Talk:Clue (film)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Copyvio material deleted

The following material has been deleted from the article because most of it is copyvio from IMDb. I'm listing it here rather than deleting outright so people can take some of the items here and reword them for the article. The Goofs section is not necessary at all and is not archived here. 23skidoo 01:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• • I don't think the entirety of the film's trivia should be removed. It is helpful to the article as a whole to maintain it, though not copied wholesale. Perhaps paraphrasing would make at least some of it kosher? Trivia itself can't be copyrighted. Rebochan 17:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • That's exactly correct and that's why I didn't delete this material. It could be rewritten and used again. Just word-for-word copying isn't allowed. Even posting the original version here is probably bending the copyvio rules a bit. 23skidoo 20:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Eventually Trivia must be removed per Project Film Style Guide lines and merged with other sections. It will never be upgraded to a better rating with trivia.--Amadscientist 05:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

BYU reenactments

I haven't seen a reenactment of Clue advertised in the past five years. In '03, an article in the student paper suggested playing life-sized Clue on campus as a group date. The Princess Bride is far more popular today, but I haven't seen that reenacted either. JordeeBec 23:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

UNO WHO

Should the mention of Plum working for UNO WHO really be included in a paragraph talking about poking fun at governmental institutions considering it's a real branch of the United Nations? --Jim North 04:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The WHO really was a branch of the really-existing UNO (now just UN - it changed in the 1950s), so I have deleted this reference. - 152.76.0.130 04:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Redlinks

My view on this is that if the actor has pretty much no chance of having an article about him then he should not be linked to because it's absolutely ugly (pointless redlinks should be avoided) and I can't quote the specific section off the top of my head but I'm pretty sure it's against the manual of style. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 18:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it ulgy to see a haphazard list where every item on the list has equal status but some are linked and some are not linked for some reason. All the items on the list being blue and one being red is ulgy, but all the items on the list being blue and one being black is not ulgy? Sound arbitrary to me. Having in the past created articles for subjects that many editors deemed would not get an article and then having to go through a ton of pages inserting the appropriate links is not a fun task. The redlint isn't hurting anyone. From the perspective of this page, each of the actors in the movie are equal, this article isn't the place to make an editorial decision about who is notable and who is not. Qutezuce 19:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and on looking at it again I do agree that it is somewhat ugly, but I think what needs to be determined is whether unlinked or whether redlinksed is the lesser of two evils since they both are as you said ugly. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 19:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a Wikipolicy can be cited to correct me, but I've been under the assumption from reading the rules that redlinks are preferable to no links as they are a signal that an article needs to be written. One cannot really assume that just because an actor plays a minor role in this film that someone might not write an article about that person. Of course the onus is on the article creator to assert notability when and if that happens. I personally have created articles on relatively obscure individuals that have sat as redlinks for years. Anyway, on this basis I support maintaining a redlink here. 23skidoo 19:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"In the Hall"

Mr. Green actually says, "in the hall" at the end of the film, not "in the foyer". In part two of the shooting script, dated February 8th, 1985, Mr. Green says hall (page 55 of the PDF document). And in this word-for-word transcript of the actual movie dialogue, Mr. Green, also says "hall". Just a clarification. Green451 17:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Article needs improvement

The article needs a re-write adhering to Project Film Style guidelines. Also please keep Original Research out. While there is truth to Sins O the Flesh and their annual audience participation screening it is neither notable to the article in itself and is somewhat promotional and against Wikipedia policy. Please stay neutral in this regards. It can be mentioned that it is gaining cult reverence but to mention a single performance group is POV when there are other groups as well that perform the movie, yet it is nowhere near the notability of RHPS.--Amadscientist 05:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that this article needs to be reviewed. It has a lot of superfluous information, for example "a gift-wrapped box with purple bows." I'm new to Wiki, so I'm not sure exactly what the standards are, but I can help trim away some of the wordiness. --SupāSaru 17:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I've just taken a bit of time to remove excess details. It may not be perfect, but it's a start. --SupāSaru 18:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• On September 15, an anonymous user has added details that I purposefully deleted. This article is still tagged for an overly detailed plot description. Should I just go back and re-do the changes? -- Supāsaru 13:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I just went and reverted some of the ip's edits (I kept two because they were useful IMO). If you see edits that you think don't make any meaningful contribution to the article (e.g. vandalism, adding extraneous details, making incorrect spelling corrections, etc.), just go ahead and revert them. Green451 15:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fire

"This site was destroyed in a fire on October 5, 2005." the original citation did NOT include anything on a fire.

the original wikicode was as follows: <ref>{{Cite web | url=http://www.fast-rewind.com/| title=Photos from Filming Location - 2003 | accessdate=2007-08-15| publisher=www.theartofmurder.com}}</ref> Tingrin87 22:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

after digging through the history, i found the source at http://www.theartofmurder.com/table/stage/mansionphoto/mansionphoto.html Tingrin87 23:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Endings

Rather than A, B, C, weren't they named for murder weapons? MMetro (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

When the film came out, the endings were always labeled with letters. Perhaps some marketing genius decided to rename them for weapons as promotion for a later re-release? --66.250.195.98 (talk) 18:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Drinking games

There is a section on drinking games, reading:

In line with its popularity as a cult movie, fans have developed a drinking game. Participants are assigned a specific suspect, room, and weapon, who are then required to drink each time the character's name is mentioned, or appearance of a weapon or room. In addition, all must drink when "Mr. Boddy" is named, someone dies, it thunders, etc.

