Talk:Sixteen Candles

Filming locations

I initially got my information on the filming locations for this movie from the website found at http://www.fast-rewind.com/sixteencandles.htm (scroll down on page). However, since there has been some disagreement as to the accuracy of the site, I emailed the principal of Niles North High School to find out if anyone there remembers the filming there. He in turn kindly emailed his staff and sent me the answers. The most relevant ones are here, edited to preserve privacy:

"I do not know if any of the film footage was used in the movie, but yes there was filming here at Niles North. It involved a cafeteria scene. Days before the filming crew arrived I was instructed to make two BBQ grills out of 55 gal. drums for their lunch."

"The main part of the movie was done at Niles East, but the cafeteria scene was filmed in the east cafe and the hallway that goes through both cafes. I was told that the autos room was used for the car scene during school, but im not positive about that."

"They were here that summer filming. They were headquartered in the East Cafe. You can call XXXXXX XXXXXXXX to confirm if you like. I know he spoke with someone a few years ago (possibly the same people involved here) about it. Someone was writing a book or doing a documentary."

"I worked as an intern under XXXX XXXXXXXX, summer school principal several years ago. Anyway, he told me that during summer school, John Hughes filmed the gym scenes and the auto shop scene here at Niles North. He also told me that they provided all the students with lunch on the days that they were filming here."

"Filming took place at Niles West in the gym. (I was there working)"

"According to the internet movie database, Niles North was listed as a used location. I was a freshman that year. They used Niles North as a site for tryouts for casting for small parts. Most of the shots for the movie were done at Niles East. The first part of the movie was shot at the track at Niles East in the basement of the school. Anymore questions just call me. By the way classic movie. My friend XXXXX XXXXXXXX was in the movie as an extra as well."

"I believe they only did some filming at Niles East- because I was teaching at off campus then ( which was located at Niles East at that time) and had to clear out my room for the filming in June. XXXX XXXXX was also teaching there at the time. Niles North was not used. I believe another high school was used. Possibly New Trier or Highland Park as I recall."

"If memory serves (and that's a weak spot these days), it was all at Niles East and around Skokie. FYI, "Risky Business" was also shot at East. The house interiors were sets built in the small gym, but the outside was in Highland Park. The NW baseball team was poised to be Tom Cruise's team mates, but by the time they were ready to shoot that scene it was so late into fall that not even Hollywood could have convinced anyone it was spring."

"Well, I tried to get your answer by calling Glenbrook North to see if I could get retired Principal Duffy's phone number - Director John Hughes attended Glenbrook North when Dr. Duffy was principal, and they kept in touch (much of Breakfast Club was filmed at GBN). Alas, I learned that Dr. Duffy died last year. Having seen Sixteen Candles more times than I care to admit, I don't recognize anything that looks like North, but that's a pretty unscientific answer."

Anyone wishing the edited information may contact me. Crypticfirefly 05:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

They also wanted to do filming at Superdawg on Milwaukee, Nagle and Devon in Chicago. The had a sign posted that they wanted as many cars as possible in the lot. Apparently people thought because of the movies name, it referred to song from the 50's so they showed up in '57 Chevy's and the like, needless to say they couldn't use any of it. I remember seeing the sign in the lot for about 2 weeks as I worked just down the street. Kielhofer 04:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kielhofer (talk • contribs)

Long Duk Dong

While the discussion about the Long Duk Dong character is interesting, I feel it takes away from the article about Sixteen Candles. Perhaps it merits its own separate entry in Wikipedia.

It's simply unacceptable to have an article about a major movie that is often accused of having explicitly racist content, and then not mentioning that in its article. I've added it back in, in a way that should fit in with the general character of Wikipedia. 141.161.92.130 19:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not generally accepted that Sixteen Candles is known for a racist controversy. It's unacceptable to make this the significant, leading summary of this feature film. There is scant evidence of this issue. Google search reveals little mention of this issue, except for a list of typecast "blunders" that is now viewed 25 years later: "it’s easier to appreciate Watanabe’s comic gem of a performance, which is on a par with other classic teen portrayals like John Belushi’s slob in Animal House and Sean Penn’s stoned-out surfer in Fast Times at Ridgemont High."

