Jump to content

Talk:Chick flick

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

References to use

[edit]
Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • Ferriss, Suzanne; Young, Mallory, eds. (2007). Chick Flicks: Contemporary Women at the Movies. Routledge. ISBN 0415962552.
  • Radner, Hilary (2010). Neo-Feminist Cinema: Girly Films, Chick Flicks, and Consumer Culture. Routledge. ISBN 0415877733.
  • Double-X Films - The Atlantic
J.D. (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last of the Mohican

[edit]

192.75.139.252 is out of his mind — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.70.84.26 (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List

[edit]

perhaps some of these movies should be removed from this list. I can see how every one of these movies could be considered chick flicks but then if you use criteria like that, then you can add an extra 100 movies to that list. Here's a list of movies I think should definitely be on the list (I can only speak for these movies as I've seen them): 

Sleepless in Seattle
Two Weeks Notice
Serendipity
You've Got Mail
Kate & Leopold
Notting Hill
Ghost

There's a bunch more I would say qualify as chick flicks which are on the list but I'm not going to bother to look back on the list. Your thoughts?Bubbleboys 04:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Titanic should be on that list either. --Segosa 18:15, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why not replace the list with a few strong examples, worded in a way that discourages adding more? The list encourages frequent edits due to differences of opinion. -- WayneConrad 16:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wayne, I suggest we change the list to the following:
   * My Big Fat Greek Wedding (2002)
   * Bridget Jones's Diary (2001)
   * Serendipity (2001)
   * The English Patient (1996)
   * The Bridges of Madison County (1995)
   * While You Were Sleeping (1995)
   * Waiting to Exhale (1995)
   * Sleepless in Seattle (1993)
   * Thelma and Louise (1991)
   * Ghost (1990)
   * Pretty Woman (1990)
   * Say Anything (1989)
   * Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961)
   * An Affair to Remember (1957)
   * Sabrina (1954)
   * Mildred Pierce (1945)
   * Now, Voyager (1942)
   * The Women (1939)
   * Stage Door (1937)
   * Little Women (1933, 1994, etc.)
Actually, maybe it should be 10 rather than 20? But I'm definitely in favor of shortening it. If no one objects, I'll do this in a couple of days. --Shadowfax37 23:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should we list the movies here, or a separate List of chick flicks page? And is there reason for chronological rather than alphabetical? --zandperl 01:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological list is better. Thus you can check what were the latest chick flick (or what ever). One can always use Ctrl-F to simulate what an alphabetical list could have achieved.

why did you guys take out the whole list? the whole list was what i used to rent my movies and now you guys just took it off... wtf

I've reinstated the long list in a separate article, with 20 examples pulled to the top. -- Shadowfax37 15:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WHAT? Come on, Thelma and Louise definately ISN'T a chick flick. It's a tried and true road movie that should be enjoyed by anyone. The fact it stars two women doesnt automatically makes it a movie for girls only. X_X


A chick flick is a talky, self-indulgent equivalent of a dime novel, or else an encounter session where women discover themselves, with a lot of talk and silliness, but perhaps with a tragedy tossed in, maybe some physical assault, etc. Like Mermaids, Beaches, Heathers, Tuscan Sun, Groove Back, Ya Yas, etc. these would be called chick flicks - to warn men away. One could call thrillers like, Ghost, a chick flick, but it's not, or is barely. One might include Romy and Michelle and the body switch movies. But those are more like Ghost, even if all female casts. They also tend to be comedies (though so is Four Weddings) and more action-oriented, less talky, with fewer 'secrets' to reveal and 'dealing issues', and the like. The chick flick is 'interpersonal', slower paced, with joy and tears on cue, possibly a male interest object like the cover of a dime novel, all from a female perspective. From a man's perspective - it's just a long boring movie, where nothing seems to happen, where all they do is talk. One might include Thelma and Louise as an example of a preachy feminist action film, a different sort of chick flick. But I can't think of any others. Usually, they'd be sci-fi. And one might include, for example, the tv adaption of a Woman of Substance as a chick flick. Some might include Father of the Bride and the sequel, with Spencer Tracy (and Martin's later remake). But you could list that more as a comedy, really, than a click flick.

You should have a list, and did until someone removed it (claiming it would be found on another page, which it isn't).



Definition

[edit]

A definition should be established and discussed, a chick flick has one or more of several essential themes: It has a respectible female as a main character, the primary motivator of the primary character is to create or fix the love relationship with the love interest/target, the primary theme is the relationship between women or groups of women.

Miscellaneous

[edit]

You know that Fahrenheit 9/11 is a chick flick. Right Falconleaf

Please read WP:VERIFY. AlistairMcMillan 03:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do use the term, but in a narrow sense to mean movies that are almost solely about women and their issues with the male characters being caricatures or unimportant. That said it seems like it's often used to mean any romantic comedy or tragedy, which strikes me as unfair to guys. There are a few films that do well with men[1] and have strong romantic aspects like: Casablanca or Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Indicating even romantic comedies are chick-flick kind of makes men seem emotionally stunted to me. I'm not sure I can document this theory it has anti-male connotations though.--T. Anthony 11:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I agree, it does make men seem emotionally stunted. But the term is also, either the way you intend or the way this article presents it, insulting to women. Keep in mind the term was invented by a man, is usually used by men rather than women, and is used mostly in an insulting way or to write off a particular movie. There are tons of movies that show the flip side - movies only about men that deal only with female characters as caricatures/unimportant - but they don't get labelled in an insulting way.

