Talk:Mystery Men

Info

More information and less critique is required. - Caleb Osment 07:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Soundtrack links to Wil Wheaton (actor), but should link to Will Wheaton (singer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:151:C000:11EB:84D8:9E0B:4102:BAED (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Who is Jacob Levy?

...and 'Jacob Levy', the mastermind behind the whole team who earns his position from Dr.Power and the UCC-league.

Mystery Men is one of my favorite movies, and yet I don't remember anyone named Jacob Levy... nor Dr. Power or any organization called the "UCC-league".

Tipa 21:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Trivia Section

Many Wikipedia articles have sections where references to the topic are pointed out in other pop-culture subjects. Therefore, there really isn't a reason to remove the Trivia section from this article. If anything, it needs expanding. Zubenelgenubi 23:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• How is a shovel icon called shoveler a reference to Mystery Men? I agree, it needs expanding, it needs sources that prove that there is a link. Right now there is no established link and unless you can provide one it will be removed. Mallanox 10:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It is a reference because there is a character in the movie Mystery Men who is named "The Shoveler." If it were not a reference to this comic book and movie character, then the mace in World of Warcraft would be simply called "The Shovel." (A "shoveler" is a person who shovels, not an inanimate object.) Furthermore, there is no other historical or fantasy story/film/gaming example of a shovel being used as a two-handed mace (unless you can provide one that I am unaware of). Finally, MMOGS in general, and WoW in particular, are stuffed with pop-culture references. Vist http://www.wowwiki.com/List_of_pop_culture_references_in_Warcraft for a partial list. And yes, you'll find "The Shoveler" on this list. Zubenelgenubi 03:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
    • That isn't a very convincing argument and unless it is sourced it is original research and needs to be removed. Please source this if you can. If you can't it has to go. Mallanox 07:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
      • It is as convincing as it needs to be. It is as convincing as any other reference mentioned in any other movie or TV show article on Wikipedia. Therefore it will stay. I believe that no amount of evidence would convince you anyway. You just want the "Triva" section removed because (as you stated the first time you removed it) you think that "Warcraft info isn't relevant to this film article." I believe that you refusing to accept any of the evidence or logic I provided indicates this. Zubenelgenubi 21:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
        • That isn't true, I assure you. This comes under the rules of original research which in a nutshell means you may know something to be true and even if I think it too, unless there is a reliable and independent source that says something like "There is a device in Warcraft called the Shoveler, game designer Joe Bloggs confirms that he thought of the name after watching Mystery Men" then the only source of the information is you. You don't know for an indisputable fact, or at least you haven't provided a source, that the name Shoveler is a reference to Mystery Men, it's merely the same word. I'm trying to help you here, and I know there are some rules around here that at first don't make a lot of sense. The best way to think about it is this, Wikipedia is not based on what is true, it's based on what is verifiable. In short, if you can't prove what you say, don't say it. Mallanox 00:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
          • Yes, thank you for the "help." Can I assume then that you will be "helping" all of the hundreds (or thousands) of other articles about movies and television shows which contain information about in-jokes and pop-culture references? If so, you’re going to be very busy over on the pages devoted to The Simpsons episodes. The reference to this film in the World of Warcraft is very clear. Your argument that it needs to be "verified" is just a shifting ground fallacy. First, you removed the "Trivia" section because, in your own words, "Warcraft info isn't relevant to this film article." So I pointed out that many, many other film articles include exactly this sort of reference, and therefore it does belong in the article. Next, you demanded evidence that the clear and obvious reference was, in fact, a reference. Once I provided that evidence using simple logic as well as an external source, you're now demanding a specific statement from the Game Designer stating it as a fact. Seriously now, I fail to see why you are so hostile toward the simple idea of a Trivia section in this one specific movie article when there are hundreds of others in Wikipedia that happily get along without such intense scrutiny and demand for unreasonably high levels of verification.
            • The need for verification is one of the policies of Wikipedia, it's not my personal invention. And yes, I will be "helping" and I have "helped" a great many articles in the past. In-jokes and pop-culture references are fine if they are sourced. The source you provided isn't reliable, it's another wiki which anyone can alter. The first version of that pages was this [1] and there is no evidence to suggest that the creator of that list did any kind of research whatsoever, they merely used their own pop culture knowledge which may or may not coincide with that of that of the creator of that part of the game. I'm demanding a source that states that the Shoveler in Warcraft is so named because whoever came up with it saw Mystery Men, if that source is the game designer, that would be great.

The burden of proof is on you I'm afraid, if you can't come up with a source this information will have to be removed. If you don't trust me we could take this to Third Opinion and get someone else to look at it. Mallanox 08:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • And I'm saying that your demand that the game designer himself come out and confirm the reference is rediculous. I'm saying that you simply don't want the trivia section in the article for reasons that have nothing to do with verification, and you've created an unreasonably high level of "required" proof because you know it will never happen. You never answered my question as to why this film article must have such a huge burden of proof for one simple reference when hunderds of others don't. Zubenelgenubi 22:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A question here: How far does original research impede obvious conclusions. I don't see a reference that Captain Amazing hiding behind glasses in his alter-ego is an allusion to Superman/Clark Kent, nor do I think is needed one for his being a billionaire being an allusion to Batman . It is not my intention to get in the long dead 'shoveler' question, rather inquiring on how much is the need to cite sources required. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cafeeine (talk • contribs) 02:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see how calling a weapon "The Shoveler" is a reference to Mystery Men, I mean the term describes people who "shovel" in general.

