Talk:Gremlins/Archive 1

Archive 1

The rating

There are two links at the bottom of the article: one for IMDb, and one for AMG. Both say the movie's rating is PG. Please do not change it anymore. Also, the rating is not needed in the intro; it is already in the Technical data section. -- LGagnon 04:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed the "original rating: pg-13" statement. It is not, nor has it ever been rated PG-13. Brian Schlosser42 19:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

What other movies contributed to the PG-13 rating? Is there a rating reform article? --Gbleem 01:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the Legacy section, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was the other one. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That script

I just had to say I read the script someone provided by means of an external link. I'm not sure if it's really Christopher Columbus', but it's pretty cool. Well, there were a couple things I didn't like about it, but still pretty cool. Very, very different. Still love the movie though. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Trivia section

Would anyone object to removing it, or taking it to the talk page? Trivia sections aren't fully encouraged and I've been working on cutting it down and incorporating the information into the main text. At this point what's left might be a bit too trivial, easily available elsewhere, and some of it is unreferenced and unverified. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Great Work!

Just wanted to say great work on getting this article a Featured Article. Gremlins is one of my favorite movies! This article is very organized and I congratulate all those whom contributed to it! -24.92.41.95 08:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Racism

Not surprisingly, this issue was completely overlooked. I added a couple stentences about the charges that the movie is racist. It was a big deal when the movie came out, but in doing a quickie check I couldn't really find anything terribly useful on the Internet -- possibly because the movie is fairly old. But perhaps someone else will have better luck. I thought it particularly important to mention the issue, given the fact that earlier in the article it mentions that the Gremlins represent African Americans -- without any comment whatsoever that the "black Gremlins" are behaving like stereotypical "niggers" -- gambling, shooting one another, lewd, crude, wild. Couldn't let that pass. deeceevoice 10:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This text, under the subhead "Charges of racism," was removed -- probably because of lack of documentation (something which I, of course) understand):

Despite its critical acclaim and popular success, Gremlins has been criticized as racist and culturally insensitive. In the film's presentation of gremlins as African Americans in the movie's bar scene, it does so in an extremely unflattering manner. The creatures exhibit some of the worst sterotypical behavior attributed to blacks. They are wild, drunken, carousing, violent, murderous, seductive, lascivious, crude and rowdy. The females are depicted with big, red lips. The males wear big-apple slouch hats, a fashion popular in urban African American communities in the 1970s and '80s.

The character of the elderly Asian man who sells Gizmo and sets off the chain of events that comprise the movie's story line also has been criticized as reinforcing Asian stereotypes--his flawed English, heavy accent, and his belief in, and association with, magic.

I saw a brief reference to the Asian stereotype somewhere on the web, but no mention of the black stereotypes. I looked for some, but to no avail. It's as if cyberspace has amnesia. It's utterly disingenuous and just plain b.s. to refer to the gremlins' behavior as being that of "teenagers" and "African Americans." The racism of the stereotypes in the movie was the subject of widespread discussion back when the film was released, but I can't seem to find any relevant info as documentation. Think about it. The gremlins dress like African-Americans. They display "cool" -- and all the negative stereotypes: lasciviousness, violence, they're drunk, one shoots another in a cardgame. Another is shown breakdancing. Some of the females are shown with prominent, red lips and bad blonde wigs. If someone is so inclined and has access to such information, it would be great if it were reproduced here, so that the relevant text (or some variant of it) could be included in the article. deeceevoice 17:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. I would have thought, though, that the shooting incident would be, if anything, a reference to the corrupt elite. I think in the DVD commentary they remark it was just supposed to be funny as a wild overreaction. I'm not sure if the wigs do reflect an African American sytle, but there are other scenes where the gremlins wear clothes, often just coats and earmuffs. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 17:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The "corrupt elite" would not be in what amounted to a sleazy jukejoint atmosphere with gangsta types and low lifes. Next time (if there is a next time) you happen to see the film check it out. Then ask yourself, "If the creators of the scene wanted to depict some redneck hick gremlins, would they have done the drinking and carousing scenes in the same way, with the same music, the same clothes, the same physical characterstics -- or, would they have done it differfently?" I'm confident you'll understand and recognize the very clear referencing of certain aspects of African-American culture. The racist stereotyping is blatant. And that's not to say a lot of African-Americans didn't find some of the scenes in the film funny as hell. But we do recognize when we're being parodied. deeceevoice 18:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Shades of "Phantom Menace", where some charged that using a swarthy (in fact, Maori) actor for Jango Fett, and showing hordes of clones of him, was supposed to arouse fears of illegal Mexican immigration (and Watto as the hook-nosed Jew...). The problem with these interpretations is that they have a rough approximation with, not real perceptions of other groups, but the grossest, most obviously fallacious stereotypes of those other groups.