Sources

[edit]

While fairly reasonable, this article suffers from a total lack of sources. This is especially noticeable in the 'History' section of the article, but the whole article suffers from it. Ashmoo 05:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion?

[edit]

Umm, I think that the following paragraph should be deleted/modified:

"As a genre of sorts, chick flicks are avoided by men for the same reasons that they are attractive to women, as described in the preceeding paragraph. In a typical video rental establishment, for example, rarely will 5 minutes pass in the new releases section without a man grimacing as his female partner suggests a chick flick as the choice of the evening."

Doesn't this sound like an opinion? A biased, although rather amusing, opinion or vignette? I just wanted to throw that out there, and if no one else wants to change it, I can do it.

Just for future reference, how does one tag an article?

Flowr6powr 19:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Yep, that paragraph sure sounds like OR. References are coming, though I tried for format some of the refs and found one launched a barrage of pop-ups on teh user (a no-no I believe under WP:EL), and another which never answered the phone. On how to tag, what tag are you asking about? Hit the help sections and you'll find what you're looking for, I think.... David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 02:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Notebook??

[edit]

"The Notebook was listed in "See Also" twice. Is it okay to fix this?

Couple of points

[edit]

1. How is "Dirty Dancing" not on the list? 2. Surely we need to recognise that the "chick flick" genre is actually a sub genre within "shit films"? Optimus Sledge 08:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pathetic article

[edit]

This article is pretty pathetic and based on opinion only. Sorry, any addition/removal to the list is based on opinion and unsourced. Why does it exist? I mean, at least show me an attempt to make this a valuable article by citing sources or specific lists made by movie magazines, or something.

Recommend removal of section: "List of chick flicks"

[edit]

I vote for the removal of the section "List of chick flicks" on the basis that it is evidently biased and is not particularly informative or useful. I think the list substantially reduces the merit of this entry. --Spud Gun 13:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems inaccurate too--I don't see how Titanic can even remotely be considered a chick flick--it was a blockbuster that had strong support from both genders. While there were romance scenes generally interesting to women only, it also had scenery, action and history to it that brought in guys as well. To be a chick flick, it has to be both attractive to women and generally repellent to guys.

List removal

[edit]

I have removed the List of chick flicks section because it is highly subjective, and essentially un-verifiable (see WP:V for a 'definition' of verifiability). --Spud Gun 13:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


! How annoying that this list has been removed. I frequently refer to this list before I go to Blockbuster when I want a feel good "chick flick" which has quite often been CORRECT since it has exposed me to films which appeal to me - a chick. Doesn't its apparent success rate with 1 chick on the planet give it some integrity? Refer us to a "feel good movie list" and add those removed to it, to perhaps appeal to political correctness? You voted for the removal - then removed it 25 minutes later. How is that even a vote? --Adsrghetto 20:27pm, 9 September 2007 +10 GMT

Dear Adsrghetto, I am sorry that you feel inconvenienced by the removal of the List of chick flicks section. Perhaps you could have printed it out and rent films from the hard copy?. If you look at the time-date stamps I actually deleted the list 5 days after suggesting its removal. Please read WP:V to understand better the reasons for removal. At one point the list was moved to its own page, and then subsequently voted for deletion (see: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_chick_flicks). In view of this I suggest that unless one has good reason and verifiable sources, the list should not be reinstated. --Spud Gun 09:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency

[edit]

In the opening paragraph, there is a sentence at the end stating that the information presented in the paragraph is wrong (at least, that's what I take it to mean). Since it has no reference, my assumption is someone added it on to challenge the information in the paragraph. 75.45.193.134 (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THe Hunger Games

[edit]

Would that count? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.88.6.174 (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WorldCat Genres

[edit]

Hello, I'm working with OCLC, and we are algorithmically generating data about different Genres, like notable Authors, Book, Movies, Subjects, Characters and Places. We have determined that this Wikipedia page has a close affintity to our detected Genere of chick-lit. It might be useful to look at [2] for more information. Thanks. Maximilianklein (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hunger Games

[edit]

Why is it in the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.142.196 (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chick flick. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 21:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Photo caption

[edit]

There are four people in the photo, but only three names in the caption. JezGrove (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Chick flick. 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:

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) 19:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: University Writing 1020 Communicating Feminism TR1 pm

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2024 and 15 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Christy yaa, ChristianeMor (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Juliaminassian, Lilacsandlilies, Marihegab, ZhongM.

— Assignment last updated by Christy yaa (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The Critique of the genre section appears to have a pre-existing narrative that is using various sources to support, rather than read as informational about Chick Flicks from a neutral point of view. The length of this section also appears to support a bias to be the main point of the article. For example, the "Some argue against the criticism of chick flicks" section consists of only 2 sentences. 2600:1700:100:8530:78A0:9604:E481:16DF (talk) 03:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chick_flick&oldid=1242119442"