Third Opinion

Just a note that you might want to take a look at WP:TRIV. Although it's only a guideline, it should offer some help. Most articles are slowly moving away from trivia sections anyway, and since there's only one item under the said section here, it ought to be moved elsewhere in the article (not eliminated if you can avoid it)! // Pilotguy radar contact 00:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Ah. A very helpful point to make. This style critique is quite a bit more useful than simply demanding that the plainly obvious be eliminated. Thank you. Zubenelgenubi 02:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, but read the whole thing including WP:TRIV#Other_policies_apply. Mallanox 09:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
• So as I understand it, Pilotguy, our Third Opinion Person, believes that the World of Warcraft Shoveler reference should stay in the article, but that for stylistic reasons it should be incorporated in the text elsewhere and the "Trivia" section removed. (Please correct me if I'm wrong, Pilotguy). To me, this looks like a reasonable compromise that will strenghten the article, and can be accomplished without too much muss and fuss. Zubenelgenubi 05:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Furious At The Ending

Did Mr. Furious -really- display super-powers at the end of the movie? In my personal opinion, it could have simply been a case of a trained fighter being -really- pissed off. Lots42 (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've never really thought about it, but I'd assume that it was super strength as a way to make it more dramatic to the character.

Of course. Were you paying attention at ALL?! Please don't be hittin' the bong at crucial moments, because it really makes me ANGRY HAVING TO EXPLAIN THESE THINGS TO YOU!!!!!!!!!

Captain Amazing's Powers

After viewing the movie after a long hiatus, I gathered that Cpt. Amazing "powers" were gleamed from his gadgets a la Batman versus having actual powers like Superman. The fight scene with the Red-eyes could have been accomplished by a well-trained fighter.98.24.122.5 (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Captain Amazing ... a hero?

I disagree with classifying Captain Amazing as a hero. The first real thing he does in the movie is intentionally work to release a dangerous psychotic into the general public. Amazing -was- a hero, but now he's a villain. Lots42 (talk) 06:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a "villain", he's just became a stick for the media. He isn't evil, its that he now treats heroism as a job-which is in treat seeing as the masses are loosing interest in him now that all the big villains are gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.205.251 (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ballerinaman

Who was it that played this part? I think this ia just a relevant (and amusing) as the references to Pencilhead, et. al. Jokem (talk) 19:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Danny Boyle

I have never seen anything that said Danny Boyle had anything to do with this film. I'm all but sure that this is a mistake. Shannon Tucker (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Weasel Words

"Despite its list of stars Mystery Men was widely considered [weasel words] to be a flop with a final box office gross of just $29,762,011 domestically and $3,699,000 outside the USA.[1]" Consider replacing "Mystery Men was widely considered" with some variant of "mathematics and Hollywood economics dictated Mystery Men.." It made half what it cost to make it. That is considered a flop by Hollywood standards, and is therefore "widely considered" to be a flop both in and out of Hollywood. I love this movie, and I accept it's a financial flop. Is there anyone challenging this? I'm not aware of an actual book defining Hollywood standards which could be cited as a source, aside from the bank books of any movie production company. Sometimes "weasel words" are the best you can do. ZachsMind (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I just don't understand the people in this talk page who just refuse to get it. You must be able to cite a reliable third party source for any claim that you make about this film. Otherwise, any statement you add, no matter how "obvious" it may be to you, is original research and will be flagged and/or removed. No, weasel words are not "the best you can do". Weasel words are unacceptable, that's why there is a template to indicate that they aren't acceptable. Stating that it earned only half of its budget in box office returns is a statement of fact as long as you have a reliable third party source to support the figures; if you don't have a source, it's original research. Inserting a weasel statement like "Everyone knows it was a flop" is not constructive unless you can identify who specifically makes this claim. Citation 1 in the passage you quoted supports the financial statement that it grossed $29 million domestically and $3 million internationally. It does not support the claim that it is "widely considered a flop". That's you making an original claim, making an extrapolation from cited facts, forming a synthesis of the data yourself. That is the definition of "original research". Don't like the rules? No one is forcing you to edit Wikipedia. 12.233.147.42 (talk) 02:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Oj, that's bullshit. A movie earning half it's budget is very clearly a _Flop_! No need to “back-up the claim“ that snow is cold. 2.247.247.174 (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Not every little “claim“ has to be verified. Everyone can do the math. And everyone will consider a movie losing tens of millions a flop. There is absolutly no need to find a source for that, as long as the numbers itself are properly sourced. Gott (talk) 02:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mystery Men. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/review/452
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.accessatlanta.com/movies/content/shared/movies/reviews/M/mysterymen.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Blue Raja/Green Lama

The article could be improved, if it pointed out the reference/tribute to the Green Lama, '30s pulp fiction hero. Tex (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Herkimer Battle Jitney

The plot should mention "They drive into battle using a Herkimer Battle Jitney, a salvaged war vehicle".. And then have an article on that as a unique movie prop

Patbahn (talk) 19:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Comic book continuation

Mystery Men '99 is a comic book limited series published by Dark Horse Comics that was served as a continuation of Mystery Men (1999), 24.111.55.7 (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)