Talk:Mac and Me

Bad Joke

I am not sure whose idea of a bad joke it was to use the phrase "feature-length McDonald's commercial" as the actual description for this film. It is locked so that it cannot be changed back to what it really is: a "feature-length motion picture". However much you may dislike this movie, there is no such thing as a "feature-length" commercial. It is not even a commercial in the classic sense. Various products are displayed prominently throughout, so how is this film not a commercial for those other items, also? So now, according to this standard, every film that features a scene in a business of some sort whose logo is not altered and the film gets compensated (I am sure that is a lot of them) is a "feature-length commercial". Using descriptive terms based on opinion as part of a definition is unprofessional and misleading. People unfamiliar with this movie and who may not take the time to watch it, would be extremely confused about what a "feature-length commercial" even is. I guess that "Miracle on 34th Street" is now a "feature-length commercial" for Macy's because the production company was compensated in using the store as a free set. Is the "Breakfast Club" "feature length propaganda" for public schools? Is "Mac and Me" a bad movie? Yes. A commercial? Have it your way. Bigzach1000 (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a very compelling argument...RONALD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.33.73 (talk) 03:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Stub development?

There seems to be more to this movie than the short, rather POV stub that's here; unfortunately, I've never actually seen it, so I can't really say much more. Can someone who's actually seen this help out? Thanks. -lee 22:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I saw it as a kid. Even at age 8 I knew it was a blatant advertisement for the products cited. It truly was horrible. There was a rash of similar product-placement intensive movies during that time, like The Wizard (Nintendo and Universal Studios). While the latter had some fun to it, this just wasn't any good. Bobak 19:40, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

That's what made it fun to watch. I'm sure it was meant to be blatant enough so that kids could laugh at it.

which made the movie a bad investment since parents decide what movie children will see. and while many parents like corporate satire (it makes them feel smarter then all the morons who supposedly 'fell for it') they also like to preserve the idea of their child as being 'unspoiled', and stupid in an adorable cute clumsy way (and therefore to 'pure' to understand and appreciate satire) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.127.245.1 (talk) 01:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Conan

The article mentions a clip where a guy in a wheelchair falls off a cliff. In the terms of the movie what -happened- to the wheelchair dude? I think it should be noted. Lots42 13:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Eric, "the wheelchair dude", survived the fall and near drowning with the help of MAC 204.15.6.99 (talk) 03:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

All Cleaned Up!

I have added a lot of research with footnotes. This article should not be considered a stub any longer. 204.15.6.99 (talk) 03:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Reference #9

Number 9 in the list of references links to an article from 1999, long before Paul was released or mentioned in the media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.236.102 (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

0%

It says this has a 0% on Rotten Tomatoes. That is because no critics have reviewed it. Therefore, the 0% makes no sense. Shouldn't we use the 42% audience rating instead? 98.219.123.213 (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

User voted web polls such as Rotten Tomatoes audience scores are not reliable and should not be used. I changed the article to indicate the number of reviews used to create the score, which is standard practice for film articles. -- 109.79.139.217 (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

What a load of crap

Did the person who wrote this article even see the movie, or did he/she read a review? Eric had no sister, the girl was his friend, their was no Sheriff in the movie....I like this movie, and the person who wrote this article has bastardised it in the description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.119.213 (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Male pronouns

The plot summary frequently use scripture style to refer to MAC as "he", "him", "his" (and sometimes "it") without context, as one would refer to god or jesus. The page has been updated to properly capitalize the pronouns per the scriptural conventions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.12.232 (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

What "scriptural conventions" are those? This movie is not Scripture. More importantly, no source cited for this article appears to use the conventions you describe to refer to the MAC character. Your changes are being reverted as nothing other than a reflection of your own preferences and/or interpretations unless and until you can provide evidence of some reliable source that supports them. Dwpaul ^Talk 00:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Ronald McDonald Children's Charities

On where it says "It had a profit-sharing arrangement with Ronald McDonald Children's Charities.", could you please change it to Ronald McDonald House Charities. That's the correct name for the charity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.35.88 (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Common Sense Media...

@Roonse: As I said before, Common Sense Media is not an acceptable source to use because according to its Wikipedia page, it is a "non-profit organization that provides education and advocacy to families to promote safe technology and media for children" rather than an actual film critic. Also, I'm sure you could find information about the film's Skittles marketing elsewhere. Additionally, as I also said before, RT scores are customarily placed at the top of a film page's "Reception" section.--Neateditor123 (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)Neateditor123

Common Sense Media is considered by Rotten Tomatoes – widely used across WikiProject Film – to be a "Tomatometer-approved publication",[1] with its opinions being factored into RT scores. The site is also notable enough to have had its own Wikipedia article for almost a decade. As for the placement of RT ratings, that site considers retrospective reviews, which is why its scores are placed after contemporary reactions within articles for pre-Internet films like The Ten Commandments, Doctor Zhivago and Star Wars. Good articles, no less. Roonse (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Roonse: While I admittedly do see your point with the RT score being put after the original reviews (and will put that debate to rest), I personally think your argument for keeping the Common Sense Media review up under the "Reception" section is ridiculous. Just because a website has had its own Wikipedia article for more than a decade (and is somehow included with the RT reviews) does not make it a legitimate film critic. Again, Common Sense Media is a parental media advisory site, NOT an actual film critic that should be included in the "Reception" section.--Neateditor123 (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2019 (UTC)Neateditor123

Common Sense Media is recognised by RT as a critic.[2] RT is recognised by Wikipedia as a reliable aggregator of critical reviews. On top of that, CSM's notability is asserted by its decade-long presence on Wikipedia. Not seeing the problem here. Roonse (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Roonse: You're not getting the point. Common Sense Media is not a film critic, and therefore should not be included under this page's "Critical Reception" section. However long its page may have been on Wikipedia is completely irrelevant.--Neateditor123 (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)Neateditor123

You keep claiming that CSM isn't a critic, but RT unequivocally says it is, and RT is what Wiki uses to illustrate critical opinion. We've made our points (yes, I'm "getting" it, Einstein), so let's see what others think. They may well side with you. Roonse (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Roonse: Just because RT somehow counts Common Sense Media as a legitimate film critic (and they have also counted reviews from blogs, so it's not like that's the only source they have used that isn't usable on Wikipedia) most definitely does not make it one. That is literally all I'm trying to say here.--Neateditor123 (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)Neateditor123

NOTE: Since the user who I was discussing this issue with (Roonse) was just identified as a sock puppet of The abominable Wiki troll and blocked from editing Wikipedia, I have reverted to my original edit of the "Reception" section with the CSM review removed and the RT score moved to the top of the section. If anyone wants to discuss this issue further, please reply to this comment.--Neateditor123 (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2019 (UTC)Neateditor123