I've removed the nonsense about this being a racist movie because there is no source cited. Also, the crufty trivia section has no place in an encyclopedia article. If anything from the trivia is important enough to be in the article, it needs to be sourced and written as prose into the main body of the article per WP:AVTRIV. K1ng l0v3 16:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the removal...racism is thinking that mocking the character is racist. You can't mock people who are white (sorry, caucasians), because that is racist?, black? (Sorry, afro-americans) (sorry, some black people are not from USA), asian?. Come on. vaceituno 00:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems that there are many people who do consider it controversial, and maybe racist - this NPR programme is a fairly comprehensive review: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88591800 Conor (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Racism is not the only questionable content of this film. It treats sexual harassment as acceptable, normal behavior and it is not criticized or draw a attention to - this is completely false, sexual harassment is traumatic, threatening and intimidating. There needs to be a section on this in the article. As for external resources to back this up, there are a lot of blogs dedicated to the issue (are these acceptable as sources on Wikipedia?) and I imagine there would be reviews with the relevant criticisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.190.34 (talk) 13:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Blogs are not acceptable as sources for this material. Unless independent reliable sources discuss this, we cannot include the claim. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Rating

I am reverting this edit added as a source for the following claims:

• rated PG by the MPAA in the US
• originally rated R prior to appeal
• released just prior to the establishment of the PG-13 rating
• Both versions include the word "fuck" and exposed breasts.

The source says "Rating: R for sexual and mature themes" with one "Reviewer" (ac7193 (13 years old)) saying "This movie is rated PG. Not rated R!" then a correction from another (bookworm108 (14 years old)) saying, "the TV VERSION is rated PG, the REAL VERSION is rated R." Additionally, DVDs here, there and everywhere say PG, no ref has been provided for the "originally R" claim and the "Both versions include the word "fuck" and exposed breasts." has also not been cited. I'm yanking the who "Rating" section as unsourced and U.S.-centric. SummerPhD 16:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with removing the section, though perhaps it needs more clarification. Firstly, the rating for this movie is a constnt source of discussion and controversy (it was probably the "worst" PG movie ever in terms of content) and the information is therefore notable and pertinent. If you look closer at the reference provided you will find that it does, indeed, provide verification of the content cited (see the right hand columns). So all the information provided in the paragraph is, in fact, correct and verifiable. (The statement about the change from the original R to PG on appeal is also covered on the imdb website listing for the film, and I will add a reference to that if it will help).

The reason there is argument among the posters on this particular site over the rating is, I think, due to the fact that later video releases carried various ratings (indeed, the Amazon site seems to show different currently-available releases at both PG and R ratings). However, I don't have verifiable documentation of that beyond the fact that it is referred to in various places on the web as being PG, PG-13, and R.

As to the "US Centric" argument, that is not a reason to remove anything; if there is notable information about ratings elsewhere (beyond what's in the infobox) go ahead and add it.

I'm planning to re-add the section shortly with hopefully slightly clearer wording; if you still have a major objection let's discuss. Jgm 16:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

My reply is, I'm afraid, rather long. This particular section has a longish history, with far more contention than it deserves.

The source you cited does give a whole lot of information, including statements that we can reasonably assume mean "fuck" was said and breasts were exposed: "A shower scene shows a girl's naked torso....Some use of the words 'f--k'...."

Meanwhile, the article said: "Both versions include the word 'fuck' and exposed breasts.[1]" Problem: the source does not mention more than one version. Also, as this is in the "Rating" section, it clearly implies (along with the general context) that "fuck" and exposed breasts were the reasons for that rating. At that time, the MPAA did not explain the reasons for ratings. Maybe it was the talk of rape, buying undies, violence, "shit", or various combinations of these and/or other factors which "Common Sense Media" -- whoever they are -- didn't feel the need to include.

The original addition of this particular bit was by an editor who seemed to be inclined to use wikipedia to produce a guide to where certain types of content could be found in movies. It originally told us that one particular actress said "fuck" (though the film has others as well) and that the breasts were not of the actress in the role, but of a specific body double. At this point, we either need a particular reason for detailing specific content or to remove it.

