Talk:Night at the Museum/Archive 1

Untitled

BSTITUTE FOR SEEING THE MOVIE!!! == All you editors out there, please listen. This article plot was too long. It is shorter now. This is probably the maximum length is should be at. No longer (if you have a good edit, cut out some of the detail), but it probably could be shorter...not by much, though. As it, it is a comprehensive synopsis. It is not a substitute for the movie.

Think before you edit. If it is absolutely necessary to the plot (meaning the whole motive of the movie is wrong without it), put it in. If it is just that Roosevelt learned his neat riding skills from his "rough riding" days or that Octavious calls Larry "giant", please do not put it in!!!!! Thank you. ~Gatorgirl623~ 02:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Robin Williams

He is not listed on IMDB as part of this project yet, but it has been confirmed through the British Columbia Film Commission's website [1]. --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK!. 02:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah Robin Williams is playing Teddy Roosevelt, I believe. W123 19:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Changes made

I added the movie poster for the film, used a cleaner Infobox Film template, and removed the spoiler warning from the synopsis, as the film's premise should be obvious. Until there is a more detailed synopsis that would give away plot elements, there shouldn't be a spoiler warning. I also removed this from the initial paragraph: "The film has finished filming in the New York City area and started filming in the Vancouver area on January 30, 2006." The line did not seem relevant to the movie summary, but if anyone thinks the line belongs to the article, please place it in a Background subsection. Erik 20:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Frat Pack

Is this being considered a Frat Pack movie? It stars Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson, with a cameo from Paul Rudd. Seems pretty frat packy to me, but I've been wrong before. 71.232.25.117 07:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say that it's one. Over at the Frat Pack article, it's listed in the filmography table. --Nehrams2020 08:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Improperly sourced information

How is this improperly sourced? All facts included were given links to verify information. Sorry...I'm new at this, what should be done differently?  :-) 71.107.166.21 03:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This was in the introduction, if anybody wants to rewrite it or properly source it to include in the text here it is:

Night at the Museum’s path to production is another example of two Hollywood Studios racing to get rival projects to the big screen. It began when Jeff Phillips and Charles Segars sold the family-action pitch "Unnatural History" to Walt Disney Studios in December of 2001. It was reported in the industry trades in February of 2002. (1) The writing team of Jason and Justin Heimberg, and Jeff Sank were hired to write the script and completed four drafts over the next two years. During this time, Jerry Bruckheimer came onboard to oversee the production.

After Mark Bomback (Die Hard 4) was hired to rewrite the script in July 2004, the project was scheduled to go into production in fall 2005. (2) However, Disney decided to push the production another year after having already committed to other big budget fare such as the two Pirates of the Caribbean sequels, and the first entry in the Chronicles of Narnia series.

Shortly thereafter, a Fox executive found out that Disney had pushed the project and began the task of developing an out of print children’s book with a similar theme, Night at the Museum, into a motion picture. Robin Williams was initially approached to star in the film, but refused to commit unless the script was drastically rewritten. At this point, Scott Frank (Out of Sight) was hired to rewrite the screenplay. Now, the two studios were actively developing identical projects, similar to when Disney’s end of the world thriller, Armageddon, was competing with Dreamworks’ Deep Impact.

In August of 2005, Steven Sommers (The Mummy) was brought on board to direct the Fox film. (3) But when notified that he was competing with a like Jerry Bruckheimer/Disney project, Sommers left the film. He was quickly replaced by Shawn Levy (Cheaper by the Dozen). After Ben Stiller was announced to star in the film in November of 2005, Disney decided not to compete with the Fox project and suspended further production on Unnatural History. (4)

(1) www.aintitcool.com/?q=node/11530

(2)http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117909164.html?categoryid=13&cs=1

(3)http://movies.about.com/od/moviesinproduction/a/museum082905.htm

(4)www.themovieinsider.com/n2405-ben-stiller-spends-night-at-the-museum-for-fox.html