The bar scene was supposed to be a representation of stereotypical rowdy urban bar behaviour. Yes, some very stereotypical 'black' caricatures were involved, but it would be more accurate to say that TV depictions of blaxploitation characters like Huggy Bear from Starsky & Hutch were the subject, not black culture as a whole. Tasteless, perhaps, but accusations of racism directed at the film are as overblown here as they were at Star Wars.

FWIW, I saw the film, and didn't connect the bar scene to a racial group. Justin Johnson 19:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"Overblown"? Well, that's easy for you to say -- isn't it? You're not a member of the group being lampooned. Regardless of your opinion of the controversy; it exists/ed, it's real, and now it's back where it belongs -- in the article. :p deeceevoice 11:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

More to the Wikipedia point, though, was there a real controversy, or was there simply some people floating a particular interpretation that got some minor media play (just like Phantom Menace)? If there was a real controversy in the public sphere, then, with citations, it's appropriate to include it in the article; but just because a few film school students write a few indignant essays doesn't qualify the inclusion of charges of racism in the article. This is article is for reporting on the movie, not a platform for someone's interpretation of it. Justin Johnson 19:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, duh. I know what is and is not appropriate for inclusion in an article. There was real controversy and fairly widespread criticism of the film in the African American community on this count. And just because the connection didn't seem clear to, presumably, some white guy does not mean it wasn't evident to many of the blacks (and others) who saw the film. I simply haven't been able to find a record of the controversy online. But, then, the film is ancient in terms of the Internet -- and I'm not inclined to waste any more of my time searching for a record of it. It was much higher profile than, say, some of the criticism that's been leveled at some of the later "Star Wars" flicks, with Jar-Jar Binx and the like. deeceevoice 22:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, surprise, surprise. The usefulness of my personal library has caught me unawares once again. While looking up something else entirely, I came across a book on a shelf that provided the necessary documentation. Someone else had already reinserted my earlier language, so I tweaked it a bit and provided a sourced quote. (Another featured article sans some, IMO, important information. You really need some more black folks up in here.) deeceevoice 01:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I withdraw my comments. Justin Johnson 00:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

DON'T withdraw them! This is without a doubt the dumbest thing I have seen anywhere in Wikipedia, and that's saying a lot! Just because one lunatic prints these ridiculous claims in a book, and one rabid wikipedian repeatedly reinforces them on the internet, doesn't make them legitimate, or worthy of comment in the article. The fact that anyone could even perceive racial stereotypes in this silly, silly film reveals the viewer's own racial bias (and this holds even if you claim to belong to the 'group being lampooned'). You can claim that small green rubber toys with inhuman features represent an attack on black people if you want, just because they wear sunglasses and breakdance, but in order to do this you'd have to believe that no one else wears sunglasses or breakdances. What is is that makes a viewer so hypersensitive as to apprehend racial bias where clearly none exists? In any case, until there's more evidence to substantiate this ridiculous claim, there's no argument for making the reference in the article. (Unsigned.)

I didn't concoct the racism charge. It was much discussed when the film premiered. It is clear that the gremlins are, culturally, portrayed as African Americans -- in dress; music preference; dance; and in some respects, in appearance; the fried chicken, their behavior and negative "racial" stereotypes notwithstanding. Perhaps the unidentified "contributor" is too young to recall the controversy, but it was very real and very evident at the time of the movie's release. deeceevoice 01:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, someone put this out as a poll on yahoo a couple weeks ago, linking this article. Overwhelming response was that the film is not racist. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070320161805AAK76Rb —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.176.201.10 (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

I think the current revision is acceptable. It indicates that a few people have criticized the film as Racist, but does not give undue weight to their claims. If CanadianCaesar is happy leaving it this way then so am I. Edders 14:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Some opinion poll of, presumably, predominantly whites is utterly meaningless in this context. Facts are facts; the controversy was real -- as appropriately referenced in the article. deeceevoice 23:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Genre trend

I've added one sentence a couple of times, but another contributor believes it is inappropriate to the article (see discussion at my talk page). To the section reading "Gremlins was produced during a time when combining horror with comedy became increasingly popular. The film Ghostbusters, released in the same year as Gremlins – and later Beetlejuice (1988) and other such films – were part of this growing trend," I've tried to add: "which began in earnest after An American Werewolf in London (1981) grossed over $30 million at the U.S. box office<ref>[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082010/business Business Data for An American Werewolf in London], the Internet Movie Database, URL accessed 31 August 2006.</ref>. I don't see any problem with the sentence, and I've explained on my talk page that I think it's important to mention the first widely successful title in the trend. I'd be interested in what other editors think about this. MisfitToys 20:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I have issue with two things:

