Talk:Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story

Full cast listing?

Do we really need to include Frustrated Cougar #2? Surely a list of the main characters would be sufficient. Pburka 8 July 2005 01:38 (UTC)

1993 or 2000's

It has to be at least 2003 because Lance Armstrong says he's already won the Tour de France 5 times in a row when he sees Peter in the airport. Lance Armstrong won 7 consecutive Tour de France races from 1999-2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:80:C002:C86C:70D1:BAB0:B492:FA4C (talk) 11:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I do think it takes place in the 2000's. The crew might have made a mistake when doing the photo in the Globo Gym commerical.- JustPhil 21:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

it wasn't a mistake, fools. White Goodman was such a dumbass, it was to show how stupid he was. The movie takes place in 2003-2004. phhh! watch the movie people, it doesn't exactly credit the White Goodman character with intelligence...he has a PHD in down symdrome, just like the person who wrote the goof section(whoever wrote the goof section wont get this joke either.) NewGod KingKirby 25 February 2006 08:28

one explaination is that he is either 2 lazy or cheap to up date his commerical and had been running the same one for the may yearsRanul 17:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

In the opening for "The Ocho," we hear that they've been supplying information on "nearly-sports" since 1999 - The movie must be at least in 2000.

The movie takes place in 1999 or 2000. How I know this, the currency they needed 50,000 USD or 73,000 CAD, in 1999 it was exactly that exchange rate. Also they mention playing the thong song on radio which came out 1999. But there are some odd things like globo gym having a big screen lcd tv. Which didn't have that kind of clarity and slimness just yet. The film being thought as being in 1993, is mainly because of the commercial in the beginning when he says he lost his weight 6 years ago (back in 1987) but he seems dumb enough to not know how to add or subtract. He did not learn it in a book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamborghinilover1997 (talk • contribs) 13:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Also at the beginning they say he has an overdue video renting fee for “Mona Lisa Smile” which was released in 2003. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:183:8480:4ecc:6170:a0b5:671a:f489 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I have the DVD and just watched the commentary on it. The director explicitly states that he doesn't really care about the date. I never noticed it until Vince Vaughn pointed it out in the commentary. Most people don't really think about it, and there's a good chance that the commercial is not new. I think we're splitting hairs here... 199.120.113.240 15:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

in the scene with the globo gym commerical, white shows the picture of him when he was fat and states it was 6 years ago, the caption beneath the picture reads 1987, therefore meaning the film is set in 1993. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wendy clear (talk • contribs) 16:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Legacy?

I was wondering if we should perhaps put in some information on the impact the film has had. I know that in numerous areas across the USA, Dodgeball leages popped up after this film became popular. Zytch 21:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Coach

Who plays the role of Average Joe's coach ? Jay 19:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

If you're talking about Patches, that's Rip Torn.

Who played Patches? In the body it says Hank Azaria but elsewhere it says Rip Torn. I am confused and don't know what to believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.197.214.88 (talk) 06:17, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

---They both played Patches. Azaria played the young Patches, in the training film. Torn played him in the present. Best regardsTheBaron0530 (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)theBaron0530

A certain song in the film

What is the name of the bizarre song that plays as Ben Siller walks up Christine Taylor's house? Who performs it? I looked for it on the internet, but without me being able to check up on them I'm runnin blind. Can someone help?--Clyde Miller 00:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

"Apache" by The Sugarhill Gang. Wavy G 00:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Goofs section

The entirety of the section could be explained by White Goodman playing the same commercial since 1993. Thanks to commercials for Tom Emanski's Baseball Training videos, which have been playing since 1991, and White's level of not-smartness, it is most likely the case. See Fred McGriff. --MJR 19:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleted trivia entry

*During the commentary for the DVD, Thurbur is verbally attacked by Vaughn and Stiller and leaves in anger. The two actors then leave half way through, and the booth guys (who had been rather badly verablly attacked themselves by a beer-swilling Vaughn) panic about endangering their jobs and eventually put on a different commentary, borrowed from the DVD for "There's Something About Mary". Somehow this was issued to the DVD uncensored.

I removed this entry because I have listened to the entire commentary track and no such thing ever happened. "Verablly attacked themselves by a beer-swilling Vaughn"? Come on. If there is some alternate track that I am unaware of, it was more than likely done for a joke (in the same vain as the commentary for Anchorman) and is not noteworthy. Wavy G 00:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well the commentary is stuffed up, i watched the aussy uncut vir. and halfway thru both vince and ben leave and the other movie commentary is replaced with it, ben turns up late and the director leaves soon after.. Tune<red>NZ</red> (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a gag, that commentary is a fake they recorded for a laugh - the real one can be found by clicking the purple cobras logo at the bottom of the special features menu :) 90.209.120.162 (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What happened to Steve the Pirate?

