Talk:Zack and Miri Make a Porno/Archive 1

Notability
While I think WP:CRYSTAL obviously applies here, I don't think this is an appropriate candidate for speedy deletion. There is a claim of notability. My belief is that this article is destined for WP:AfD, where it will likely end up being deleted until at least when the film begins shooting. Erechtheus 01:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't this already been done with the moguls? Bluemonkey

h1. "I'm Fucking Seth Rogan"

The credits to the short say it was directed by M. Night Shyamalan, but that sounds like a joke. I changed to wording of the sentence in the article to simply state he was credited, not that he actually worked on it. Does anyone have any proof the credit was honest? 68.36.163.22 (talk) 05:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that this early review for the film should be posted on the external links of the site, or at least in an (early) reception box.

http://themoviewatch.blogspot.com/2008/10/film-review-zack-and-miri-make-porno.html

- Zacq12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacq21 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

kenny hotz
kenny hotz is going to be in it? where did this come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.82.186 (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Cast.
Should the cast list be in some specific order, such as alphabetical, or at least by who has a character name and who doesn't? Because from my personal view, it seems very disorganized. --JpGrB 06:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Trailer
Someone should change the thing about the trailer still being on Youtube, because it was removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.64.92 (talk) 04:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, and thank you. --HELLØ    ŦHERE 04:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sources.
Many of the sources listed are not third-party, and are related to Kevin Smith, if someone can possibly find new sources, that would be helpful. --HELLØ   ŦHERE 00:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a source that should be listed on the sources section.

http://themoviewatch.blogspot.com/2008/10/film-review-zack-and-miri-make-porno.html

- Zacq21 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zacq21 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a blogspot source, which in not reliable. --HELLØ    ŦHERE 20:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Misc.
Wasn't sure where to add this, but a story has a quote from director Kevin Smith that explains how a thirteen-year-old song from the band Live was included in Zack and Miri Make a Porno. TheGate.ca —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.61.173 (talk) 01:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Added, thank you for the very good addition. --HELLØ    ŦHERE 02:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

MGM.
User:Trogga found this article and I was wondering if anyone else felt it necessary to include it? --HELLØ   ŦHERE 19:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Title was changed
I just saw a promo for this film during SNL and the title was changed to just "Zack and Miri". I doubt that this was for promotional purposes. - Jasonbres (talk) 04:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is just for promotional purposes. I just checked Smith's blog, and there's no mention of the name change. Likewise, there was some controversy over a lot of outlets refusing to run ads or billboards because of the word "Porno" in the title, so The Weinstein Company is running ads with just "Zack and Miri" for the title for now. Rwiggum  (Talk /Contrib ) 04:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw a "Zack and Miri" ad on NBC today, and a "Zack and Miri Make a Porno" ad on Comedy Central today as well. I'm guessing they'll continue to use the full title in "friendly" territories such as CC.  --Fo0bar (talk) 02:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I noticed that too and read an article somewhere that mentioned the dropping of the "Make a Porno" in the SNL ad was an accident, and that the censored ad was actually supposed to run on Sunday Night Football. Ah, found it... was on imdb. –67.43.92.191 (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)



"The Canadian release poster. This poster has been banned for use in U.S. theaters by the MPAA."

Something sounds wrong about this, hmmm... —Preceding unsigned comment added by JanderVK (talk • contribs) 05:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Comedy Central is now airing "Zack and Miri" commercials. Sure sounds like this is the "new" title. User:63.110.240.34 04:35, 30 October 2008


 * I assure you that it is not. In fact, Smith and Scott Mosier were talking about this on the most recent episode of SModcast and Kevin mentioned that Bob Weinstien wanted to change the movie to "Zack and Miri Make a Movie", but Smith felt that the entire essence of the film was in it's original title. He sold the film on the title alone, there's no WAY he'd conceivably change it, especially not a week before release. Rwiggum  (Talk /Contrib ) 04:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * User:63.110.240.34, please sign your posts. You can do this by typing four tildes at the end of the post. As for the title, if you read the article section "Promotion", you'll see that "Weinstein Company marketing head Gary Faber stated that the ad was accepted in most of the outlets that were offered it, but that the studio would consider variations of the title for outlets that rejected it." The commercials we've seen that omit the phrase "Make a Porno" are probably just this sort of variation. Nightscream (talk) 05:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