--Nehrams2020 20:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Synopsis

I added a bulk of the synopsis (everything after, and including the line, "Before Larry is hired as a nightwatch security guard, three security guards precede him.") However, it still requires a lot of cleanup. I watched the movie on the 22nd, so it should be accurate, though some details are missing. I also removed the stub thingy at the bottom, for I do not believe this article is still a stub. RetypePassword 00:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried to reword what you said, making it more sussinct, but I think I made it longer. The paragraphs are shorter though. It really needs more clean-up. It should not be a substitute for seeing the movie. ~Gatorgirl623~ 05:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Maybe we should separte the "synopis" section into sections on: the premise, the exibits (with an * on what is actuelly at the museam) and trivia. Bud0011 14:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Are you willing to do it?? ~Gatorgirl623~ 17:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure.....just a little scared, most of my changes get reversed. Bud0011 18:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If it's a good edit, you won't have to worry about it. Don't worry. You'll be fine. This is really a great idea, since the synopsis section should really not be this long. If you look at Halloween (film) this is what movie articles should look like. It really should not be a substitute for seeing the film. Have at it!! ~Gatorgirl623~ 20:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

well, it seemed my table idea wasn't liked.....Bud0011 23:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, finally, I was able to do some editing. It is much shorter and less detailed. Hmmmm. It's 7:37 on January 7th, I wonder how long this edit is going to last. This is probably the maximum length the article should be at. It shouldn't be longer or shorter. It needs to be maintained at about this length. Detail can be added, as long as it remains about this size. Really people, who hasn't bothered to see the movie wants to know that the T-Rex was nicknamed Rexy, or that that Roosevelt has skills because of his "rough riding" days. ~Gatorgirl623~ 02:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I added a fuller summary below the plot synopsis (the section was here when I got here). I feel it isn't too detailed, though I know it could stand some shortening. Please do what you'd like as far as size goes. - Crazed Ewok | Talk 21:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious that the synposis is going to be edited for another couple weeks or so until the film leaves the theaters. It's best to revert it back to what is currently if massive changes occur, but we shouldn't dedicate ourselves to continually rewriting it until the buzz dies down. --Nehrams2020 02:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

By definition, a synopsis is a brief description of a plot, which the one here now is. Any additional information is unnecessary.

I also removed the superfluous sub-head listing cast members, all of whom are mentioned in the infobox. Duplicating info simply clutters an article. SFTVLGUY2 14:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoever's doing such a great job keeping the article short, keep it up!!! It really now is great!! Awesome job!!! ~Gatorgirl623~ 00:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Nehrams2020 keeps adding a lengthy, too-detailed "synopsis" despite the general consensus that it needs to be kept brief! SFTVLGUY2 20:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

What I have been readding is nothing compared to what it initially was at 1100+ words before the whole synopsis discussion began. I am simply following the Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines as this article falls under WP:Films. The plot that is readded is not lengthy, it is average compared to other articles. Simply having a small paragraph in the intro with three or four lines about the film is not sufficient for a plot summary. People who find this article may want to look for a plot, and without a plot section, will figure that they need to add a plot summary themselves, which could end up being of a much larger length than it is right now.--Nehrams2020 20:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you added another topic below to discuss the same subject. As I already stated there, it's not the length of the article that matters, it's the content. Your "synopsis" simply says too much about the movie. SFTVLGUY2 20:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The order of the summary is slightly wrong. first, the guy tried to escape in a van, and crashed. Then they broke her out to find out that the van crashed. then they chased after the carriage, while she repaired roosevelt (sp?). she was not used to track the carriage.

August 3: I cut down the plot summary considerably by removing unnecessary detail, such as the details of Larry's plan, the Easter Island head yelling QUIIIEETTT! or whatever the last people had written, and other such things. ~Gatorgirl623~ 19:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Plot

Since the plot has been changed multiple times by users and IP addresses, we should discuss here how it should be set up. As it is currently at right now, there is a short plot overview, without giving any full detail. After it is a plot summary, providing more detail about the film. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines, plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words which this one follows. Based on this, and in comparison to most of the other film articles in Wikipedia, this article has an appropriate plot summary length. --Nehrams2020 20:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

A "guideline" is exactly that - a guideline, not a rule written in stone. It's not the number of words that matters, it's the content. Your "summary" is so detailed there's no need to see the film after reading it. There's no justification for giving away the entire plot. A brief description of what the viewer can expect is sufficient. The discussion above appears to support the theory that less is better. Thank you. SFTVLGUY2 20:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not my summary, I was simply readding it back to the article after it was reworked by several editors. How does this article differ from other films such as Blade Runner, The Cat and the Canary, and Borat? The plot synopsis can always be worked on, but should not be removed completely from the article. --Nehrams2020 20:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