A few reasons to include them do exist, if we can verify them to reliable sources as being of particular importance. Reasons I can think of off the top of my head would include:

• they are significant aspects of the movie (like incest in Cat People (film) or discussing incest, group sex, graphic violence, defecation, coprophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, child sexual abuse, etc. in The Aristocrats (film))
• meaningful controversy (large-scale protest and/or media attention) due to those items being in this movie (The Last Temptation of Christ (film) comes to mind)
• impact outside of the movie (did the occurrance of those factors in a PG film spur the creation of PG-13, PMRC, etc.?)
• cultural significance (hardcore sex in Caligula (film), Jodie Foster's role in Taxi Driver (film), etc.)

I haven't been able to find a reliable source for any of those, so far.

Note that imdb is not a reliable source for information, other than for "certain film authorship (screenwriting) credits". It's mostly a wiki.

SummerPhD 18:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

(The following is copied from my talk page for discussion here.)

The IMDB reference clearly documents the R --> PG on appeal statement.

The other reference (Commonsense) documents the content statments. Actually, a ref isn't formally required to keep this since it is verifiable (by watching the movie), but there it is.

"Both versions" isn't mine, but I took it to mean "both the version that was originally rated R and the version that was finally rated PG". This wouldn't necessarily imply that more than one released version exists. If you can clarify this aspect, please do.

I think you are confused because the Commonsense link also shows the film being rated R; this may be because there is at least one video release being marketed stating an R rating (as I added in the recent change). Jgm 15:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

(The above was copied from my talk page for discussion here.)

• IMDB documents the R --> PG on appeal No, imdb.com is a wiki. It is specifically singled out as an example of a non-reliable source.
• (Commonsense) documents the content statments/ref isn't required You are misunderstanding my point. We could easily verify that one of the lead characters had red hair. Including this in the "Rating" section, however, would imply that Ringwald's hair color had something to do with the rating. We have nothing to demonstrate that the use of the word "fuck" and the nudity were major aspects of the rating assigned. Further, as we have no information on the supposed content variation between the alleged "versions" we cannot say what was in anything other than the version currently available on DVD (which may, in fact, vary from some of the theatrical versions). Also, the text currently says the rating was appealed, then discusses "both versions" which implies it was re-cut and the new version was rated PG.
• "Both versions" isn't mine As you restored the text, it is your addition.
• took it to mean "both the version that was originally rated R and the version that was finally rated PG" The phrase "both versions" clearly refers to two versions existing (released or not), as would be the case if the film were re-cut and submitted for a new rating. An appeal involves asking for a different rating on the one version.[1]
• Commonsense shows rated R; one video release marketed R I cannot find sufficient info about commonsense to call them a reliable source in any context. If you have, please explain. I was unable to find any site listing a current, individual DVD said to be rated R. Various "collections" were listed as R, probably because of the inclusion of "The Breakfast Club". I did find amazon.com listing the old DVD[2] and VHS[3] as R. However, the accompanying graphic with the old DVD was marked PG and several reviewers for both noted that the product they received was PG. In the past, we've found that amazon.com's information comes from a variety of sources -- good, bad and inbetween. I couldn't determine where they got this info, but their own graphics and customers dispute it.

-- SummerPhD (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I hope the changes I made (excising mention of appeals and simplifying the claims) help move it towards something you can support. -- Jgm (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I just removed this:

"and was among the last PG-rated films to feature the level of profanity and nudity seen, including the word "fuck" and exposed breasts"

because the source is not reliable and doesn't say that. Rather than add a cite needed tag, I yanked it because a PG, per MPAA, "There may be some profanity and some depictions of violence or brief nudity."[4]

SummerPhD (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

For the moment, I've tagged "Current video releases are marketed under both "R" and "PG" ratings." as "dubious" because, as discussed, there is no reliable indication that a) there are PG and R versions or b) that the film is ever "marketed" as an R.

SummerPhD (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hoot man, you yourself wrote:

I did find amazon.com listing the old DVD[5] and VHS[6] as R.

just above. If that's not "marketing as", what is. Jgm (talk) 14:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

1) Amazon is not a reliable source.

2) This is not a "current video release".

3) The only indication that any of the releases are thought by any source to have been "R" is dubious (as it is in clear conflict with the rest of the page it is on, per feedback on that page and the image on that page).