MPAA Authority?
The article says the MPAA removed a teaser from the "internet"? I never knew the MPAA now controls the entire internet. We need to add more details to this. Perhaps it was just their site. Gutch220 (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, they forced Weinstein Company and Smith to remove it. Essentially, Smith put it up online calling it a "teaser", but to be called a teaser it has to be approved by the MPAA, which this was not. Rwiggum  (Talk /Contrib ) 18:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's true that they don't have the ability to get it off the entire 'net. I saw it up yesterday, though not on the official site.  It's exceedingly difficult to 100% remove something from the internet once it's been on there, the best the MPAA can do is make it a bit harder to find(which they're doing)ValeOfAldur (talk) 22:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What authority does the MPAA have over the word "teaser"? What, have they trademarked the term, or something? And even if they did, couldn't Weinstein/Smith just omit that word? Nightscream (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe it has something to do with the fact that it was a major studio advertising that they had a teaser trailer. The major problem was that there was a lot of graphic language in it, so that if it were an MPAA-certified trailer it would have been classified red band. However, since there was no red band warning, the fact that there was so much graphic language in something called a trailer without a warning reflects poorly on the MPAA. The MPAA never FORCED anyone to take it down, but they asked, and the Weinsteins complied. Rwiggum  (Talk /Contrib ) 02:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Please unprotect article
Can an administrator please unprotect this page? It was originally protected on Aug. 7 by Nightscream to prevent people from adding unsourced information, but was never subsequently unprotected. WP:SEMI states that just because someone might vandalize a page in the future is not a valid reason to leave it protected. I think it should be unprotected and only reprotected if there actually is a significantly high volume of vandalism (we can handle reverting the occasional bad edit, as happens in every article). –67.43.92.191 (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There are two answers to this. One; register, then you can edit the article. Two; request an unprotect. Although if you look at the logs you will see that the page was protected because of move vandalism. Also as the film is released on Friday an un-protect is unlikely to be granted, as the page will be highly visible and as such prone to vandalism. Of course you could just list what you think needs editing. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I know you can get around the protection by registering, but for reasons some might deem silly, I prefer to edit anonymously (and have been doing so for over 3 years now). Wikipedia was built on the principle that anyone can edit it at any time, and that ability should only be restricted under extraordinary circumstances. Yes, looking at the log link you provided, the page has been move-protected, but the protection I'm asking to be lifted is the earliest one, the semiprotection by Nightscream on 8/7. I dug through the history, and he claimed at the time there was heavy vandalism, but all I could really see were a couple people adding information without citations (I only looked briefly, but didn't see anything I would consider "persistent vandalism"). I actually already requested unprotection on WP:RFPP, but some guy declined because of the closeness of the release date, and I didn't know whether it was kosher to have a discussion on that page, so I brought it here. As for the fact that the film is released this Friday, and so conceivably could possibly be the target of vandalism, I don't consider that a valid reason in itself to restrict the page. As I pointed out in my first request, WP:SEMI explicitly states that semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred. Most editors are here to contribute legitimate information, and those who choose to vandalize are usually small enough in number that they can be contained by the rest of us. The semi-protection should then only be re-instituted if future vandalism gets to a point where it is out of hand, and even then it should have an expiration date. –67.43.92.191 (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So you don't want to register, and the RFPP request was not granted for the reason I suggested, so why don't you just list the changes you want to make? Darrenhusted (talk) 09:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, anyone can edit, but even within that mandate, there are still exceptions. I don't recall the reasons I gave specifically during the protection, but if I made the mistake of mentioning vandalism, it would've been more accurate to say "unsourced information". As for anonymity, you are still anonymous if you register. (You don't really think "Nightscream" is my actual name, do you? :-) ) It's free, takes seconds, and no one has to know anything about you. Only high-level admins would know your IP, and only then if it became necessary to do so. Otherwise, you can point tell someone like me what edits you'd like to make, or what info you'd like to add, and point to the sources for it, and I/they can add it for you. Hope that helps. Nightscream (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Other release dates
I don't know if the convention is to just add the US date, but the UK date is Nov 14th if anyone wants to stick it in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.109.182.8 (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

