Talk:Pitch Perfect

Atlanta or Baton Rouge
The production notes claim that it was filmed at LSU in Baton Rouge. But both the first and the second movie have clues that Barden University is in the Atlanta (or North Georgia) area. Why drop Atlanta clues (such as the phone number on a taxi, or the license plates of cars)? Llamabr (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Question
Q. What themes from The Breakfast Club, mentioned in Pitch Perfect's dialog and songs, are also in Pitch Perfect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evanwolf (talk • contribs) 07:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Rewrite question
I wish to rewrite the statement "It became a sleeper hit[6] and earned over $115 million worldwide, becoming the third highest grossing music comedy film of all time behind its sequel and School of Rock.[7] In 2015, a sequel was released titled Pitch Perfect 2." Nothing can become something before a future action. The paragraph should read "It became a sleeper hit[6] and earned over $115 million worldwide, becoming the second highest grossing music comedy film of all time after School of Rock.[7] In 2015, a sequel was released titled Pitch Perfect 2, which was more financially successful." Thedoctor98 (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Be Bold Llamabr (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

John Michael Higgins
Would it not be more appropriate to list his credit in A Mighty Wind rather than Arrested Development given it's a film role and he arranged some of the singing?

118.208.0.39 (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism
A number of IP users (or one user with multiple IPs) has been vandalising the character descriptions by inserting claims that Chloe and Beca are in love and that Chloe is bisexual. I've reverted twice and requested semi-protection for the article, to avoid going into 3RR. Euchrid (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It just happened again. I reverted it. --BroMonque (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 January 2013
A few days ago I made an addition to the article making a reference to the tv series Glee but was removed by another user, but I believe it is a valid statement and fact, and one that should be stated somewhere on the wiki article. The user deleted the article leaving a summary that the reference was a poorly written article but it think that was a defensive action from sometype of an emotional attachment to the movie Pitch Perfect, and the ref URL looks derogatory, the user was IP address 24.5.115.71.

Here is the edit;

The film also reflects many aspects of the TV series Glee, including, characters, dialog, interactions, and plot developments.

Pusalieth (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ❌ Wikipedia articles are based on what reliable sources have published and not on the personal analysis and commentary that we as viewers and editors may personally have made. You will need to provide a source from a professional review site/commentator that makes such a connection if you wish the content to be considered for entry into the article. Wetpaint is a blog site and so it is not a reliable source. many of the hits from news.google.com are generally considered "reliable sources" if you wish to have help focusing your search.--  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Here are some websites that confirm the same stated statement; http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/10/04/pitch-perfect-review http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2012/09/26/pitch-perfect-stars-talk-glee-comparisons/ https://michigandaily.com/arts/10pitch-perfect10 http://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/72364421.html http://www.comingsoon.net/news/reviewsnews.php?id=95310 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/reviews/article-2251435/Pitch-Perfect-review-Rebel-Wilson-star-future-Fat-Amy-hits-right-note.html Surely one of these must meet the qualifications. I am curious though, cannot facts and truths come from anyone, not just "reliable sources", as this term is subject to change, but everyone votes is the sole idea of democracy, which is sole idea of Wikipedia, everyone contributes, the average is correct. Saying information that is verifiable, agreeable, repeatable, and reliable (not reliable source) I believe is a better qualification of posted information. I'm curious if you Googled the similarity between Glee and Pitch Perfect or if you just denied the request based off what you saw as erroneous use of a source. If so doesn't that seem more hierarchical, or Utilitarian, for this idea limits the available sources to be used as information, rather than all sources accepted. I use sources in the strict definition, as in this case, and perhaps others, the source is being misused as conclusion. If I have posted this statement in the incorrect area, I apologize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pusalieth (talk • contribs)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: You should be able to do this edit yourself. Though I would suggest not, because it will just get removed again. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * and just to clarify, it will be undone if you attempt to use those sites as they do not meet the WP:RS guidelines. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It is 100% mistaken to say "everyone votes is the sole idea of democracy, which is sole idea of Wikipedia, everyone contributes, the average is correct". Wikipedia does not work by voting, or by some simplistic idea that what the majority of people think is best, let alone the bizarre notion that what the majority of people think is "correct". And no, we do not accept things from just anyone, not from reliable sources, because some sources just aren't reliable, in fact some sources are full of gross inaccuracies, and it would be crazy to accept them as being as valid as those that are reliable. you may or may not find it instructive to read What Wikipedia is not. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect song identified
The song mentioned in the plot summary is actually Titanium by David Guetta, not Bulletproof by La Roux. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzzyplastic (talk • contribs) 23:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Beginning paragraph
Every sentence in the opening paragraph begins with "The"; the whole opening paragraph should be restructured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.95.194.219 (talk) 11:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

