Talk:Scary Movie 2

Scarier Movie
It says here that it was released in the UK under the title "Scarier Movie"...umm, no it wasn't! It's called Scary Movie 2 everywhere and I have never seen it called Scarier Movie. (I am British in case you couldn't tell) But I am allowing someone else to change it in case someone is mistaken with perhaps another country.


 * Well no-one has given any views here yet, so I'll remove it, if there are any objections in the future feel free to reinstate it. Jamandell (d69) 00:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it was called Scarier Movie in development? The name seems very familiar to me. I'm an Australian, but it was called Scary Movie 2 here.

Grammar
Just fixing up some spelling/grammar mistakes. [EDIT] After a second look, I think this article could use with more of a fixer upper. It sounds like a whole lot of buzz words from one of those movie industry type things. 58.105.54.96 11:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

"Arguably the most popular Scary Movie film."
Based on what? Certainly not box-office or reviews. Removed.MrBlondNYC 11:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)+

Yeh i googled this movie and it came up on many movie sites to be highly popular, true it didnt do well in the box office but i read somewhere that its dvd sales were through the roof, every movie site i have been has given it a positive review as with scary movie one, but 3 and 4 were not as popular, so i guess you could say this was arguably the best scary movie in the series.

Fair use rationale for Image:Scary Movie 2.jpg
Image:Scary Movie 2.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 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 21:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it ever explained...
How those three people came back to life? Tenk you veddy much. --Wack'd Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork! 02:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