SModcast 68
Smith stated in SM67 that SM68 will be a director's commentary for the film which people could take in to the cinema. Once this happens it should be noted. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Please switch the posters
The poster with the real photo is the original one and the one that the director wanted to use, so it should be the one at the top of the page. The one with the stick figures is just a backup poster they have to use in the US. --134.153.216.129 (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to think a US film should use its US poster.  Grsz  11   →Review!  22:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

i second that...i mean really the us film should use the us release...kind of redundant not to since we wouldnt see the one they wanted anyway...we would see the stick figures--EmperorofBlackPeopleEverywhere (talk) 02:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The stick figure one is not "just a backup poster". It's the one that accompanies the U.S. release, which U.S. viewers/readers will be more familiar with. What Smith wanted to use isn't really the most salient criteria for choosing the main accompanying image, IMHO. Nightscream (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to use a poster that exists because of censorship. The original poster was intended to be the US poster - it's not like the Canadian poster was this thing made by someone else, it was the poster that was going to be used in the first place. The argument of "US film = US poster" is faulty in this case - it's not like there's a Japanese poster and someone's trying to replace it. This poster is not only a legitimate poster that was intended to be the North American poster, but it's recognizable. While stick figures may not be identifiable, and people could easily overlook it due to the simplicity, anyone who may be aware of this film would immediately recognize the poster, which cannot be said for vague stick figures. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It isn't a matter of what the "original" poster was, it's a matter of what poster is being used to promote the film, and that's the stick figure poster. Likewise, with the advertising push and the controversy surrounding the stick figure poster (people upset because it "appeals to kids") your argument that the other one is more recognizable is fautly, since at this point the stick figure poster is the one that people associate with the film, not the Canadian poster. Rwiggum  (Talk /Contrib ) 14:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ditto. The fact that the contingencies that led to the use of the stick poster included "censorship" is irrelevant. Wikipedia documents information based on criteria like verifiability and notability. It does not make editorial decisions based on a moral reaction to censorship, even if individual editors like myself or Link are offended by it. The stick poster is more recognizable to casual WP readers and moviegoers, and non-heavy Net users. That's why it's the most relevant poster to use. Nightscream (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait, so only one of these posters is being used to promote the film? Huh, I didn't know that in Canada, they didn't even use it.
 * It's faulty? Hmm, yes, I suppose it must be - I mean, why would Seth Rogen and Elizabeth Banks be more recognizable than generic stick figures? They've only been in Knocked Up, 40 Year-Old Virgin, Scrubs, Role Models, etc., while these two stick figures were in the news! Explain to me how anyone who knows the censored poster would not know the uncensored one? Basically, everyone in the US who recognizes the censored poster would recognize the Canadian one, and everyone who recognizes the Canadian poster would not recognize the censored one. Your focus is absurd, and I have no idea why you seem to demand that only its recognizability in the US is important, even though it came out in Canada on the first day. Yes, you're right - more Americans associate the second poster with the film than Canadians associate it. But more people in the world associate Seth Rogen and Elizabeth Banks with Zack and Miri make a Porno simply because it's a recognizable image. You'd have a point if the first poster was extremely obscure in English regions, but you seem to believe that this is the United States Wiki.
 * Nightscream: Are you saying that as an objective observer, or someone from the US who decided that because it's used in the US, it's immediately more recognizable? Explain to me why we use a poster that 50% of North America would recognize over a poster that 100% of people in North America would recognize. You seem to believe that the Canadian poster not being used in the United States means that people would not recognize it. Canadians use Wikipedia, Europeans use it, Australians uses it, Americans use it, and I fail to see anyone who would recognize this poster featuring stick figures and be confused about having seen the Canadian one. It's fully explained that the American movie poster is a censorship, which would explain it to them, and alleviate any confusion humanly possible. Why should we cater to 1/4 of the significant English regions, when we could cater to all of them? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, you're getting far too worked up over this. Please remember to be civil. Also, nobody is saying the United States is superior than any other country. What we ARE saying is that the United States is it's primary market. It is being released elsewhere, but the distributors are focusing on the United States release. What's more, it is the OFFICIAL poster. It doesn't matter how it became the official poster, it just matters that it is.  Likewise, nobody is saying that Seth Rogen and Elizabeth Banks are not recognizable, we are saying that most people have come to associate the film with the stick figure poster, and not the other poster. Again, it doesn't matter how they came to recognnize the poster, or why the poster came into existence, it just matters that that's the official poster now in it's primary market.  Rwiggum  (Talk /Contrib ) 21:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)|