There used to be a page to him, but it redirected here and theres nothing about him.

A True Underdog Story?

just curious... is it an actualy true story?

yes just like anchorman. It was based on true events. only the names, locations and events have been changed.

The title is a play on the viewer's expectations. Movies in this genre always have the protagonists win, so although they are presented as underdogs, they are actually favored to win. The true underdog is Globogym and White Goodman. Although he is a jerk and his shady and unsportsmanlike tactics seem to give him the edge, there is little doubt that he will lose and get his comeuppance.

In the original ending, though, Globogym wins. They are the true underdogs, hence the title. The studio changed the ending, so the title lost its bite. It was actually a brilliant concept and I'm sad they weren't allowed to use the original ending.

131.96.47.17 (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If this is based on a true story, there should be some citation. Otherwise, it just looks as if the title itself is a spoof. The Anchorman talk page doesn't say anything about Anchorman being based on a true story. --Entwhiz (talk) 22:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course it isn't based on a true story. It's just a subtitle. Don't be ridiculous. (It's meant to read as "truly an underdog story", not "a true story of underdogs"). --IllaZilla (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Mona Lisa Smile trivia removal

There was originally a trivia point in the article stating that because the film took place in 1993 it was therefore innacurate to reference the 2003 film "Mona Lisa Smile". However the problem with this is "Mona Lisa Smile" was not the film mentioned. If you listen carefully and/or run the subtitle on the DVD the film named is actually "Mona Lisa's Smile". This is likely a fictional pornographic film since the other two listed were of pornographic nature. This would also make sense as a pornographic play-on-words given that her name is "Mona". --Matt72986 00:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That is besides the point. the main point of the trivia was that according to the commercial, "that was me 6 years ago" and then showing a picture from 1987 implies the movie took place in 1993. The movie in question is refered to as both titles and even so, porn movies don't parody titles until after release. Therefore, the trivia belongs in the article --BT14 14:35, 30 July 2006 (EDT)

If that is the main point of the trivia then that is what should have been restated. I was not disputing the fact that the commercial was innacurate, what I was disputing was this specific piece of evidence. I am going to re-edit the piece of trivia once again. The DVD makes it clear that Mona Lisa Smile was NOT the DVD mentioned, but Mona Lisa's Smile. This is simple fact that cannot be disputed. Also, I never said that the pornographic film was a parody of the Mona Lisa Smile title. What I said was that "Mona Lisa's Smile" was likely a pornographic play on words based on the name "Mona", the sexual connotation of which should be self evident. --Matt72986 03:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna jump in here and point out that there actually IS a porn star called Mona Lisa, which supports it being Mona Lisa's Smile. The Kinslayer 16.54 GMT 11th August 2006

Yeah, I think it might be a joke. The two porn films followed by the completely out-of-context Mona Lisa Smile. BTW, the DVD commentary puts it as *Mona Lisa Smile*. The films not set in 1993, it's not a pun on 'moan', it's just a funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.195.178 (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Fuckin A

This entry in the trivia section was attributed to Office Space. This movie did not invent the term. Office Space, a film made in 1999, was long after the phrase was coined. The earliest source I know of (though I'm sure it isn't the earliest) was the 1979 Walter Hill filmThe Warriors where a gang member Ajax is heard muttering it after defeating a rival group of thugs.

Office Space also featured Stephen Root. --91.106.134.43 (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Plotline...

Someone please help fix the plotline. It sucks and makes no sense at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by No substitute for you (talk • contribs) 18:34, 3 January 2007

Reception?

Why is there no section on box office/critical reception like there is on most film entries on Wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.31.173.139 (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Deus Ex Machina

I have a problem with this passage:

"Thurber's disapproval is further reinforced by the treasure chest filled with money that Peter wins saying "Deus Ex Machina" (literally: "God out of a machine") which is Latin for a nonsensical plot device used to resolve a story with no regard to its logic."

If "Deus Ex Machina" is literally "God out of a machine," then how could it possibly be Latin for a nonsensical plot device? I understand what the writer was going for here, but it needs to be cleaned up. Also, I don't think it's necessary to explain what Deus Ex Machina is when there's a link to its entry.24.124.49.71 19:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC) Classical theatre would end with a god being lowered onto stage by a mechanism of some description to resolve all the problems of the characters.--91.106.134.43 (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• It's actually "God from outside the machine" Sochwa (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

inadvertently

I have a problem with this passage:

"Suddenly, Lance Armstrong takes a seat next to him and inadvertently motivates him to return to the game and play."