The sources for this are:

• http://www.barnonedrinks.com/games/t/the-clue-drinking-game-391.html
• http://marsneedswomen.org/clue/

The first site, based in Canada, is described by its creators as a four-year-old hobby site that began because the two creators were bored with their existing private websites [1].

The second site, is registered to a private individual who lives in Cambridge, Massachussetts, and seems to comprise the drinking game, a picture of a Ford convertible, a picture of a converted Irish castle, now a guest house, at which the site owner stayed in September, and a third link to itself, labelled "The Charlie's Kitchen Jukebox Decoder Ring." It's a private website.

These are not reliable sources. They are both basically hobby sites containing bric-a-brac collected by individuals exercising their own powers of discrimination alone. I am removing the section because on the basis of those sources it is not verifiable. --Tony Sidaway 01:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I concur with your interpretation and decision. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 02:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Plot Summary Redux

Just worked this up, and thought it might be an improvement over what is currently on the page. Thoughts?

Six invited guests, given assumed names, are summoned to the secluded mansion, Hill House, on a stormy night. Mr. Green (Michael McKean), Colonel Mustard (Martin Mull), Mrs. Peacock (Eileen Brennan), Professor Plum (Christopher Lloyd), Miss Scarlett (Lesley Ann Warren) and Mrs. White (Madeline Kahn) are greeted by the British butler, Wadsworth (Tim Curry) and the French maid, Yvette (Colleen Camp). Over dinner, the guests discover that each lives in the District of Columbia or is employed by the government. A seventh guest arrives, and is introduced as Mr. Boddy (Lee Ving).

The group then gathers in the study where, one by one, Wadsworth reveals that each guests is a victim of blackmail, provides evidence concerning the guests' indiscretions, and then explains that Mr. Boddy is the man who has been blackmailing them all and that the police will arrive in forty-five minutes. After giving each guest a gift-wrapped weapon, Mr. Boddy tries to convince the guests that they must kill Wadsworth or be exposed, and then shuts off the lights. When they are turned back on, Boddy himself is dead. Wadsworth then confesses to being the one who invited all of them to the mansion, and reveals his motive for doing so was to bring Boddy to justice (his wife, who was also a victim, committed suicide as a result of the blackmail).

After locking their weapons in a cupboard and admitting a stranded motorist into the mansion (who is promptly locked in the lounge), the guests pair off to search the mansion after a suggestion by Mustard that there may be someone hiding in the house who is responsible for Boddy’s murder. During the search, an unknown character burns all of the evidence Wadsworth presented earlier, and kills the motorist with the wrench (which had been locked up with all of the other weapons). A policeman, having seen the stranded motorist’s car, comes to the door, asks to use the phone, and is locked in the library. He is later killed with the lead pipe, along with Yvette (in the billiard room with the rope) and another unexpected guest, a singing telegram girl (who is shot with the revolver on the front porch in the middle of her telegram). Shortly after, Wadsworth proclaims that he has solved the mysterious murders.

Feel free to edit further; hopefully this will be a good starting point. EDIT: made a few changes myself.DC (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• I like your rewrite! I've added it to the article. • Supāsaru 21:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you!DC (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent job. Thanks. --Tony Sidaway 16:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic! --Amadscientist (talk) 10:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Plot Edit... again

While I agree with Supasaru that the addition to the plot summary (by an anonymous editor) wasn't needed, I did add a brief bit to the plot summary stating that the cook was killed with the knife. I don't think the addition needed to be quite so wordy, but I did feel it was worth noting, as the death of the cook turns out to be an important plot point. I'm wondering if we should include a list of the weapons given as gifts, or would that end up being too much info? DC (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

• Good question. Not too long ago, there was such a list ("the candlestick was given to so-and-so, the revolver to so-and-so") which has been removed. I think due to the nature of the film and how so many things are happening all at once, adding a list of weapons and owners gets confusing. In my opinion, it doesn't add to the article's value. • Supāsaru 17:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I think you're right. IIRC, most (if not all) of the weapons end up being used by someone other than who they were given to, and reading through the summary, one can surmise what weapons were in play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBigFish (talk • contribs) 16:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I personaly don't think to much about the list of weapons. The main reason is that they play such a small part of this movie and the addition of the full list seems unnessecary with how well known they are. Just my two cents worth.--Amadscientist (talk) 12:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Clue Poster.jpg