Not being familiar with the article or its content, I'm inclined to use the most widely recognized image because it's in like with our naming guidelines, being that we use the most widely used/recognized names for articles. Also, don't the IDP rationales state why the images should be used? If because they're the most widely recognized face of the film (if you will), then what's the rationale for the other? Illustration of the controversy? Then where should it go? —  pd_THOR  undefined | 21:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Could this be used as an "argument". It states that it's the official poster.  --HELLØ    ŦHERE 21:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize for being uncivil, I've just been somewhat sick and not having a very good day. Like THOR says, the Canadian poster is more recognizable - while the US one may only be recognized by people who actually see the poster, the Canadian poster is infinitely recognizable - it is recognizable to anyone who saw the poster in the theater, to anyone who saw the commercials, and when the DVD comes out, it will be recognizable as well. There's no guideline that suggests we use the US poster in the event that it's a US film.
 * And JpGrB, that's an argument for both posters - both posters are official posters. No one is saying that the US poster is a bad poster, the only thing being said is that it is less recognizable, an important aspect for an image to have. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Who is saying it's "more recognizable"? Personally, I only see you, and one other editor saying it is.  But hey, maybe it's just me.  I'm done posting on the subject, but whatever is decided I will go along with.  --HELLØ    ŦHERE 21:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Common sense dictates that the Canadian poster is more recognizable. Explain to me why a poster that can only be seen at movie theaters, that is only vaguely recognizable due to the names associated with it - Seth Rogen, Elizabeth Banks, and Zack and Miri Make a Porno - is recognizable. You seem to believe that the recognizability is related to which movie poster is more recognizable, when it is, in all intents and purposes, which image conveyed is the most recognizable. If you show someone who has only seen the commercials the two posters, they will recognize the Canadian one far more quickly. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know about where you live, but I'd say the fact that it's literally plastered EVERYWHERE - on the streets, billboards, on busses, banner ads on websites, on movie theater websites - that makes it more recognizable. Again, NOBODY is questioning whether or not Elizabeth Banks and Seth Rogen are recognizable. It's the fact that the Weinstien Company is using the stick figures for their HUGE marketing push that would make the stick figure poster be the "common sense" option. Rwiggum  (Talk /Contrib ) 22:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have never seen that poster outside of this article, the stick figure one. So what you're saying is that we should cater to the people who have seen the poster? 100% of everyone who is aware of the film would be aware of Seth Rogen and Elizabeth Banks. Can you say the same about it in reverse? If you've only seen the commercial, like I have, you will have no idea what's up with the poster, while seeing Seth Rogen, Elizabeth Banks, and the movie's title, there's absolutely no confusion whatsoever - the only confusion is people who saw the stick figure poster wondering why it's different. The point is that you're not explaining why it's better for the readers to use a poster only recognizable to one region. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But if someone is at the article already, then they know what film it's for. It doesn't MATTER if they recognize it or not. Here's what it should really come down to; We should use the poster that is being used as the "official" poster. The Canadian poster is considered a "foreign" poster, no matter what it's history. What's important is that it isn't being used in the U.S., which is the film's primary market. You don't see other articles using foreign posters over the original, so why should we here? Again, I know that you're going to say that it's the poster that Smith wanted to use, but at the end of the day, he didn't. he used the stick figure poster, an that's the OFFICIAL poster. We need to use the official poster for the article, not the foreign release poster. Rwiggum  (Talk /Contrib ) 00:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Funny, but I'm pretty sure I asked why it's more advantageous for the reader to see a less recognizable movie poster, NOT for you to repeat your imaginary guidelines and policies on movie posters. Readers trump EVERYTHING. Why won't you explain why readers should take second place to what you want? There has never been and never will be any guideline or policy that suggests inconveniencing readers is warranted for such trivial reasons as "US film, US poster". Your argument is nonexistent - it doesn't address that no article is allowed to disregard what is right for the readers. The reason your argument is invalid is that you're not explaining how the article is harmed by using the Canadian poster, while several people have explained why the US movie poster harms the article - it's not recognizable to many people who haven't seen the movie poster, while the Australian/European/South African/Canadian/etc. poster is immediately identifiable by everyone. There are guidelines and policies suggesting to use the image that would be most easily recognized by readers, there are no guidelines or policies suggesting using the US movie poster for US film articles just because of the region of origin. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're still not making sense. If someone is at this page, then they don't NEED to recognize the poster. They know what page they are at, and since Wikipedia isn't used for promotional purposes, then why does it matter if they recognize the poster? What we're saying is that we should use the poster that is in broader use, which is the U.S. one. Interestingly enough, that would also suggest that more people would recognize that one more, since it's being used in the film's largest market. Rwiggum  (<sup style="color:black;">Talk /<sub style="color:black;">Contrib ) 01:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but apparently it is how it should be - guidelines suggest to cater to the reader, and some made-up guideline of "US movie = US poster" doesn't trump that. And your logic is faulty, as it suggests that it is more recognizable because it's used in the US. The poster does not reflect what is seen in commercials - commercials show Seth Rogen and Elizabeth Banks, not two stick figures. You completely disregard that there are millions of people who would not recognize the movie poster. If Wikipedia exists for the average reader, why shouldn't the lead image be what the average reader would relate to the subject more? - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The article incorrectly states that the one "Canadian" poster was seen only in Canada. Actually, here in Scandinavia, it is the "Canadian" poster that is seen. In fact, I would wager that it is the poster seen throughout Europe. It is the United States poster which is the odd "one-off" version and which more properly relates to the discussion in the Promotion section of this article. However, I do believe that we usually give precedence to the original version from the country of origin. And as long as both posters are used in the article, it doesn't really matter. But the language in the promotion section should be changed to reflect that most of the rest of the world sees the "Canadian" version. — Cactus Writer |   needles  22:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead image should reflect what most people recognize, and I can't imagine that more people would recognize the poster - you have to live in a moderately sized city in the US. If you live anywhere else, you will not recognize it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It never ceases to amaze me how much heated discussion can be devoted to an issue of such minor importance! I guess that's what helps make Wikipedia so interesting . . . LiteraryMaven (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The Weinstein Company is an American company. They greenlit the project with the primary focus of funding the film and distributing it within America. They license the film to foreign distributors to show it abroad. Zack and Miri aside, if, for some reason, EON Productions wasn't able to get a Quantum of Solace poster approved by the MPAA, they happen to decide on releasing more than one theatrical poster (they wouldn't, but for argument's sake, they will). Even though the US may be a big market, possibly even bigger than the UK (I could be wrong on that), the poster for the infobox would be that which is used in the UK, yes? Same argument applies here. Socby19 (talk) 06:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't? There's no guideline or policy that says "US film = US poster" - your logic would demand that even if it were harmful to the article's quality, we should use it no matter what. - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If the above scenario involving Quantum of Solace did occur, we'd have plenty of people arguing over the same point. Socby19 (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Besides, you have yet to actually tell us WHY it is detrimental to the article, save for the fact that it's "harder to recognize the actors". I think you're forgetting that Wikipedia is being used as a source of information, not to promote the film. It doesn't matter if the actors are as instantly recognizable, because we aren't selling the movie. Moreso, if someone is at this page, then 9 times out of 10 they already know who is in it, and if not they can scroll down a page. Please don't take this the wrong way. I respect your opinion, I see where you're coming from, and I'm glad that we had this discussion. Dissent breeds strength, and this argument has helped strengthen the article IMO. But reading the responses here, there seems to be a clear consensus that the posters should be kept the way they are. Rwiggum  (<sup style="color:black;">Talk /<sub style="color:black;">Contrib ) 18:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Now I have to disagree with you. They don't need to scroll down the page as the names of the main stars are the first four words of the poster. Socby19 (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's what I meant. I was just addressing Link's assertion that one or two people won't know who they are by name alone. Rwiggum  (<sup style="color:black;">Talk /<sub style="color:black;">Contrib ) 19:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That did not answer me at all. There is no "US film = US poster" guideline, period. I've already established that we should use the non-US poster, on the basis that it is more recognizable, and why should we not use the most familiar image that most people would be familiar with?
 * Wait, so I have to give multiple good reasons to change an image that has no good reasons to keep it? I am utterly lost as to why you think that catering to readers is an act of "promotion". Recognizability is one of the key components of Wikipedia. If an image is less recognizable than another equally good image, then there is no reason to use the former image. And no, that's completely untrue. Wikipedia articles are for people who know nothing about the subjects at all. Just curious, but who would be harmed if we used the non-US poster? You keep asking me what would be harmed if we used the US poster, which I clearly explained, and yet instead of explaining the qualities of your image, you make up guidelines to say all sorts of stuff that is simply untrue. The point is NOT to tell people who is in it, it's that the US poster is not the best image to use. A poster should best reflect what the movie looks like, and as far as I recall, there's not one stick figure in the film, but there does so happen to be these two human beings. The stick figure poster is recognize by only one country in the entire world, and the non-US poster is recognized by every English-speaking region in the world. I have no idea what you don't get about that - you seem to think that the region of origin trumps quality, that it isn't important to use the lead image that people recognize, that just because it's a US film that it should be used regardless. Your logic works only if this image should be used no matter