Who writes this crap? I think that Armstrong is speaking ironically. I also think that this is obvious to anyone over the age of about 6. But otherwise great wicki-editing! Keep it up guys! Dr Spam (MD) 12:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Rearranged scenes

I haven't heard the DVD commentary, so I don't know if they address this, but has anybody else noticed the fact that it's pretty obvious that the scene where Justin runs into the cheerleader and her boyfriend in the hallway was actually meant to take place the night before the dodgeball finals? First off, the three team members who go missing the night before the finals aren't seen with the rest of the group in the hallway scene, and those who are there are dressed exactly as they were the night before the finals. Second, Amber mentions that she's in the cheerleading finals the next day when a longer period of time passes between that conversation and the actual finals in the final cut of the movie. Does anybody have/know anything that can verify this and if so, would it be relevant to mention?--MythicFox 16:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Original Ending

Ok, people, has the director or actors said ANYTHING to support that there was, in fact, an original ending? Yes, I know they say it on the DVD commentary, but that was clearly a joke (see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0364725/board/nest/84935654) for reasons as to why it had to be). So do we really need sayings like "Its purpose was to show how much the director disliked the new "happy" ending" or "Also, the part where Ben Stiller's character criticizes the ending could also be Thurber getting out his opinion to the viewers." This, unless otherwise proven, is COMPLETE speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.25.121 (talk) 08:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed... the 'original ending' is almost certainly a joke poking fun at the Hollywood revision process. As such, I'm removing it; if someone can find a citation showing that it actual *is* the original ending, please do. Macboots 00:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

his original ending had the joes lossing, he was not able to film the rest with steve the pirets return but he still wanted the joes to loss the final game —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafff18 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing pointless trivia and plot details

Apparently, there are people that are against this. Can anyone explain why we should retain a list of dodgeball teams mentioned in the movie, but never shown? Or the fake "real" ending misinformation? Or the entirey of the rules of dodgeball as given in the movie? All of this stuff should go. -Chunky Rice 18:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoooaaa man, why not give Inclusionism a try? D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 19:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I actually lean towards inclusionism, but most of this stuff is just pointless and detracts from the article. Further, the guidelines that we have for plot details call for its removal. -Chunky Rice 19:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AverageJoes.jpg

Image:AverageJoes.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PeterandWhite.JPG

Image:PeterandWhite.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WhiteandKate.jpg

Image:WhiteandKate.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

In the introduction, it says that reviews were generally positive. In the "Reception" section, it says reviews were mixed. Can someone clear this up? --71.31.130.35 (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

White's offer

In the paragraph with White offering Peter $100,000 for the gym, should we say there that Peter accepted the cash, because it's not revealed to the viewers that he did until the movie's conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaydude1992 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not pertinent when it's revealed to the viewer. --IllaZilla (talk) 03:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Afraid I don't really get what you're saying.--Jaydude1992 (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I mean the exact moment at which Peter's decision is revealed to viewers of the film isn't very relevant to a summary of the plot. --IllaZilla (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Armstrong-related edits

An editor has repeatedly inserted claims about new edits being done to remove the Lance Armstrong material. This claim is not in the source given, nor is it in any news source I can locate. Such a claim is of WP:BLP concern as it depicts the actions of the film's director. Do not reinsert this until there is a source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The source repeatedly used by this anon does not say anything whatsoever about the scene being removed or re-shot. It is merely a comment by the author that the scene now appears ironic and hollow in light of Armstrong's doping scandal. It does not support any of the claims made in the anon's text. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Cult Following

Can we mention that the movie has a cult following? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.77.147 (talk) 09:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable third party source for that statement? If so, sounds good to me. -Nat Gertler (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on DodgeBall: A True Underdog Story. 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/20040622064559/http://www.dodgeballmovie.com:80/ to http://www.dodgeballmovie.com/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 15:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on DodgeBall: A True Underdog Story. 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/20090324164207/http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=1074 to http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/film_review.asp?ID=1074

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 22:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

5 Rules of DodgeBall

What are the 5 rules of dodgeball 97.122.161.21 (talk) 01:52, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Split off ESPN 8

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus to split, which has already been acted on. Felix QW (talk) 13:21, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

---

I propose that ESPN 8: The Ocho be split off from this article. It is a programming segment on ESPN over many years now, and is separate from the movie which inspired it. -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I support this proposal. There is enough significant coverage from secondary sources to create a separate article about the programming block. Let'srun (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2023 (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.

"The American Dodgeball Association of America" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect The American Dodgeball Association of America has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 7 § The American Dodgeball Association of America until a consensus is reached. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

"American Dodgeball Association of America" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect American Dodgeball Association of America has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 15 § American Dodgeball Association of America until a consensus is reached. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)