1. the term "in earnest" sounds a bit like a weasel word to me
2. your reference is simply box office data. If you had a review of either Gremlins of Werewolf, or a published a paper on the subject, it would be fine. As it is, it seems like you're inferring something, which constitutes original research. - Zepheus <ツィフィアス> 20:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your point about "in earnest"; I've found a better link (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=horrorcomedy.htm), and would suggest the sentence: "The film Ghostbusters, released in the same year as Gremlins – and later Beetlejuice (1988) and other such films – were part of this growing trend, which increased after An American Werewolf in London (1981) grossed over $30 million at the U.S. box office." MisfitToys 22:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You'd still be putting your OR right in the middle of the stuff referenced to one source if you do it that way. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 03:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I repeat: This is not OR (obviously, including a reference link would preclude it from being OR); you are seriously distorting Wikipedia guidelines in that area. Exactly what "personal theory" do you believe I am presenting? The fact that the comedy-horror trend substantially increased after Werewolf is plainly evident from the facts, and is hardly a "theory". Aside from that, the sentence could be added to the end of the paragraph to keep from mixing the sources. MisfitToys 20:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Even if it's not OR, I still don't see why you continue in your quest to break the consistency of referencing in the article by adding what you say with what published opinions say. This is a little less than what you'd expect from a quality article. Beyond the genre, your connecting these two movies is essentially your idea; your presuming they don't belong to different traditions within the horror-comedy genre. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Kamillions and Beasties

I have not seen any justification for therir repeated removal from the list in the "Legacy" section; therefore, I can only consider it vandalism. The cover for Kamillions compares itself to Gremlins and The Fly and the cover of Beasties cites its influences as Gremlins and Back to the Future. The fact that All Movie Guide has deigned them to obscure to be covered does not make them irrrelevant. --Scottandrewhutchins 15:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Stop deleting my edits and characterizing them as OR. Information off the cover is hardly OR. The internet can't be the sole source of information on a topic. --Scottandrewhutchins 22:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Then start quoting the damn cover instead of a message board! CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

IMDb is not a message board and is a much more reliable source than All Movies Guide, which is loaded with errors about anything less than high-profile, especially in the plot summaries. Stop claiming that I have vandalized. This is false characterization of my edits. --Scottandrewhutchins 22:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, anyone can submit a review to IMDb, and there is a message board. These are the only things you're linking to. You accusing me of vandalism is a pot calling a kettle black. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I put in the quotes, but you vandalized the page while I was doing it. There are message boards on IMDb, but information on IMDb goes through a stringent review process, so you are being reductive and false in your assessment. --Scottandrewhutchins 22:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Please explain why the revisions in my edit here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gremlins&oldid=73470748 were worthy of reversion. You asked for better sources, and I provided them. --Scottandrewhutchins 12:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Peltzer Peeler Juicer

It's never called a "blender" IN THE FILM. --Scottandrewhutchins 21:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

That's what it is, that's what it's referred to as in both DVD commentaries, that's what would be most understandable to the average reader, and that can help keep the plot section brief. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 21:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

No, it's referred to as the Peltzer Peeler Juicer, and it's also mentioned that it's now in Joe Dante's garage. --Scottandrewhutchins 22:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It may be referred to as both, but why not write the article in plain English? It's not just for fanatics. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 22:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

7" Records

Bauxi, they were 33 1/3 RPM and came from Hardee's. I, unfortunately, left them at home when I went to grad school, so I can't cite them, though. They might have come in handy when I was writing about Joe Dante for my exit exam (although I had so much material, I doubt it--I covered all his films except The Warlord: Battle for the Galaxy, The Haunted Lighthouse, and Homecoming, which was unreleased at the time, and the previous two unavailable to me.). --Scottandrewhutchins 02:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Gizmo

How is it that there isn't a single picture of Gizmo in all of Wikipedia? H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 06:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No pictures of Gizmo? In all of Wikipedia? Are you sure?. Maybe he doesn't like flash photography. ;) CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh don't give me that, we could find a direct picture of him for this page. H2P ^{(Yell at me for what I've done)} 23:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Not necessary, would be difficult to defend as fair use, given that there are mogwai pictures and Gizmo looks exactly alike. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

There needs to be a good image of Gizmo. In fact, there aren't any images of any characters from this film except for some Gremlins/Mogwai that aren't Gizmo or Stripe. When I'm able to take DVD screen captures, I'll upload some images of Gizmo.--JFP 19:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you think of a reason why we'd need that? CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 20:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Gizmo is soooo cute!!!!! There soooooo needs to be a good picture of him!!!!!!!!* *Lover of the sand 13:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)*

Latin?