what, which is a logical fallacy - the concept you're proposing is not a matter of quality, but procedure. However, procedure is not policy, and there are exceptions - procedure only exists to make it easier to pick an image. There are exceptions to procedure, and this is one - because it's a US film, it should have a US poster UNLESS it would not be in the article's best interest, and in this case, at no point should we use an image that you've never given an argument why it is in the article's best interest (and adhering to the article's region of origin is not a matter of quality). And your consensus is hardly a consensus. Procedure cannot be a sole argument if you want a quality argument, because it's not a matter of quality, nor is it official procedure. However, it is a matter of quality to pick the image that more people would recognize, and just as many people who disagree with changing agree with it, so at no point should this be a consensus to keep the image. If you can't provide an argument why the image improves the quality of the article, I'm going to argue that the consensus was not in favor of keeping, and I will likely be successful, because quite frankly, an argument that does not argue that it helps the quality of the article cannot support a consensus. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You keep asking to see some guideline, but I'm asking you to use common sense. What about films like Seven Samurai or Tokyo Story, that use their native posters? This IS the English language Wikipedia page, after all. Or what about Shaun of the Dead? It could be argued that the U.S. poster may look better, but that doesn't change the fact that it was intended for release (and more successful) in England. It isn't a matter of what YOU feel is more recognizable, it is a matter of distribution. I've given you plenty of arguments as to why it should be kept as is, and others have too. It's your choice to ignore those, but not my lack of trying. Also, I think that if you look at the arguments presented here, you are very much in the minority of those who feel it should be changed. (My last count was 6 to 2). Rwiggum  (<sup style="color:black;">Talk /<sub style="color:black;">Contrib ) 22:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your comparisons make absolutely no sense. What's the problem with the SotD poster? Or Tokyo Story's? Or Seven Samurai's? And no, I have no idea where anyone decided that distribution is more helpful to readers than improving recognizability of the lead image. And yes, you've given many improper arguments that have absolutely no footing in the quality of an article, but in an unwritten rule of "US film = US poster". You've never once provided any argument as to why we shouldn't choose the image that is recognizable to many, many more people. The image does not have to be recognizable as a MOVIE POSTER. It has to be recognizable as an image which visualizes the film. You are doing nothing but giving the unwritten, and entirely optional procedure of "US film = US poster", which would be fine if you supplied anything that even resembles "something other than that argument". The US poster is not more recognizable, it does not identify with the film by any standard at all, etc., a couple of arguments amongst many that show why the US poster is not acceptable as the lead image. There are many people on Wikipedia who live in other English regions besides the US, and they all use the same poster. The procedure you're pointing at exists solely to make it easier, not as a dictation that "if a US company made the film, we must always use a US poster". If the US poster was just a bold, black page, would we use it? No, because it is not recognizable at all. If you do admit to that, then there is no argument to your side - if procedure has some limits, then explain to me why this is not the exception - the procedure exists to simplify things, not to be a guideline. Until you explain why it's more recognizable or why recognizability does not matter, then your argument does not hold ANY water. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, good, it looks like we can have a compromise! According to Film School Rejects, the Weinstien company has decided to re-launch the film's advertising campaign, along with - yippee! - a new poster! Since it's technically the film's new *official* poster, AND it prominently features both Rogen and Banks, I submit that we use this poster in the infobox. Agreed? Rwiggum (<sup style="color:black;">Talk /<sub style="color:black;">Contrib ) 13:50, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I went ahead and added the new U.S. poster as the main poster, added a paragraph about the change, and moved the stick figure poster down with the Canadian one. If anyone has any problems with it, please let me know. Rwiggum  (<sup style="color:black;">Talk /<sub style="color:black;">Contrib ) 02:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The image in the lead is fine, but the point is that in the future, you must understand that the quality of the image trumps the origin of it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the new poster be referred to as an alternate in the infobox considering the 'Production' section mentions the original, stick figure one, and eventually this new one? Socby19 (talk) 06:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Slight Plot Summary Change
I noticed that in the plot summary, it simpley says "At a party blah blah blah..." The party is of huge significance in the film. The crew members paid of Zack and Miri's debt, and decided to throw a party to celebrate. Granted, I think that's important enough to mention and should be changed. I would do it myself, but the dang page is locked. Comment added by SquishyBeaver (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Done. Rwiggum  (<sup style="color:black;">Talk /<sub style="color:black;">Contrib ) 16:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Gross revenue
Isn't it customary to wait for a film to complete its theatrical run before posting its gross revenue in the infobox? I can't imagine someone changing this figure on a weekly basis while the film is in release. LiteraryMaven (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Someone will, some may even do it on a daily basis. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

