.29.156 (talk) 00:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy Page image in plot.
Maybe I am missing the significance but what does this photo have to do with the film or plot? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Nothing. I see no reason to keep it. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  15:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks for the input RJ. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 1

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No move. Cúchullain t/ c 19:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

– The song is much more notable. Moreover, the film was named after the song. Plant&#39;s Strider (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Dazed and Confused → Dazed and Confused (film)
 * Dazed and Confused (song) → Dazed and Confused
 * Oppose quoting User:Erik from the previous discussion "Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the primary topic should be what readers are most likely to look for. Here, none of these topics have primary importance, so the focus is on primary usage. According to this, the film has been viewed tens of thousands of times this month, and the song and the magazine show only a couple of thousand views. Furthermore, the disambiguation page shows even fewer visits than to the articles about the song or the magazine. This means that when readers search for "Dazed and Confused" and arrive at the article for the film, very few of them go to the disambiguation page, which means they are where they want to be." This still holds true, the film article has 60000 hits while the song has 8000. Even if we're generous and say double that 8000 didn't find what they wanted first time and gave up, the film article is still far and away what people are searching for and where they are staying when they find it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * PRIMARYTOPIC is a guideline. Have you read it, all? Carefully? You seem to assume that for every title there exists a primary topic. But the guideline is headed "Is there a primary topic?", and it goes on to describe (not prescribe) how the matter might be addressed at RMs. Policy, at WP:TITLE, sets the readers' interests as most important. How does the proposed change accord with that policy ruling, better than having adequate precision for both articles? N oetica Tea? 05:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Noetica, where do you think that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC conflicts with WP:TITLE here? Guidelines should be in line with policy. I've supported this kind of setup to get readers where they want to go, especially "it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term". From what I can tell, there can be a set of "obvious" primary topics that do not need disambiguation. I can see why a set of topics like this can be murkier waters, though I'm trying to understand why, which may be the crux of our differing viewpoints. Is it the assumption that "dazed and confused" could mean "anything" in a general sense? A term that can transcend a specific topic? I've noticed heightened activity in competing RM philosophies, and I'd like to understand better where you're coming from. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 15:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see any claim of a conflict. The policy says to consider various criteria; the reason is to best serve the reader.  The primaryname provisions are part of the guidelines for doing so.  They do not require choosing a primary topic for a name, especially when the readers' interests would suffer by so doing.  The problem is rather that people don't read carefully, or over-interpret, what primaryname says, and think they should generally be picking a primary topic, even when doing do is not indicated by the particulars of the case.  In this case, "Daze and Confused", so capitalized, is clearly a name of something, to people who are up on our MOS:CAPS guidelines (or would be if we applied that guideline more consistently, but that's a different issue); but since it names several things of not hugely different note, where opinions differe on which one should be primary, there is no reason to call one the primary topic, make the user read the article to see if they got to the one they're looking for.  Using the precise titles for both better fits the goals of the tite policy in this case.  Dicklyon (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Dwb. --- The Old Jacobite The '45  04:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Semi-oppose no evidence given the song is primary. But the film could be disambiguated, and the disambiguation page Dazed and Confused (disambiguation) placed at the root name. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 07:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support + Oppose – support Dazed and Confused → Dazed and Confused (film), but move the disambig page to Dazed and Confused, since there's no obvious primarytopic. Dicklyon (talk) 07:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Mixed. I agree with Dicklyon on this. Why would anyone rush to assume a primary topic in such a case? It informs no one, to strip away the precision of "(film)" or "(song)". But for the vast majority of readers, who know only the surface meaning of the phrase "dazed and confused", such easy additions immediately make the situation clear. Help the readers. N oetica Tea? 05:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Either oppose or neither is primary - film is still popular, while song is not. --George Ho (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support move to (film); Oppose move from (song)' - as 76.65.128.43, Dicklyon and Noetica, i.e. give them all disambs (film) (song) (magazine) because none is WP:PRIMARY and the disamb brackets will help anyone using either Google or the R/H search box. This is a classic case of why parenthetical disambiguation is helpful to readers. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2 (asserting no primary topic)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

– There does not really seem to be a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here. The comments in the preceding requested move discussion seemed to consistently advocate this outcome. Although the film has more page views (142702 times in the last 90 days) than the song (20497 times in the last 90 days) and the magazine (10776 times in the last 90 days), the film and magazine were named after the song – which somewhat offsets that imbalance to indicate that there is no actual primary topic. See also Talk:Dazed and Confused (song) and Talk:Dazed and Confused (disambiguation), as well as Talk:Dazed and Confused. BarrelProof (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Dazed and Confused → Dazed and Confused (film)
 * Dazed and Confused (disambiguation) → Dazed and Confused


 * Support because I do not think it is necessary to establish a primary topic here. While the film is primary in terms of usage, it derives its title from the song. While I opposed this move in the past, I have learned that the vast majority of readers do not go through disambiguation pages anyway. They either access the film article through off-Wikipedia search results, or they choose the article from the drop-down list of suggestions in Wikipedia's search box when one types "Dazed and Confused" without pressing Enter. In fact, this move would make it resoundingly clear in both off-Wikipedia search results and in Wikipedia's drop-down list of suggestions that this is the film article. I think that the so-called primary-topic slot is best reserved for the most obvious candidates, like Citizen Kane or Mars. I think that striving to determine a primary topic amidst a group of non-vital topics is just unnecessary shuffling-around. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 14:14, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - no primary topic, as is more often the case than not. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support reasonable move. The name is no longer primarily associated with the song. --George Ho (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, it needs disambiguation. Hot Stop talk-contribs 05:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. disambiguation is best -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support – this is what the previous RM clearly supported. Too bad the closer didn't go that far.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.