Talk:Death to Smoochy

Canada: Ontario / Toronto Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto (assessed as Low-importance).

Comedy

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Film: Canadian / American

	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
	This article is supported by the Canadian cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

What Does This Mean?

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The lede paragraph contains this line, "This film also shows [Robin Williams] as his antithesis incarnate, since he plays a corrupted, nearly psychopathic children's TV host." I do not understand what this is supposed to mean.Seantrinityohara (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

It means that in "real life" he behaves in a way that is opposite to his behavior as a giant costumed children's star. I recommend consulting merriam-webster's dictionary online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.165.249 (talk) 00:55, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sabotage attempts--more detail needed?

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Would it be appropriate to list some of the tactics Rainbow Randolph uses to discredit Smoochy? I wouldn't describe entire scenes in detail, but short summaries ought to be OK...(For instance, Randolph switches the cookies and curses on live TV; he poses as a children's TV advocate in order to trick Smoochy into performing at a Nazi rally.) --ISNorden 21:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Cult Status

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Anyone care to mention the apparent cult status of this film now? Mcflytrap 21:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I can personally state that this film is a cult classic. It's popular with a large number of intellectuals, as the movie has a lot of hidden social commentaries. For the dangers of mass marketing and the effects media has on children, there is a lot of material in the movie that people overlook. Coolgamer (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Any 'big-name' third party reliable source would certainly be appropiate for the article. Has a nationally publicized movie critic called it a cult status? Lots42 (talk) 08:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Known mostly...

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

"... for its vulgar humor"?

I don't think it is. It's not like it's South Park or something. In the film, the absurdist-parodical comedy and the satire are just as prominent. Sources, or is this just something someone made up? ~Switch ^{t c g} 04:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

The second reference (about the film's cult status) does not work

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Nothing more to add here. :-) Waltham, The Duke of 09:45, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Add topic