This being the case, the current gross revenue needs to be updated on the page. It currently stands at $26,465,482 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Westy159 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Incest in fiction? Really?
How would THIS be justified? DodgerOfZion (talk)
 * Yeah, that makes exactly NO sense. I went ahead and removed it. Rwiggum  (<sup style="color:black;">Talk /<sub style="color:black;">Contrib ) 20:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Ending?
Though I have seen the movie several times in the U.S., I have never seen any part about them getting married and starting porn business. --C, 11/29/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.158.44 (talk) 06:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Stay through the credits, then we'll talk. ;) Rwiggum  (<sup style="color:black;">Talk /<sub style="color:black;">Contrib ) 06:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that I've watched the movie multiple times and don't see where they get married and start a company. (Iroc24 (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC))


 * You stayed through the credits and didn't see it? Nightscream (talk) 03:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

yea stay though the credits youll soon see --kjv--  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.5.155 (talk) 13:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Region 5 version of this film that was released on the internet did not contain the end scene after the credits, that's why you guys didn't see them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.107.179 (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

First Kevin Smith movie not shot in New Jersey?
I agree that this is the first movie not SET in New Jersey, but as the article states, Mallrats was shot mostly in Minnesota, so the sentence should be changed to "his first movie not set in New Jersey". 75.65.2.45 (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Trailer Banned by the MPAA? O RLY?
I'm baffled by the assertion that "the teaser was removed from the Internet by the MPAA for being too sexually explicit." I read the source, but it just asserts this as a fact. The MPAA is an advisory group that issues ratings -- they aren't the government and should not have editorial control over someone's blog/web site -- should they? What am I missing? I have a similar objection to the assertion that the poster was "banned." I think they can only threaten a film's rating. Paul R. Potts (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're actually mis-understanding this, even though I KNOW this conversation has been had here before (that discussion has been archived). The trailer was not removed because it was too sexually explicit, it was removed because it was designated a "teaser trailer" without passing through MPAA certification. Smith basically put the clip up on his website and called it a teaser. However, an actual teaser must be certified by the MPAA as red band or green band, and since the trailer was not certified, the MPAA asked them to take it down, and they complied. It had nothing to do with it's content. Rwiggum  (<sup style="color:black;">Talk /<sub style="color:black;">Contrib ) 18:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Song
Who signed the song when Zack and Miri are do it? Sounds like Live? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.181.78 (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Christ, singed? REALLY? Who singed it? *sigh* yes, it was Live. But this isn't a place to discuss the film anyway, it's to discuss the article. Rwiggum  (<sup style="color:black;">Talk /<sub style="color:black;">Contrib ) 21:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Lol, they didn't even put "singed", they put "signed", as in, past tense of writing your name on paper. Lol.  --HELLØ    ŦHERE 00:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Story
"They marry, and start their own video production company, Zack and Miri Make Your Porno, which makes amateur videos for couples." Is that true? I've just seen the movie, pirated though, but still, there was no such scene. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.103.63.216 (talk) 12:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Its half way into the credits..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.217.49.168 (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)