If that movie has an ensemble cast then I am king of Makebelieveistan. Is there a source for this? --92.202.60.11 (talk) 08:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Sexuality
It is offensively reductionist to define a character by their sexuality. The descriptions do not feel the need to point out the ethnicity of the characters, the sexuality should not be forced into the description because editors cannot think of anything else to write. It is also misleading when the film itself treats it a normal, incidental, almost irrelevant characteristic. Later in the story she admits to a seriously gambling problem (that started after she broke up with her girlfriend) which is an interesting characteristic but it is also not something the article should mention as a character introduction either. Perhaps more of the character descriptions should be shortened or removed entirely, but the description of the character played by Ester Dean is particularly bad and editors should stop trying to force the particular reference about a character being a lesbian. -- 109.76.6.232 (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Help me
In the credits it says that "The Outfit" did Becca's remixes, but when I try to find them anywhere online its like they dont exist.
 * I'm an 'EDMer' and love the mixes. Someone please help me find them?
 * -♠&#124;RP&#124;♠ 05:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Film editor
A reader writes in to Wikimedia 2015020710006539 to note that the film editor of Pitch Perfect is Lisa Zeno Churgin, not Zach Chemberlene.

I see conflicting claims:

Lisa Zeno Churgin
 * Vulture
 * MTV

Zach Chemberlene
 * reelmovienation
 * onlyfilmy

How do we sort this out?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)


 * As per the New York Times, the editor is Lisa Zeno Churgin. The Chemberlene fella doesn't even have an IMDB page. It might just be a prank. --Ratha K (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Gives vs. gave
Rotten Tomatoes gave scores that we cite. At the present moment, Rotten Tomatoes gives scores that may or may not reflect what we are citing here. This edit claims that "I looked at Frozen (2013 film), a good article, and found out 'gives' is used instead of 'gave'.)" Funny thing: The word "gives" is in that article three times. All three of those are in the references section. The Rotten Tomatoes score sections says: "The review aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes reports that 89% of critics gave the film a positive review based on 214 reviews, with the site's consensus being: "Beautifully animated, smartly written, and stocked with singalong songs, Frozen adds another worthy entry to the Disney canon." What's the story, ? - Sum mer PhD v2.0 14:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh sorry, I made a mistake. But you can refer to Wreck-It Ralph, another good article. I don't really mind because all I want to do is improve Wikipedia. By the way, could you please stop picking on me? What do you expect from a 10-year-old? Saul Grant (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * When reading an article to see if it says "gives" or "gave", it's kinda important to focus on the one word you misread.
 * Yes, your new example is contrary to your first, mistaken example. Geeze, how are we supposed to use other articles as precedents when they aren't identical? As it happens, this one word choice has absolutely nothing to do with GA criteria and other articles are not guides for us to blindly mimic.
 * Back to the merits: The text I changed stated that RT "gives" scores that it did not give at that time and does not give now. You changed it (you forgot to update the dating of the source) to state that RT "gives" numbers that were true when you were editing. You might just as well have included that today is Sunday. Granted, both will be wrong in the near future. Stating that RT gave those scores is correct now and will be correct tomorrow. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Back to the merits: The text I changed stated that RT "gives" scores that it did not give at that time and does not give now. You changed it (you forgot to update the dating of the source) to state that RT "gives" numbers that were true when you were editing. You might just as well have included that today is Sunday. Granted, both will be wrong in the near future. Stating that RT gave those scores is correct now and will be correct tomorrow. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

A lot of Wikipedia uses present continuous tense, and that is simpler to understand so I try to use "gives" and I'm one of many editing the film articles in that way. I get that these scores can change a bit sometimes but they are relatively stable and don't change very much after the initial release, so I think "gives" is clear enough. If you think in terms of an old style printed encyclopedia then ... I don't know, over the long term the score is stable.

