Talk:Mac and Me

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wheels4life

I was 7 when I first saw it in the theater and loved it!...I was born with spina bifida and have been in a wheelchair my whole life. So, seeing another kid in a chair doing crazy stuff like flying off cliffs and skitching behind cars was awsome! I mean, try and name another movie where a disabled kid gets to be the hero instead of the victim! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wheels4life (talk • contribs) 07:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i think it's pretty cool that they cast a child-actor who was also wheelchair-bound in real life, and who is not portrayed as someone the audience needs to feel sorry for. now i'm not saying hollywood should always try to match real handicaps with portrayed disabilities. after all, being handicapped does not magically change you into a good actor. i just hate that hollywood never lets reality in: fat people are thin people in fat-suits, ugly people are gorgeous people in ugly-makeup and the disabled have a fine-working body.

i feel 'method-acting' makes things worse: actors who run around blindfolded for a few days and then fancy they know perfectly well 'how a blind person feels' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.127.245.1 (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]