Talk:The Three Stooges (2012 film)

Sources to add

 * — Mike  Allen   11:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

early reception source
http://www.deadline.com/2012/04/mike-fleming-interviews-pete-and-bobby-farrelly-on-risky-film-the-three-stooges/ Quote:"The Farrellys sent me scripts–all were funny–and recently gave me an early peek at the finished film. Despite my reservations going in, I laughed hard and often at the trademark mayhem. And I was surprised they managed to keep things civil enough for a PG that opens the door to the same young age group that saved Stooges shorts from obscurity when they aired afternoons on TV in the 60s." From three stooges biographer Michael Fleming. The most interesting man in the world (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Questions
I haven't seen it, so all I have to go on is the meager plot description given herein. Does anyone know whether any useful sources have pointed out (1) the resemblance to the Catholic orphanage premise of "The Blues Brothers"; and/or (2) the irony that the Stooges in real life were Jewish? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Synopsis
This film deserves a better synopsis. No attempt at a humorous tone should be made in relating the film's story. Sgt. Friday would not be amused.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

the Catholic League - Criticism for anti-Catholicism section
I disagree with the characterisation of the Catholic League as "an anti-defamation organization". That may at one time have been its primary role, but under Donohue it would be better characterised as "a militant activist organization". Heavenlyblue (talk) 21:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It shouldn't even be on this page. It is propaganda, and the film is not anti-catholic in the least nor offensive to any person who is catholic. Patriots49ers (talk) 18:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC).

I call bullsh*t
The "biggest box office flops" comment is BS - and it's linked to an opinion piece. Now, I'm pretty sure that a $30M movie making $43M isn't going to be considered a flop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.243.69 (talk) 00:09, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

For my beloved Jesse
At the end of the movie, it says For my beloved Jesse. What do they mean by that?

--184.63.42.120 (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC) ECUfan

Jesse Farrelly was Bobby Farrelly's son who died of an apparent drug overdose in 2012. --Nozzer71 (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC) 

UNDUE weight for anti-Catholic criticisms
I trimmed this section as it had WP:UNDUE weight in an article about a movie. apparently disagrees... Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Just noting here that edited the section header here yet didn't respond.  Mickey, please discuss.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It is not undue weight by any analysis compared to sections of other Wikipedia articles, use those that reference anti-Semitism for example. See here:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Passion_of_the_Christ#Allegations_of_antisemitism   The content is well-sourced, footnoted, etc.  Thanks!  MickeyDonald (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for talking! OK, the last paragraph has no sourcing at all, so saying it is all sourced is not true.  More to the point, WP:WEIGHT (which is policy) says "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."  None of the reviews cited in the article mention Catholics having a problem with the movie, nor do other articles I found through a simple google search on "three stooges movie", such as this article from Forbees, this article from the LA Times, Roger Ebert's site's review, the NY Times review, nor the rollings stones review. On page 4 of the google search one finally hits something - Catholic News Service review which states objections similar to those in our article. I looked on, and I didn't find any independent sources that discuss Catholic objections to the movie (Donohue posted his on his own website, and CNS is of course Catholic) - and when there are no independent sources that is a good sign that the matter shouldn't get much weight.
 * I cut this down to about half in the edit linked to in my original post. I could argue (and probably succeed) in cutting this down to a single sentence with no subsection based on this policy-based argument via an RfC.   I suggest we compromise with my original suggestion above.  Please let me know if you agree.  ThanksJytdog (talk) 14:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you going to reduce the anti-Semitism section for The Passion? What about its undue weight and overall length?   I'm not convinced you are correct.  MickeyDonald (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, are you discussing this article or a different one? Jytdog (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you are not engaging, I am taking out the UNDUE weight material again. If you want to keep it, please actually respond to issues about weight in this article instead of reverting. and please don't add back the unsourced content.  To make arguments about weight in this article, you have to show that there was lots of coverage of this issue.  Right now you just have Donahue and he comments on just about everything.  Worth a mention for sure but not lots of weight.  Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Material included, as is entirely consistent with weight of anti-Semitism claim (section) in the Passion. MickeyDonald (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * the discussion in reliable sources of the issue for the two films was entirely different. there was widespread discussion in many many sources, from many quarters, on those aspects of the passion. here it is basically Donahue. Jytdog (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)