Talk:Jack and Jill (2011 film)

For reference, this was not a movie idea from South Park
I saw this http://imgur.com/r/funny/0u9Cs and I thought it was. But the script http://www.southparkstuff.com/season_8/episode_802/epi802script/ shows it was not from the show. Just a heads up for anyone else thinking it did. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 07:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that idea is a common meme making the rounds at the moment, but if you go back and re-watch the episode although Awesome-O pitches some truly terrible Adam Sandler movie ideas, Jack and Jill is not among them.Flygongengar (talk) 06:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

His identical twin sister?
Does the film make Jill an X0, or is the story writer simply ignorant? Koro Neil (talk) 11:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Voo, 21 November 2011
"...the Thanksgiving visit of his identical twin sister Jill."

A man and woman cannot be identical twins, except in the rarest of cases. Please change this to read "his fraternal twin sister Jill" or just "his twin sister Jill." 173.165.252.49 (talk) 23:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done  —  Jeff G. ツ  (talk)   05:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I replaced the "identical". To quote IMDB: "The official Columbia/Sony Pictures press materials for this movie refer to the Jack and Jill characters as 'identical twins.' In fact, identical twins can only be of the same sex (because they are genetically *identical*)--never one boy and one girl." I think it's an attempt at humor -- in fact, to judge from the reviews, it may be the funniest thing in the movie (I haven't seen it). Davemck (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello! I've just seen this comedy today. Unless the "identical twin sister" bit is a way of winking at the audience to let us know that they know that Adam plays both parts, it should indeed be "fraternal twin sister". However, this may be a case if writer ignorance as in the cases where bovine cows and bovine bulls are treates as different species, like in that animated movie with Kevin James voicing a "cow with udders" even though he was "male" as was his father, while a bull with a ring in his nose was shown in a group shot. (Though granted, that may have been a pun on "cowboy", i.e. "boy cow".)Though based on my letter exchange with a news magazine editor in the pre-e-mail days, about "cows and bulls" being gender terms for the same animal species, it may be a larger social ignorance problem after all for both cases. After all, look at how many people still don't know the differences between a boat and a ship. Or between jealousy and envy. Or between venomous and poisonous. I could go on and on, but I hope my point was made. LeoStarDragon1 (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Identical is obviously wrong. We don't have to contradict the publicity and say "fraternal", but just "twin" is enough. If you want to quote the studio as "identical", fine; do it as a cited quote, not just putting it in quotemarks which makes it an editorial statement. Barsoomian (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done  Davemck (talk) 18:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * So, Sony literally say a man and woman can be identical twins. No wonder this won 10 Razzies. Barsoomian (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Plot summary
Why is there no plot summary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.163.106.71 (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 December 2011
190.14.232.107 (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 00:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Half in the Bag/Fraud accusations.
Anon IPs keep on adding information from this "Half in the Bag" review. I'm not familiar with the site, so I don't know if they're a reliable source or not. (I'm not a heavy contributor to movie articles, I usually work on video games and music.) If not reliable, they should be removed outright. If reliable, then we need to cut down the information used from the review. I've tried to, but Anon IPs keep re-adding it in one form or another, so I wanted to gather consensus here.

The review supposedly makes fraud/embezzlement accusations at Sandler, claiming that he inflated the film's budget in order to give more money to his actor friends, who make cameos. See variations of the statement here, here, and here. Now, it's one things to criticize the movie. But it's very much so another to make baseless claims of the illegality of making the movie. Now, if there was some sort of wide-spread investigation and coverage on this, then fine, but this seems to just be some guys crackpot theory.

I feel it should be removed from the article, partially due to WP:UNDUE issues; it ends up putting far too much weight on this one review, and partially because the accusations are baseless, and no longer assessing the quality of the actual film. Thoughts? Sergecross73  msg me   03:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, no need to write about that the fact that Adam Sandler and others scammed several investors into thinking this would be a good movie - since the point of the movie was infact to scam the audience. And they succeeded - so the principal investors are happy. Their only claim can be the over-use of Hollywood-accounting by Sandlers own production company, but...when swimming with sharks... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.168.198.207 (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Investors take a risk with any movie, really. Even Sandler's. And judging by user reviews online, the audience wasn't scammed. Funny thing about bad reviews: they can lower expectations and thus cause less disappointment, especially for those of us who wanted to see how bad it was. El duderino (abides) 07:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Mike and Jay do not actually accuse Sandler of 'fraud' and 'embezzlement' as such, and make it clear that it is only their opinion, but they do accuse him of massively overinflating the budget to pay himself and his friends (think about it, $75 million is MASSIVE for a film of this quality, it is almost the budget of a Lord of the Rings movie). There is nothing technically illegal about this, but it is highly unethical. 82.4.43.200 (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

TIME?
Talk about unprofessional garbage. They're a low tier citation that's as reliable as TMZ or any other gossip magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.179.68 (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Reference error to be fixed
"Half in the Bag: Jack and Jill, RedLetterMedia Cite error: Invalid tag; name "RLM" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page)." DepressedPer (talk) 20:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jack and Jill (2011 film). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101229232105/http://www.newsinfilm.com/2010/08/26/al-pacino-katie-holmes-join-jack-and-jill/ to http://www.newsinfilm.com/2010/08/26/al-pacino-katie-holmes-join-jack-and-jill

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)