Infobox: Language: Latin. Really? Sounded more like American English to me. Druworos 12:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone has removed the entire Gremlins article and replaced with "gremlins suck balls". If anyone can rebuild the article, the input is VERY necessary... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.36.210.198 (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

After Midnight

I was always confused about the "no feeding after midnight rule." Since, technically, every time is after midnight, when does it "reset?" 12:01 AM is obviously dangerous time to feed them, but when is it safe to feed them again? - Eridani 17:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

There's no answer. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It resets when Dawn Breaks.Dabeebo929 21:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It is safe after 6 am.

Charges of Racism

Hey - just want to nip this thing in the bud before it continues any longer :) Could CanadianCaesar please explain in detail why they keep undoing my edit to the racism section? Thanks :) Edders 23:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Because you're mixing up what the sources say. I've already shortened it by trimming original research. Other than that WP:IDONTLIKEIT doesn't dictate what the section says. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 23:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the two criticisms (which obviously I'm only basing upon what's been put on wikipedia since I can't exactly look them up) look identical to me. For example: "They are wild, drunken, violent, murderous" is the same as Turner's characterization of them as "destructive" and "pesky" and how they "cannot get enough to drink". Furthermore, the claim they are "seductive and lascivious" is also made by Turner when she points out their "pursuing of the hero's girlfriend". Both of them point out the breakdancing Gremlin. The only thing Turner adds is the bit about cigarrettes and their dress sense. There should be no reason for us to list Rosenbaum's claim and then repeat this information with Turner's entire quotation on the subject.

Repeating the same information twice makes the section look unencyclopedic and implies there is a major controversy over Gremlins being racist. Unless you believe otherwise I think we should just paraphrase Turner as holding the same opinion as the film critic, not give her a whole mini-paragraph to herself. :) Edders 23:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

They are not identical and it's destructive to just assume they are. Anyway, I've integrated the sections, keeping the analysis- and yes it's scholarly analysis, so it is worth keeping- and I hope that appeases the POV pushers. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 00:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I never 'assumed' they were identical: I've already pointed out how they say exactly the same things aside from two minor additions by Turner. Also, I never disputed whether Turner's analysis is "scholarly" so that's not really relevent. My main objection was using the entire paragraph from Turner rather than simple paraphrasing, but you've actually gone one step further and integrated it into another section :). No idea who POV pushers are :S. Regardless, I have no problem with it now. Glad we've sorted it out :). Edders 02:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The stuff attributed to the first source was the half-sentence just before the footnote. So no, they don't say the same thing. And people trying to mess with that section has been a real problem. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh, don't quite understand but it's fine now so never mind. :) Edders 02:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Debrouillards

A magazine called Les Debrouillards had Gremlins in their Top 5 Scariest Monsters (Top 5 monstres les plus effrayants). Worth noting? Jay B. 22:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Assuming there isn't a seperate article on the gremlins themselves I can't see any problem so long as you have a citation. Edders 20:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Furbys

Remember those Furby toys that were big in the late 90's? I always thought they were partly inspired by this film. Worth a mention? Rogerthat ^Talk 09:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC) and people out there GRIMLENS arent real!!!! there is a movie about grimlens it is scary it tell more about them and how they are good and bad:) so if you would like to know more get the movie!

Gremlins 3??

Is there any talk about a third movie at the end of the second there was one gremlin left so is there a possible trilogy??

• There's actually two left, the "female" one in the building and the one trapped in concrete who solidifies on the Church. The latter is immune to sunlight! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brindy666 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

horror?

I've watched the movie, it isn't horror.I am sooooo cool! 23:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

We have a journal article that says it's a mix of comedy and horror; then we have your opinion that there is no horror. Which, then, should we cite? Which qualifies as the reliable source, the article or this message you posted on this talk page? Would you like this article to cite you? Should we link to your userpage and add your professional username to the list of references? 70.64.77.186 (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Alien script

In the Wikipedia page for Alien, it says the movie originally started as a script called Gremlins.

So, what's the deal? Was that script the basis for the Chris Columbus script for "Gremlins"? Or was Columbus' script the basis for what became the "Alien" script?

~~agustinaldo~~

Orson Welles

There seems to be a couple of links to Welles in the first movie. There's a "time machine" behind the father when he's on the phone at the convention (which later has dissapeared leaving confused looking people and some charred remains on the floor) and someone says something like "there's some Orson Welles type crap going down" at some point during the movie, one of the sheriffs I think. I did a search for a link but haven't found anything solid except this page which lists "Gremlins 1942" on a list of Welles materials.

http://www.indiana.edu/~liblilly/guides/welles/appendixc.html

Any thoughts? --Brindy666 (talk) 15:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Pointless redirect

Does anyone else think that Bright light should not redirect here? I have made the change, but am still curious to see if anyone thinks that it should stay. Quickmythril (talk) 08:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with it being deleted. While redirects are cheap, this one is unimportant. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 15:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)