List of parodies
RobJ1981 (talk) removed the parody list, using the rationale that it is "not notable. Romance movies don't have lists of kisses, horror movies dont have death lists, this is no exception to those." We're talking about apples and oranges. Romance movies don't consist entirely of kisses, and horror movies don't consist entirely of deaths. A film that parodies other films, on the other hand, consists almost completely of parodies, by definition. A list of parodies is very informative to the reader, just as the list of deaths in episode descriptions of The Sopranos is informative and presented clearly and concisely in list format. I welcome other opinions about whether the lists of parodies in Scary Movie and its sequels is as important as plot summaries in other films. Ward3001 (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Both editors, Ward3001 and RobJ1981 should be aware that revert warring is a bad thing and damages the encyclopedia.
 * Now, on the subject of the list of parodies I believe that it is not notable and simply fan cruft. If some of those individual parodies are notable for some reason then fine, they should be included and discussed. But including a single, long, list of all the parodies is too much. Also, it could count as original research as it is someone's opinion that they segments of the movie are parodies as they are comparing the movies themselves. If there were reliable sources backing up each one then this wouldn't be a problem. But as it stands, I am simply not happy with its inclusion.-Localzuk(talk) 17:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Although I usually would agree with not including parodies in film articles, if you exclude them in a film whose plot IS parody, you have very little left. Regarding original research, the same argument could be made about most plot summaries in Wikipedia. Pick a Wikipedia page on a film at random, and I think it's safe to say that almost always you will find few, if any, citations in the plot summary. It is the writer's judgment about which plot elements to include and how to describe them. Other editors, of course, are entitled to change the wording and select different plot elements. If there is a lot of disagreement in this process, the usual procedure is to dicuss on the talk page. The same can be done with parody descriptions for paraody films. Let's remember WP:IAR, which is overused in some cases but applicable here. I think most readers want plot summaries to read either after viewing the film or during a pause in their viewing of a movie. Most of us don't read them before viewing the film because it spoils the film. I think the same is true here. A list (or paragraph) of parodies helps the reader understand the film better, and thus improves the article. And improving articles is what Wikipedia (and theoretically WP:IAR) is all about.
 * Regarding the issue of whether the parody descriptions should be lists, I don't have a problem with converting the list into paragraph form. In fact, I tried to do that for one of the Scary Movie films, but it ended up being very disjointed (probably because that's the nature of a parody film). A list was much more readable. But if someone wants to try that process again, I'm fine with it.
 * And finally the issue of edit warring. I asked for discussion here over two weeks ago. But RobJ1981 decided to revert without discussion. Ward3001 (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * First, don't point blame - both of you are guilty of reverting without discussion up until now. Pointing blame at the other side will simply stretch out any ill feelings that are held already, meaning each side is less likely to reach a compromise or consensus.
 * Second, the point regarding original research is not such a problem with the actual plot, as the source is the film itself. The problem with list of parodies is that they compare 2 movies to come to the conclusion that one contains a parody of the other. So the latter is OR but the prior isn't.-Localzuk(talk) 21:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So the choice is to rigidly adhere to WP:OR and have an empty plot summary, or be more flexible with WP:IAR and have a better quality article. I respectfully disagree with your choice, but I am willing to wait for a consensus to emerge here.
 * I don't especially want to get into the blame game either, and if RobJ1981 will discuss here before continuing to revert, I'll happily put the past behind us. Ward3001 (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is a place to get information, including which movies that have been parodied in movies like the Scary Movie tetralogy. The parodied movies are the foundation of these kinds of movies – like historical events are mentioned in descriptions of historical dramas. I something sense a snob effect regarding articles describing popular subjects – comedies, video games, pop music.
 * The information in Wikipedia should be of interest to more than just a few fans, so it’s always a balance. I like the parody lists because it gives readers a general idea of the parodied movies, at a glance. Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * But we can't simply override WP:NOR simply because you like it. WP:NOR is a core principal of this site, and people's whimsical fancies can't override that I'm afraid.-Localzuk(talk) 17:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's my point that I think you may be missing (although I'm not sure): If the consensus is to make an exception for parody films to improve the article, why should that not be done? I'm not asking that only my opinion be considered. I'm willing to see what the consensus is. That's not you like it. It's consensus. Otherwise there is no reason to have WP:IAR, which is just as important a principle on Wikipedia as WP:OR. My major objection in the past has been the removal of the list of parodies with no discussion. Ward3001 (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Because, the list of parodies is not encyclopedic. It is original research, ie. the opinion of someone who added the items to the list. If they were sourced to external sources then fine, the discussion here would be whether the list added anything to the article. The 2 are seperate issues. We can't simply add unsourced opinions on things simply because a couple of people like the idea of having a list of the parodies listed.