It hasn't been removed, it's in the second paragraph. And just because three other articles are similarly long and detailed doesn't make them right. I can cite plenty that keep the synopsis short and sweet, as it should be. If you can reasonably explain why giving away all the plot details is valid, rather than just saying it is because other articles have done so, I'm more than willing to hear your reasons. Thanks. SFTVLGUY2 20:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Some people want to find a somewhat detailed (but not too detailed) plot. We had several discussions in WikiProject Films about it and there was no consensus. I even suggested we create sub articles for the extended plots, but such articles can't stand by themselves. So the guidelines suggest a limit of 500-600 words. I am of the opinion that IF we have a well written "Extended plot" AND a well written "Plot summary", both choices should be available. We also have Spoilers, so one can decide what to read and what to skip. Why should the people who want to find more information on a film's plot be denied their preference? Hoverfish Talk 20:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Comparing the current and the old plot summaries, I must say that the current one leaves out significant plot elements (note that I have not seen the movie, and this is based on the difference between the summaries). This means that the plot is incomplete. I see that you say you can trot out examples with this sort of summary. I invite you to do so and to prove that those summaries are complete, meaning all major plot lines are there including the ending. If you fail to do so in a convenient amount of time, I will replace this stub of a synopsis with a reasonable one. Furthermore, I assure you that it is not just "three other articles" but all of the FA, GA, and most B class films and many, many others as well (I have assessed thousands of films, so I have a good general knowledge of this). If this all is not satisfactory to you, we can request an outside opinion.--Supernumerary 00:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried to shorten the length of the extremely long article and once again, my edits were reverted. Revision as of 14:35, January 20, 2007 (edit) 72.150.23.38 (Talk)--this was a good edit. My constant revisions are only being added too and the article continues to reach abnormal lengths. Do you believe it is too long? ~Gatorgirl623~ 04:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I realized my mistake. I will try to fix the edit summary one more time. I am reverting to Revision as of 01:13, January 20, 2007 by CK10 (Talk | contribs). I hope this one works. ~Gatorgirl623~ 05:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have reinstated the longer plot, but I have also broken it into paragraphs and shortened it to 809 words. If you've seen the movie, you can probably cut some more from it and break the paragraphs in a more logical fashion (it's rather random right now). The reason I did this is that the plot is now complete, meaning it has the major plot points of the theft, Rebecca, Nick, and the ending. Feel free to shorten it, but don't turn it back into a list that leaves out all the major plot points.--Supernumerary 19:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I shortened it again, trying to leave some of the details in. When do you think this will die down? ~Gatorgirl623~ 00:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the plot is great now. Not a stub, not a blow-by-blow description, but a synopsis that covers all the major plot points. Well done!--Supernumerary 03:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a great synopsis. Is it worth adding a note to indicate that the "Museum of Natural History" in this movie is actually an amalgam of the Museum of Natural History and The Metropolitan Museum of Art? There's no Egyptian exhibit at all (to my knowledge) at the real Museum of Natural History, but the latter has the permament Temple of Dendur exhibit as well as traveling exhibits, and that's where I think the mummy exhibit in this movie comes from.Marguerite de Navarre (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)Marguerite de Navarre

The last "mistake"

The animals got out b/c the monkeys stole his keys. So that wasn't a goof. Thought? Is that sourced or no. If not it should be removed. Superbowlbound 18:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the whole section, it looks like a lot of it is speculative. --Nehrams2020 20:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I have left the following statement in the article:

"In the theatrical version, a boom mic can be seen above the heads of Larry and Rebecca in the park when she is discussing Sacagewea. It was noticed by many moviegoers, and seems to have been edited out of the DVD version."

However, if I am not mistaken, boom mikes are often visible when movies are shown in theaters merely because the projectionist has not framed the film properly. Such an instance of a visible boom mike would therefore automatically disappear on DVD. Gildir 15:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Owen Wilson

On the information bar, under Starring it says Owen Wilson. This should be changed. His character isn't mentioned once in the plot outline, so what makes this an important character? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.195.133.53 (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Did you see the movie? He is prominet. But there are a lot where we have huge list of actors and actresses. Its not uncommon.