Please read about reliable sources in re this.

SummerPhD (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have just reverted the following: "The film was released just eight weeks prior to the establishment of the PG-13 rating and was thus one of the last films given this rating to include the levels of profanity (including multiple uses of the word "fuck"), drug use and nudity seen; such content would subsequently garner a PG-13 rating."

• First claim "released just...prior to the establishment". That's synthesis/OR, but not a huge problem in and of itself. The question is why to include this factoid: it's true about hundreds of films. The justification (as such) is later on...
• Next: "and was thus one of the last films given this rating to include the levels of profanity...drug use and nudity". The cite shows no evidence of this. This assumes that films of similar content were all rated PG-13 or R after the addition of the PG-13.
• Finally "such content would subsequently garner a PG-13 rating." Again, the cite does not say this. It gives general descriptions of the content of various ratings categories. We cannot assume that our understanding of the descriptions and how we think they would be applied is correct: that's clear synthesis and/or OR. Additionally, we do not have any indication that the ratings, their descriptions and their application have been consistent over the past 23 years. In fact, the MPAA says (my emphasis added):

In July of 1984 the PG category was split into two groups- PG and PG-13. PG-13 meant a higher level of intensity[a] than was to be found in a film rated PG....In September of 1990 two more revisions were announced. First, the board began giving brief explanations of why a particular film received R ratings....Sometime later the board began applying the same explanations in the PG, PG-13[b] and NC-17 categories as well.[7]

• So:
  • [a] Originally, PG-13 was "a higher level of intensity", whatever that means. Saying that Sixteen Candles is at "a higher level of intensity" than all subsequent PG films is clearly original research.
  • [b] No explanation was given for the rating of Sixteen Candles, many contemporanious PGs or the earliest PG-13s.

SummerPhD (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

---

I must admit to being rather mystified at your application of these standards, somewhat higher than might be applied to, say, a masters' thesis, to this particular section of this particular article. But, to try to continue in good faith:

First, the impetus. This film is continually the subject of discussion regarding its rating. Believe it or not, it is unusual in its content for PG films, precisely because there was (as documented in the MPAA article), an increase in content levels for PG-rated films just before the establishment of the PG-13 rating. This is, in my opinion, a notable aspect of this film's place in history. Try a google search for something like "Sixteen Candles should be rated R" to get an idea of how prevalent a discussion point this remains. Try to find a movie rated PG after July 1984 that engenders that discussion. So perhaps if you can direct some of your efforts to finding a way to include this aspect rather than raising increasingly obtuse objections, we can move forward.

Your statement about "hundreds of films" does not stand up to a bit of critical thinking. (You ellipsed out the specific time period I included). How many films do you think were released in the US between May 4 and July 1, 1984? (Answer: less than 30) Of these, how many do you think were rated PG? (Answer: around 12, including, notably, The Natural, Ghostbusters Gremlins, Star Trek III, and The Karate Kid). Of these, how many do you imagine were envelope-pushers in terms of content to the extent that Sixteen Candles was? The real answer is "none", but admittedly there is room for subjective judgement there; in any event, the statement that this film is "one of the last" films to contain the content noted is absolutely and verifiably true (and, in fact, this film is mentioned in exactly this context in the MPAA article).

You say:

This assumes that films of similar content were all rated PG-13 or R after the addition of the PG-13.

Well, yes. The MPAA page citation describing the content of PG-13 films clearly states exactly that:

More than brief nudity will require at least a PG-13 rating (. . .) A motion picture’s single use of one of the harsher sexually-derived words, though only as an expletive, initially requires at least a PG-13 rating. More than one such expletive requires an R rating, as must even one of those words used in a sexual context.

I understand that you are saying that the detailed codification above may not have existed during the entire time that the PG-13 rating was in existence; however it is clear in context that the actual usage of the rating was always along these lines and that the current text is a formalization of that usage, and, again, the rating was specifially put in place for cases like Sixteen Candles and so it logically follows that films with similar content would subsequently be given the PG-13 rating.

Moreover, this is not an exceptional claim or a statement in a biography of a living person for which exceptional sources must be produced (per [[8]]. I feel the documentation provided for the statements made is more than sufficient given the nature and scope of this article.

