Talk:Mitchell (film)

NPOV, quotes, cleanup
This article is heavily slanted toward the MST3K view of the film. However entertaining that might be, it should be edited to a more neutral point of view. Also, most if not all of the quotes should be moved to Wikiquote (those that aren't there already). Finally, it contains some assertions (BBI editing, JD Baker's threat) that should be backed up by evidence, lest they be removed for being original research. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I added a citation for Joe Don Baker's threat. Sixtus LXVI 23:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Sixtus! At least one issue has been resolved. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

This is my first time I'm doing this, so I apologize if I screw up. I have a few problems with the article. First, Kevin Murphy said on camera (I've seen this now) that Joe Don Baker's threat was more than likely just a joke. Second, there is too much blame on MST3K editing the film down. Much of the blame should go to Lorimar TV, which edited out all the violence, cursing, and sex first. Also, this film is indeed very slanted to the MST3K view of the film. Vanhagar3000

I wrote a more-or-less coherent introduction and plot summary in order to give the page some semblance of NPOV. The fact that this is a terrible, terrible film is not an adequate excuse for such a slanted entry, and I say that as a big fan of MST3K and the episode based on this film. --Brad E. Williams 19:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Excellent rewrite of the plot section by Kooshmeister. On another note, how do we get the article unflagged, since the NPOV issues seem to have been resolved? --Brad E. Williams 15:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I began this article in August 2005. As slanted as the original may be, it is now worse, having been sanitized and stripped of its intellectually comedic position. 129.61.46.16 17:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The above posting is a bit confusing. First, this article was not created in August 2005, but rather on 1 June 2005. By August, it was a substantial article. Second, neither the above IP address nor any similar network address appears in the edit history. (Of course, an anonymous editor can appear at any IP address, but their claims to being the same person cannot be proven. That's one of many reasons why we ask people to register — to get proper credit, per the GFDL license, for their contributions.) In the end, though, Wikipedia is not a collection of humor columns, but an encyclopedia. While humor is encouraged, it must only supplement — not take the place of — verifiable, neutrally written factual information, based on reliable sources. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

More clean up: The rhino dvd release of Mitchell does not include the uncut movie as a bonus feature, just the theatrical trailer. 24.27.8.29

I removed the following: ==Production== The sound recording of the film was poorly done. In most scenes the dialog is difficult to understand due to the low quality sound recording.

The Warner Archives DVD is perfectly clear, and certainly not difficult to understand. I imagine the MST3K version is difficult to understand, especially when you have people talking over the dialogue.2001:558:6026:B:4A5:FECA:713B:BE42 (talk) 02:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

MST3K quotes moved to Wikiquote
I've moved the contents of the "MST3K quotes" section to Mystery Science Theater 3000, which is where they belong. (Even there, this collection is rather more substantial than it should be, given copyright concerns.) This article is far too slanted toward the MST3K version as it is. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 12:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mitchellmovieposter.jpg
Image:Mitchellmovieposter.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Taken care of (dusts hands). Robert K S (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Time Out
The article has a section on the film's contemporary critical reception, which is a something that more articles should have. There is a quote from a review by Vincent Canby, which the New York Times helpfully dates to 11 September 1975. The article continues with a quote from the Time Out Film Guide; there is an implication that this was also written in 1975, but it's not explicitly dated. I'm tempted to say that e.g. "Writing much later, the Time Out Film Guide said that etc", but is the guide a collection of original reviews, or was it written much latter (like the All Music Guide, for example)? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

TAM Information drone?
Maybe I'm missing something but I can't find any clue as to what a "TAM Information drone" is. Seems to me like Linda Evans was just playing a prostitute who liked oily, doughy guys. 75.91.55.146 (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)