 * So, can we seperate the issues? Can we deal with the issue of the large, unsourced, list? Then later, if we have gotten past that look at the issue of whether the list is actually useful or good for the article?-Localzuk(talk) 18:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A parody list is no different than a "death list" for a horror movie as one example. No horror movie articles (that I know of) have death lists. I think some used to, but they were removed due to original research and other reasons. No parody movies need a massive list in them, take it to a fan wiki. It's trivial and list clutter as well. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * First point: Once again, horror movies contain more than a series of deaths. A parody film is almost completely parodies. Second point: I'm not sure about horror movies, but articles on The Sopranos have death lists, presumably because who dies in each episode is very useful information. I continue to disagree with blindly following the letter of the law with WP:OR if it limits the quality of the article. Ward3001 (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Parody movies also have a storyline, so are not just a series of parodies. Some would say that most horror movies are almost the same - a storyline with a series of deaths.
 * The very reason WP:NOR is there is to prevent things like this appearing on the site! Not to get in the way of making an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is a collection of well researched and corroborated facts, nothing more, nothing less.-Localzuk(talk) 18:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to be open here, I have posted a request for some external input on this issue at the original research noticeboard.-Localzuk(talk) 18:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Responding from OR/Noticeboard... In the case of films like the Scary Movie series, the parodies are one of the things that make the film notable in the first place. Thus, I think it is central to the article (and not just fancruft) to discuss what the film parodies in some detail (although I do think that this could be done in a better format than a bullet pointed list which does come across as being crufty.)  This seems to be fairly standard in other articles on spoof genre films. Note howAirplane! handles the issue. Most contain some form of discussion of what is being parodied.
 * As to whether the list is OR or not... that is a grey zone question. At the moment we are implicitly citing the movie itself as the source ... as such it should be considered a Primary Source.  WP:PSTS states:
 * To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should: 1) only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and 2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source.
 * So the question becomes... is listing what is being parodied in the Scary Movie series a simple descriptive claim, or is it an anaysis? This is hard to determine... in some cases the parody is increadibly obvious, and to verify it all one needs to do is watch both movies.  In other cases the parody is subtler, and mentioning the parody would probably equate to an analysis.  So, let's play it safe...  source the list.  I find it very difficult to believe that no reliable sources have discussed what bits of other movies are being parodied in the various Scary Movie films.  I would think this has been mentioned in all sorts of reviews, published in fan magazines, etc.  Have we looked for sources? Blueboar (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to get you started... here is the review from the BBC (a reliable source) that mentions some of the movies that are spoofed in the original Scary Movie. I am sure that if you search you will be able to find more. Blueboar (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a quick question, how is the movie a source for the parody list? To draw up such a list you would need to have seen the other movies and therefore are comparing them. Or source said list. You contradicted yourself by saying that it wouldn't be OR as the movie is the source, and then saying you would have to look at both movies. The latter is synthesis, pure and simple.
 * But I do agree. Sourcing the list would remove a lot of the issue for me. Then all that would have to happen is some sort of better format.-Localzuk(talk) 20:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If the consensus is that parody lists are OK as long as each item is sourced (I'm not yet conceding, but I'll accept the consensus), here is a preemptive question. IMDb often lists parodies. I know that some editors frown on IMDb as a source, but I have seen favorable comments on manual of style pages about IMDb. I personally don't think that their discussion boards are acceptable sources for obvious reasons. But their trivia sections (another pejorative term on Wikipedia, which I usually agree with), plot descriptions, cast/crew lists are usually good quality (not perfect, but good). To avoid a lot of wasted time by fans of parody film, is IMDb (excluding discussion boards) an acceptable source for parodies, or will the film purists slash them out because the source is IMDb? Ward3001 (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In reply to Localzuk... The point is moot if we are going to look for sources... but to answer your question: Yes, it is a form of synthesis... but I don't think it reaches the level of being a WP:SYN violation (as the synthesis does not really "serve to advance the editor's position" nor do they really form a "novel conclusion"). The connections drawn here are extremely obvious. I have not seen either Scary Movie or Scream... but just from seeing the commercials for both movies, I know that one is a parody of the other.  You would have to have lived in a cultural vacuum not to get some of the connections. I think we need to look at the intent of WP:SYN, and WP:OR in general and ask if they really relate to this debate.