(Finally, in your reversion you restored the statement -- which you yourself marked "dubious" -- about the current marketing of the film, which I had removed in my edit since I was not happy with the level of documentation I could find, given your bewildering concern about Amazon -- the biggest online marketplace today -- not being a reliable source for what is being marketed today).

Jgm (talk) 01:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I must admit to being rather mystified at your application of these standards...to this particular section of this particular article.

• My standards are not at issue. I am requesting unbiased facts from reliable, verifiable sources. I have not been able to find such. You telling me that I should continue looking to support your belief is rather the reverse of wp:v:"Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

there was (as documented in the MPAA article), an increase in content levels for PG-rated films just before the establishment of the PG-13 rating.

• I am unable to find this in the article, MPAA. Is there a reliable source directly supporting this in re this movie?

Try a google search for something like "Sixteen Candles should be rated R" to get an idea of how prevalent a discussion point this remains.

• "Your search - 'Sixteen Candles should be rated R' - did not match any documents."[9] Really, though, if this is such a prevelent discussion point, a reliable source is sure to have mentioned it.

direct some of your efforts to finding a way to include this aspect rather than raising increasingly obtuse objections

• I am requesting unbiased facts from reliable, verifiable sources.

How many films do you think were released in the US between May 4 and July 1, 1984? (Answer: less than 30)

• I don't know where you got that number from. That sounds rather low, but it's a moot point.

the statement that this film is "one of the last" films to contain the content noted is absolutely and verifiably true (and, in fact, this film is mentioned in exactly this context in the MPAA article).

• Your argument presents an air-tight case (in a wp:or-kinda way) that this was one of the last films released before PG-13 came out, which is quite different than what you are trying to demonstrate.

(and, in fact, this film is mentioned in exactly this context in the MPAA article).

• So check the source for the statement there and add it as a ref here.

I understand that you are saying that the detailed codification above may not have existed during the entire time ... however it is clear in context that the actual usage of the rating was always along these lines and that the current text is a formalization of that usage,

• If you can find a reliable source for that...

and, again, the rating was specifially put in place for cases like Sixteen Candles and so it logically follows that films with similar content would subsequently be given the PG-13 rating.

• If you can find a reliable source for that...

Moreover, this is not an exceptional claim or a statement in a biography of a living person for which exceptional sources must be produced (per [[10]]. I feel the documentation provided for the statements made is more than sufficient given the nature and scope of this article.

• I am not asking for a "exceptional" source. I am asking for a reliable source.

  The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. 'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.wp:v

given your bewildering concern about Amazon -- the biggest online marketplace today -- not being a reliable source for what is being marketed today).

• Amazon's listing are created automatically from a variety of sources, many of them unreliable (such as film "categories" created by users of imdb.com). This "information" is not how anything is "being marketed today", it is information, from various sources of varying quality, listed with the products.

SummerPhD 17:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Rating, December 2007

I've made another attempt, leaving off the bit about marketing (not very meaningful anyway), and sticking to verifiable facts supported by the MPAA site. Jgm (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's the current version:

The film was originally rated R by the MPAA in the US however, the rating was re-rated PG on appeal.[1](Unsigned, Search for "Sixteen Candles". [www.mpaa.org MPAA website], accessed 3 December 2007.) The film was released just eight weeks prior to the establishment of the PG-13 rating; it contains levels of profanity (including use of the word "fuck"), drug use and nudity that would result in a PG-13 rating shortly thereafter.[2](Motion Picture Association of America: What do the ratings mean (http://http//www.mpaa.org/FlmRat_Ratings.asp) )

The first piece is now accurate and verifiably sourced. The second part is, as always, the problem.

