Talk:The Room

Adam Green

Is Adam Green (filmmaker) notable enough to mention as a fan of this movie? I've seen him in a video being interviewed after waiting in line to see it. "Wiseau promotes the film as a black comedy and insists that the “unintentional” humor is intentional. People who have seen the film doubt this claim."

As for the attempted deletion of the last sentence; Even the NPR story linked below reports that people who watched this film don't believe the humor is intentional. Wikipedia isn't a place for censorship to suit personal agendas.

Blacklisted-link

• https://intensitiescultmedia.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/j-macdowell-j-zborowski-the-aesthetics-of-so-bad-its-good1.pdf

• linked to by http://web.archive.org/web/20140622135734/http://www2.hull.ac.uk/fass/film-studies/staff/james-zborowski.aspx
• also at http://thelesserfeat.blogspot.com/2013/03/value-intention-and-aesthetics-of-so.html

64.175.40.235 (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Request for image correction

At private WP:OTRS ticket:2018081010005606 a user requests a correction to the non-free image leading this article.

Somehow a black and white image is used. The official movie poster has color. The request is for someone to copy the image from the IMDB entry to use in this article.

Are any of this article's editors available to replace the incorrect black and white File:TheRoomMovie.jpg with a copy of the IMDB color image? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@PatTheMoron and Jeanjung212: I think you have edited this in the past. Are you available to take this request? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I can do that. PatTheMoron (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Done! PatTheMoron (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@PatTheMoron: Thanks! Jeanjung212 (talk) 14:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Resolved

Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Box office source review

I was looking for box office for the room when google found that according to wikipedia the box office was 1800$... compared to other articles in wikipedia where box office is written as total number, i found it really low given it's famous character.

This wiki article many times refers to https://ew.com/article/2008/12/12/crazy-cult-room/ as relevant source of information and provides it as source for box office aswell. however, the article itself states (on the current box office number): "Tommy Wiseau insists that he ”really doesn’t know” how the film fared at the box office on its initial release. However, one industry source states that the combined gross from the two-week run at two theaters — the Laemmle Fallbrook and Fairfax — was just $1,900." (only box office reference i found in article connected to the number)

i find one "industry source" highly unreliable, given you have other sources like IMDB which is at least a bit more believable with it's $7,840,034 Cumulative Worldwide Gross and Opening Weekend USA: $5,800, 30 June 2003. or https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=theroom.htm boxofficemojo's Domestic Total Gross: $549,602

i already tried to edit the article providing information from IMDB as total box office rather than some random number from 2 cinemas. the change was reverted tho so i would like someone more qualified to review the source and in case he finds it incorrect aswell edit it. at least put $1800 as information for "initial box office" not as "box office".

thank you for reviewing this— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.98.253.6 (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is that the number to be listed in articles is for initial box office, not re-releases later, and this is the way this and the other infoboxes for movies are formatted. Additionally, the boxofficemojo showing is a re-release done by Fathom Events in 2018. --Jeanjung212 (talk) 22:46, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, the infobox is usually just for the initial theatrical release, though I guess we could include the Box Office Mojo figure if people think it's relevant. We can't use the IMDb, though, because that's user-generated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:28, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 20 February 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. The opposes rely on "too many other topics", which is not a primary topic criterion. There can be many topics and still a primary, which lands consensus with the supports. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:48, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

---

• The Room (2003 film) → The Room
• The Room → The Room (disambiguation)

– This film has much more long-term significance than the other topics with this name, being an infamous cult classic that is still often shown in cinemas around the world today, and also spawned an unofficial video game adaptation as well as a book and film about its creation, plus Google mostly brings up results related to this film. However, when the all-time view counts are compared, this film only comes in fifth, though this may be due to this article being moved to its current title literally two weeks ago (not too sure how that gadget works in regard to recently moved articles), especially since the view counts for the past twenty days tell a different story. ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε💬 14:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC) —Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 20:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. © Tbhotch^™ (en-3). 19:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Unless the page views are somehow messed up, this page has barely any readers interested in it. --Gonnym (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Ok, I now see that the page was moved and using the previous title shows a different result. --Gonnym (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose There are too many other works of media called "The Room" to make the film the primary topic._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @Zxcvbnm:Well, I recently had Let It Go (Disney song) moved to just Let It Go despite the fact that Let It Go (disambiguation) is even bigger than the dab page for "The Room"...--ⓋᎯ☧ǿᖇǥ@ℤε💬 18:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure "The Room", a cult classic, is on par with "Let it Go", a pop culture phenomenon, in the cultural lexicon._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
      • This article is viewed at a much greater rate than the Let It Go one, surprisingly enough... Nohomersryan (talk) 03:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per ZXCVBNM. -- Netoholic @ 20:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support. I count 97% of pageviews for this movie, and it's the subject of an Oscar-nominated film itself. This is not even close; both facets of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC are filled easily here. Also, even if "too many things with this name" was a relevant argument, are we really going to say that nine other topics with articles is too much? Nine is barely a drop in the bucket. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Really?! The film "easily" meets WP:PRIMARYTOPIC #2?! There was no other meanings of "The Room" before the 2003 film?!! I beg to differ... which is why I'm [at] leaning oppose despite the page views. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Just because "The Room" had other meanings pre-2003 doesn't mean this can't now be a primary topic. —Will^(B) 14:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Uh, yes, it does, as per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC #2 – did you read my original comment?! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

• Support since the page views indicate that this is a primary topic. I would also argue that The Room is definitely seen as a cult classic in the "So bad it's good" vein. The film article would have a hat note to direct readers to the disambiguation page. Aoba47 (talk) 09:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support. This masterpiece is obviously WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Don't see any serious competition to this one on either count. The opposes seem so vague, they are tearing me apart. --Quiz shows 18:53, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support per the page views. —Will^(B) 18:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
• Support per the overwhelming difference in page views. --Jeanjung212 (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. A classic case of The Problem With Page Views. If there's a Primary Topic I'd suggest Harold Pinter's first play The Room. Andrewa (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Page views aren't the only consideration, I agree, but I still think, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, that the 2003 film The Room has more long-term significance than anything else listed. (Plus, 97% of the page views is a lot of page views.) —Will^(B) 14:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Even 97% isn't necessarily indicative of primary topic. I think we might need to agree to disagree on the signficance of Pinter's play. Pinter is studied in High School English in Australia, and his work is highly significant; On the other hand the 2003 film is regarded by many as forgetable. I think a case could even be made that the 2019 film by the same name is the more significant of the two, already winning several significant awards. Andrewa (talk) 08:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Too many well-known topics here for any to be a primary topic. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, a name this generic should unsurprisingly be held ambiguous. BD2412 T 04:21, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support, pageviews make it seem like long term primary topic.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support seems to meet WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Quahog (talk • contribs) 14:49, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

There seems no doubt that the 2003 film has and will likely retain a cult following. It fascinates some just as being such a bad film, see List of films considered the worst#The Room (2003). And it did make a good subject for a book The Disaster Artist and even a film based on the book. It probably also gets some attention because of its "gratuitous, anatomically incorrect sex" (see this review of The Disaster Artist) and this post will just increase that fascination I guess, and result in still more screenings and, dare I say it, increase the page statistics.

But is it really even a candidate for being one of the worst films made? What about the many that never even get released or reviewed? Nobody gives serious prizes for the worst sculpture or portrait or short story, probably we'd have articles on many efforts by five year olds if they did. MOBA is a noteworthy joke. Let us not take any of this too seriously. Andrewa (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Oh hi mark" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Oh hi mark. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 15#Oh hi mark until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 00:10, 15 May 2020 (UTC)