 * In reply to Ward: I would not use IMDb... this has been repeatedly questioned at the RS:Noticeboard, and it keeps coming back as unreliable (due to the fact that the reviews are user submitted).  Your best bet is to go with undeniably reliable sources such as print reviews and magazine articles. Dig a bit... I am sure you will find what you are looking for.  Blueboar (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a point of clarification regarding IMDb. I realize that the reviews are user submitted. But I'm not talking about reviews. I would agree IMDb reviews should not be used. My question is about other sections of IMDb (trivia section as one example). Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that some sections of IMDb are screened by IMDb staff first. For example, if you wish to submit an biographical item about an actor, it first goes to IMDb staff, who determine if it is acceptable. I know that to be the case in this particular example because some of my suggestions to IMDb have been rejected. My understanding is that the trivia lists go through such a screening. By the way, from MOS:FILM: "Cast and crew credits for most films are available at the Internet Movie Database, as is distribution, release date, language, runtime and budget information." Ward3001 (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In reply to blueboar: But the synthesis is being done in order to advance the editor's conclusion - for example they look at film A and then look at film B and come to the conclusion that A is a parody of B. That conclusion is their position. If they then use those films as the sources for this claim, it is synthesis of that.
 * And regarding having lived in a cultural bubble - the population of the world is over 6bn, it would be reasonable that at least half of that number will never have seen either film. To simply make the judgement that the synthesis is acceptable because people in western countries will probably have seen the movies is not really acceptable. Take into account things like the Chinese government's dislike of US movies and their dislike of any film which is seen as damaging to society's morals, I would hazard a guess that at least Scary Movie 2 would not be allowed to be viewed over there. Then take into account Africa, where Wikipedia is becoming more popular due to projects such as the OLPC, you will have a wikipedia readership which will have seen neither movie. I could go on, the point is that we shouldn't be basing our judgements of what is 'obvious' on our own western view of the world.
 * As far as I know, all the trivia sections of the site are still user submitted (I have submitted trivia there myself). The actual details of a film are reliable from imdb, as these are sourced by their staff rather than user submitted.
 * On a side note, does anyone have a DVD of this movie? If so, does the commentary/extras cover any of the list? If so, this would be a good source also.-Localzuk(talk) 22:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI - [This] looks like a good source to me. The site is run by Richard Scheib, a noted critic. Blueboar (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to belabor the IMDb issue. I'm aware that the website has limitations. But I believe it is an incorrect assumption that anyone can submit trivia without it being screened by IMDb staff. Go to a movie page on IMDb and click Trivia. At the bottom of the screen you see this: "You may report errors and omissions on this page to the IMDb database managers. They will be examined and if approved will be included in a future update." Then you must click Update, which takes you to a page to suggest or modify a trivia item. Your suggestion does not show up immediately, meaning that IMDb staff screen it. I realize that is not the case with reviews, but it is with trivia. I think if we can accept cast lists, plot summaries, etc. because they are screened by IMDb staff (per MOS:FILM), we should be able to accept information in a trivia item (specifically, parody information) for the same reason. No website is perfect, but I think this type of information from IMDb is as legitimate as most websites. Please also bear in mind I'm not pushing expansion of trivia lists. I hate those about as much as most Wikipedia editors, but I believe using the trivia section of IMDb to get parody information for a parody film is legitimate. Let's be sure any objection to IMDb as a source is reasonable and factual, and that our agenda is not to make it harder to find sources simply because some editors don't want a parody list. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... You have what could be a valid point... I think we might be able to call it a limited reliable source. But I would suggest getting a second opinion.  Post this to at both WP:V and at the RS/Noticeboard and lets see what others make of it. In the meanwhile, continue to look for sources where there is no doubt as to reliability.  Blueboar (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Phil Collins
did he really cowrite this movie? 98.196.78.26 (talk) 07:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't have a writing credit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.86.231 (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Brando
There is not an appropriate place to add this, and it may be too trivial to incoude, but the film was originally shot with Marlon Brando as Father McFeely. He was too infirm to complete any satisfactory takes and was replaced by James Woods.

This is only notable as this would have been Brando's last film. DFS (talk) 23:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Parodies--Rocky?
I thought "Rocky" was parodied from the scene at the shipping dock. I am watching some of the Rocky movies now as I have not watched any before, but I think it looks like "Rocky" is one of the parodies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.9.39 (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

SCARY MOVIE TWO
THE LOCATION WAS 380 SOUTH SAN RAFEL AVENUE IN PASADENA, CALIFORNIA.CAST ANNA FARIS MARLON WAYANS REGINA HALL KATHLEEN ROBERTSON DAVID CROSS CHRIS ELLIOTT TORI SPELLING SCARY MOVIE 2.DESIGN AND FABRICATION OF CLOWN AND SPECIAL EFFECTS.ALL TEXT PHOTOGRAPHS,IMAGES,ANIMATIONS,OR OTHER MEDIA.COPYRIGHT 1999/2009 BY BRIAN... FULL CAST OF SCARY MOVIE 2 ACTOR/ACTRESSES — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.17.197.219 (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2021 (UTC)