The source listed spells out mpaa guidelines for various ratings. Several problems exist:

• 1) These are current guidelines. Initially, per the MPAA "PG-13 meant a higher level of intensity". The source cited came later still. We do not know what happened in between.
• 2) We have nothing from a reliable source indicating that the content of this film was at "a higher level of intensity" as applied at the time PG-13 was introduced. The source cited does not mention this film in this context.
• 3) We have nothing from a reliable source indicating that the "levels of profanity (including use of the word 'fuck'), drug use and nudity" were above the level of a PG, once there was a PG-13.
• 4) Inclusion of the date of release to establishment of PG-13 timeframe is not supported by any reliable source. It reads as an attempt to include the original claims that this film was the reason for the rating through indirect means. Otherwise, it is there to support the supposition that this film would have been PG-13, had it come out several weeks later (an unsupported claim).
• 5) Spelling out specific elements of the film, including one word, in the context of discussing the PG-13 rating suggests that these elements lead to the initial R and would have lead to a PG-13, when we know nothing of the kind. In essence, you are asserting that this film goes "beyond the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language, adult activities or other elements" and that the specific elements you listed are the elements that went "beyond".

We currently have the following:

"The film was originally rated R by the MPAA in the US however, the rating was re-rated PG on appeal.[1]" This is well sourced and clearly applies to this article.

"The film was released just eight weeks prior to the establishment of the PG-13 rating;" While we can establish this with reliable sources, we cannot justify its inclusion in this article. We could (theoretically) establish what John Hughes did in the timeframe between the R and the PG ratings (who he had lunch with, what charities he supported, etc.). Adding this to this section of the article, however, would be wrong because it would clearly imply that his activities resulted in the new rating.

"it contains levels of profanity (including use of the word "fuck"), drug use and nudity that would result in a PG-13 rating shortly thereafter.[2]" The source does not say this.

SummerPhD (talk) 21:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Plot summary

I've removed the {{plot}} tag from the plot summary because, at around 500 words, it's pretty concise. --Tony Sidaway 09:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

When I recently edited this plot summary in a good faith attempt to improve the wording, I accidentally overlooked another editor's good faith reversion of earlier attempts to improve the wording. Some of my edits re-introduced wording the other editor reverted. Sorry. David F (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Who played Jake?

wtf is up with claiming that Jake was played by "Michael Schoeffling"? I'm pretty sure it was Matt Dillon. And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Schoeffling does not redirect to Matt Dillon. anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.90.28 (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You might be pretty sure it was Matt Dillon, but imdb and AMG say you're wrong. Dillon and Schoeffling do have a similar "look", though. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Details sourced to imdb

Just for the record, we have discussed imdb before and decided it isn't a reliable source. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for character profiles

far lesser films have v extensive character descriptions, but not this teen classic. sad. please help. any fans out there? thanks! CrankyEditrix (talk) 23:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

"Long Duk Dong" a vulgar pun?

I mean, come on. The guy's name sounds dirty. And, this article seems to imply that the kid's name is a reference to penises, too. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• The article doesn't seem to be an RS. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Website files

• http://www.highschoolmovies.com/mainTimeLine.swf
• http://www.highschoolmovies.com/high_school.html

WhisperToMe (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Rating!

I really think that the "Rating" section needs to be added again. It seems to be an important topic that should be mentioned when describing this movie. Alphius (talk) 01:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

We've been through this repeatedly. We need independent reliable sources for anything you'd like to add. The standard for inclusion is verifiability not truth. - SummerPhD (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Inaccurate information in this article

To whomever cares enough about "Sixteen Candles" to edit its Wikipedia page:

My name is Alison MacAdam, and an NPR story I reported is mentioned in this article. The brief quote suggests that I, unlike Roger Ebert, believe Long Duk Dong is extremely offensive.

It may be worth noting in the article that I interviewed the actor who played him for my NPR piece. He, in fact, thought it was funny, and added about playing the character: "It was a great experience because I was making people laugh." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.153.36.170 (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Alison, I fixed the passage so it quotes the full passage and no longer seems like it is your opinion. Regarding your point about the actor, I reviewed the article here, and it says, "Watanabe says making Sixteen Candles was a great experience, but one that, in retrospect, he realizes he was 'a bit naive' about. 'I was making people laugh,' he says. 'I didn't realize how it was going to affect people.'" I think that is different from just saying "great experience". He had fun with it at the time but realizes in retrospect that it was offensive to others. Would something along these lines work? Erik (talk | contribs) 15:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Producing a Cancelled Sequel 'cause Remakes are Bad

"In 2005, Ringwald was reported to be producing a sequel to the film. As of March 2010, Ringwald stated that she thought it was not a good idea to do remakes of great classic films."