If you prefer to use gave I have no problem with that either, go for it but do try to be consistent.

The reason I use gives/gave is that I object to many other articles that write that a film "holds" a score as if they score was not _made_up_by_ Rotten Tomatoes. (I'm not particularly happy with the word "reports" either. They (RT) don't just directly record or report the score like at a sports game, they look at reviews and interpret the 4/5 stars or 3/4 whatever other score, or even the reviewer might not have used that kind of a scoring system and then turns those scores into yet another number, and then use a system of averages, to come up with their final percentage, and this system is not explained well if it is explained at all. Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, and others use different systems, so the final numbers are all a bit different, and you might care about those differences or you might not. I find them useful as an rough guide and try not to take them too seriously. Others will try to argue that "percent" (%) and "out of 100" (/100) are not exactly the same thing and I think they're crazy but that is what Wikipedia film editors have been consistently using for a while now.) --- 109.79.178.92 (talk) 20:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Misogynistic
An editor change the character description of ... adding the claim that the character is "misogynistic". He is already described as egotistical, a neutral point of view easily supported by the film but the claim that he is is "misogynistic" is an opinion, a non-neutral point of view not clearly supported by the story. This edit could be discussed, perhaps the film made it clear this character was "misogynistic" rather than merely arrogant, but I do not think there is adequate evidence (not to mention relevance) to label the character that way. If any characters were to be described as misogynistic, the announcer at the competitions would be the most appropriate. An editor disagreed with revert of this edit on my talk page, and I recommended comments be kept on the article talk page.

At the same time another edit to add an Alternative image description to help users with accessibility needs was also reverted. The explanation given was Reverted 2 good faith edits but that does not explain why anyone would remove a description to help blind or partially sighted users. -- 109.78.252.145 (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

LGBT?
This article is in LGBT cats, but there's no mention of LGBT in the body of the article. Jim Michael (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * See above. People seem to add that category any time a character in any story happens to be LGBTQAI even if it doesn't have anything to do with the story.
 * While discussing problems they are having, one of characters mentions in passing that she has a girlfriend, but it very clearly treated as a non-issue and nothing to do with the problem she was having. It is no more notable than her hair color. Pointing out someones sexuality in the character descriptions would be as crass and stupid as pointing out the race of each character, especially since it was clearly treated as only an incidental detail. -- 109.78.200.153 (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)


 * An anonymous IP Editor has since removed the tag for this article, and Pitch Perfect 2 (PP3 didn't include the tags at the time). I think it was the correct choice. -- 109.78.206.13 (talk) 14:57, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Read an article accusing the film series of queerbaiting. The article was from Them (website) which is a Condé Nast publication so it would seem like it might be a reliable enough source. It might be worth writing about this subtext and then maybe the above tags would actually eventually be relevant and appropriate. -- 109.78.198.186 (talk) 04:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment: new WikiProject for a cappella-related articles
Hi there! To any and all interested: I've proposed a WikiProject dedicated to a cappella. This would be a group of editors interested in improving the quality of articles related to a cappella. If you're passionate about a cappella—ranging from the Pentatonix to groups like the Vanderbilt Melodores, or perhaps pop culture representations like Pitch Perfect and The Sing-Off—please check out the proposal and share your thoughts!

Here's a link to the proposal for WikiProject A Cappella.

If you could see yourself contributing to an article related to a cappella (like this one), please consider joining!


 * —Shrinkydinks (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Include more dialog about diversity within the film Sarayvaldez (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2020 (UTC)SVH

Mickey Rapkin
Mickey Rapkin didn't base his book on his experience at Northwestern, as the intro says- he based it on his experience in Cayuga's Waiters at Cornell. Source; his own article in GQ: https://www.gq.com/story/cornell-a-cappella-hazing-scandal

I feel like this is pretty basic stuff that should be correcthere; but Rapkin himself doesn't have a Wikipedia page. 2605:A601:AC48:9D00:AC5B:8E83:3CE:245A (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)