I must note that you also forgot to add the actor of Nick, who is MUCH more important than Jedidiah any day. Mass edit must be done to the information bar.

He is unknown to be found his cast in the website.

He does not appear in the film's credits although he has a significant role. Very odd. Pgr94 (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Trivia?

What about the trivia in this movie? Like when Owen Wilson said: "Say Hello to your little friend", an obvious quote to Scarface... I think it should be added

Owen Wilson also says "I can't quit you man", during the tire scene, a clear reference to Brokeback Mountain considering his cowboy character. MightyAtom 03:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Owen Wilson also says "Living the dream" at one point, I'm 99% sure he said this in another movie, Wedding Crashers.Mujarimojo 01:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Gigantor/Unleash

No one knows who's Gigantor/Unleash? Jedidiah and Octavius think Larry the sercurity guard as a giant, I like the part they tied up Larry in Gulliver-and-Lilliputians' experience parody. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.21.83.247 (talk) 13:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Added Gigantor info to trivia section. MightyAtom 03:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Richard van Dyke

Richard van Dyke has had other antagonist roles. He was a murderer in an episode of "Columbo", and he was the DA in "dink Tracy" - DAs are not antagonistic by position, but because Tracy was set up by the gangsters, the DA had to indict Tracy, preventing him from proceeding with the shut-down of Big Boy Caprice and the gangsters' racket. GBC 16:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the mop dancing being a reference to "Mary Poppins", it could also be a reference to "Me Ol' Bamboo" from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. Lots of dancing with pole-like objects (mops, chimney brooms, bamboo sticks...all similar) --Joliefille 09:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Dum Dum

This phrase refers to Eastern Head, also refers to Flinstones' friendly green alien. GBC 14:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah...it also refers to mild insulting phrase that millions of people use. How do YOU know or sure its related to the flintstones? It could be...oh I dont know...pulling something out of a hat here....A COINCIDENCE? Some of the pseudo-trivia that people add ruins pages. I mean whats that bilge about what the coin trick is called? How is that trivia about the film? 82.42.98.242 19:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Dum-Dum just means Dumb Dumb, nothing more. In fact, are we even sure it's not spelled "Dumb Dumb"?Mujarimojo 01:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Not that it is a quote from the Flinstones, but we can easily know the spelling of the phrase. The DVD has both Closed Captioning and English subtitles. It is spelled "Dum-Dum". -- trlkly 07:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, Dum Dums are suckers/lollipops . I think more people would think of that before thinking of an obscure Flintstones reference. And you're right, trlkly, an easy way to check is looking at the captions, but often the captions/subtitles are not accurate. However, I'd go with "Dum Dum"/"Dum-Dum" instead of "Dumb Dumb" --Joliefille 08:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Poster Mistake

I noticed that the Night at the Museum movie poster is incorrect. In the top right corner you see the Tyrannosaurus Rex twisting it's claws around the wall. You see that the hand bears three fingers, though T. Rex only had two.

Paleoblues--Paleoblues (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Night At The Museam 1 Review !

I am 13 and i really like this film. i think it is suitable for all ages although some youger viewers may not understand what is happening. I strongly recomend this film to both childern and adults as I think it can be enjoyed by all. I would also like to say this film is slightly educational. I hope you enjoy/enjoyed this film as much as i did (and still do).

Agreed! Not sure if Wikipedia is the right place for reviews though. --86.157.84.49 (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

IP removing correct info

The (uncredited) next to Owen Wilson's item in the cast list is correct. Peer longstanding consensus at the wiki filmproject credits are to be listed as seen onscreen, Any actor in a film that is not listed in the onscreen credits is to be designated as such in the cast list and/or infobox. Unless the IP can provide a valid argument for its removal it should be lift in the article. MarnetteD | Talk 18:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure the ip is aware of this. Its just an ip disrupting the project and I would just consider the removal as vandalism. Revert, warn, and move on. If it continues, then a block will most assuredly follow.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

UK Blu-Ray release, "Tonight" in End Credits of UK releases

There was a UK Blu-Ray Disc release of the film, not sure if it was in 2007 or more recently but is definitely worth a mention. Also, the song "Tonight" does feature in the End Credits of UK releases. --86.157.84.49 (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Night @ the messum franchise

With the 3rd film on it way. Is it time to create a page for the franchise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.98.167.114 (talk) 09:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)