After reading these two confusing sentences, one can't help but marvel at the misfortunes of the Molly Ringwald who lives only in the world of whomever wrote them — a world where Ms. Ringwald ostensibly produces sequels because she dislikes the idea of remakes — to then, only have that sequel cancelled. According to the first source, Ringwald was producing a sequel. The second source (a dead link) stated the following:

"As for a 2010 remake of a Molly Ringwald classic, don’t hold your breath. Molly is not a fan of the idea, telling us, “I’m not a huge fan of remakes if the movie was great the first time around. I think, you know, if a movie has a good idea and they didn’t really execute it very well, then why not remake it if it’s obscure and no one knows it, but why take a classic and remake it, it just doesn’t make a lot of sense.”

In this quote she is discussing a remake. The first source mentions only a sequel. As is common knowledge, a sequel is not the same thing as a remake. It appears that in one instance in 2005 she discussed at the MTV Movie Awards thinking about doing a sequel. Then, 5 years later at the Academy Awards tribute to John Hughes, she mentioned her opposition to a remake. There's no way to determine from the sources whether she was talking about something completely different in the two interviews, or whether she simply confused the two concepts and meant sequel when she was mentioning her dislike of a remake. Either way, the section is misleading because in neither of the sources does she mention explicitly that a sequel was cancelled. The Wikipedia editor who wrote Cancelled sequel as the heading clears up this confusion nicely for us——by deciding that he/she knows what Ms. Ringwald meant, and that she must have meant the sequel was a bad idea——and thus, the sequel must have been cancelled. But that's not his/her clarification to make, or if it is, he/she need only provide the sourced citation to back it up. Spintendo (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sixteen Candles. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100717065105/http://www.listal.com/list/best-films-of-1984 to http://www.listal.com/list/best-films-of-1984

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Actor names in plot

User:TheOldJacobite continues to revert work of others without giving an explanation. Most movie plots on Wikipedia include the hyperlinked names of the actors. I do not see anything in the WP’s specifically disallowing this. What’s up with that?

MissTofATX (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX MissTofATX (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I personally don't really see the point in adding the wikilinks. All of them are already listed in the cast section just one section below. †dismas†|^(talk) 22:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Dismas. It's just unnecessary repetition. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 02:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Sequel

I'm removing the proposed sequel section. There has been no update on this in years, and no indication it's going to happen. If new information becomes available, the section can be restored. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 18:12, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I am restoring the section in question. Yes, it would seem the sequel is not going to happen. So what? When we add information about proposed sequels, remakes, forthcoming albums or whatnot, it should say exactly that -- a proposed sequel. That someone of significance plans to make a sequel is interesting and relevant. That they were reportedly "producing a sequel" (as in this case) is a bit more, even if it falls through.

While we are at it, I'm not sure why the tracklist from the soundtrack has been removed twice. It seems relevant. I'm restoring that as well. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't mind the section as it is indeed sourced, but the wording is bad. It should be something in the style of "A sequel was reported to be produced by Ringwald in <date of earliest announcement>, but since <date of latest source> no new report has has been made". Also the section name should remove the word "remake" as the source does not mention remake nor does the current text in the article. --Gonnym (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I removed the "remake" as there is no mention of anything other than a sequel. I don't know how we can possibly assign a date as to when the latest source to mention this was. Yes, we know the latest date that we are aware of, but that does not indicate that there were not reports after that date. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

You work with sources. If you find a source that has a later date (=year), then that is when it was last reported. If it's going to be left as it is now, I'll be in support of removing the section altogether as currently its misleading, as it's obvious from the lack of sources since around 2008 that her production didn't go anywhere. The current text makes it sound like it's still going ahead. --Gonnym (talk) 08:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The last date you find is the last date you found. It might or might not be the last time anything was reported. Prior to my adding this link you might have used similar reasoning to falsely assert that this is the first and only time it was mentioned.

That you might argue to remove it if we actually say what the sources say (rather than guessing based on what we have not seen) is immaterial. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Beatles songs

When Sam tells Ted Farmer that her family forgot her birthday, he breaks out into snippets of two Beatles songs, "Birthday" and "Hey Jude." Those aren't listed in the movie's end credits. Should these songs be noted in the Soundtrack and songs section? PatConolly (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)