Image:Clue Poster.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 ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 13:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Green

in the differences section it says Mr. Green is a homosexual, but he was actually a cop--Aaronpark 19:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

What's your point? There are homosexual cops you know.--Amadscientist 05:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I think they meant that while Mr. Green admits to being a homosexual early on in the film, it is later revealed that he is an undercover cop, who is straight, or at the very least married to a woman. 'I'm going to go home and sleep with my wife.' So he's really not a homosexual, he's an undercover cop and that was part of his cover.68.60.136.43 (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The 'I'm going to go home and sleep with my wife.' thing could still be him covering up his homosexuality. no way to know. 24.223.154.154 (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

He says it very loudly, and in front of the boss. Earlier, he makes the point that he is forced to keep his homosexuality a secret or he would lose his job. Seems like trying to hide his being gay (and in an overly ostentatious manner at that -- a la "me thinks you doth protest to much"), but in any case it's ambiguous. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 16:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and even if you believe he really wasn't gay because he said that, it would only be true in one of the endings, not the other two. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 16:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

But the entire point of that ending is to show that he was never telling the truth to begin with. He was a PLANT, an undercover agent lying the whole time to blend in. He needed something to BE blackmailed for and they made that whole story up. If it's true that he's gay the entire ending doesn't work because not only could he still be blackmailed by everyone else, and also, by the very nature of the undercover operation the entire police force would be well aware of his secret. Keep in mind, they knew the whole time he was there, they were waiting for him to uncover everything. Remember, no one called the cops. But they showed up anyway, because Mr green WAS a cop and had the whole force backing his investigation. Also, the movie ends precisely on that line, to make a humorous point of how he had lied about his orientation. A final gag to end on. If he's straight then he would have had nothing to be blackmailed about (as the ending shows since EVERYONE else killed someone to cover their personal secrets) and it would actually make sense that he was a plant who was part of an investigation. Otherwise he was just a guest and it really doesn't explain why hoover and the police would have been wondering what he was up to and went straight to him.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.211.94 (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Trivia

{{spoiler}} The movie is unusual in that it was made with three different endings, which were randomly played at cinemas during its theatrical release. Some have claimed that because of this gimmick, the mystery of the movie is inherently unfair (after all, if there are three possible scenarios that can occur, it is impossible for the audience to deduce the ending from the clues given.) The critics were reported to have had their favourite ending (the second on the video release). When released on video – and later DVD – and broadcast on television, all three endings were included in the film with silent film-style title cards interspersed between. The DVD release includes an option to have one of the endings randomly selected and played at the end of the film, thereby recreating the theatrical experience. The "real" solution is actually hinted at by a portrait of Mr. Boddy dressed as a butler, which is briefly visible above the dining room table.

It's also hinted at by Wadsworth saying near the beginning "Since you've each been addressed by a pseudonym, you'll have realized that *nobody* is being addressed by their real name." In other words, Wadsworth isn't really "the butler", Yvette isn't really french (just before she's killed, you can hear her whisper in a distinctly non-french accent, Mr. Boddy isn't really Mr. Boddy, etc. -- 70.56.81.182 (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Reportedly, there was actually a fourth ending scripted and shot, in which Wadsworth committed all the murders out of a twisted need for perfection in his life. He reveals that he poisoned everyone with a slow-acting toxin in their drinks. It ended with Wadsworth being killed by dogs as he attempted to escape by car from the house. The rather grim nature of the ending is perhaps one reason why it was never released. Another could have been because the film makers thought the ending would have been too obvious – it only survives in the novelization and the storybook, which features but a single photo from that ending (the Chef punching Wadsworth in the stomach).

Though based on the Clue premise and featuring the game's characters and mansion, the film took several liberties. Writers Landis and Lynn added more characters (a butler, a cook) and added a maid separate from Mrs. White, who was pictured as a maid in the board games but in the film was the widow of a nuclear scientist. Also, the mansion's geography was changed, and three floors were added. Finally, the film was set in 1954 New England, while the actual board game was British originally.

Several things in the film remain unexplained, such as why all the murderers (in the last ending) use an identical pair of gloves, or how Mrs. White was upstairs screaming while she was supposed to be downstairs murdering Yvette.

The following trivia bullets were taken from the Trivia page on www.imdb.com:

Prof. Plum indicates at dinner that he works for the World Health Organization, part of the United Nations Organization. This means he works for UNO WHO.

Three endings were shot, and a random one shown at each theater. All three are included on video.

The painting behind Mr Boddy's chair depicts Mr. Boddy in a butler's uniform.

Mrs. Scarlet reads to Professor Plum the directions to their dinner date while she is in his car after he picked her up. She says that they are headed for "Hill House," which is the name of the house in Shirley Jackson's "The Haunting".

The parquet floor in the Hall resembles the 'Clue' game board.

There are few departures from the original board game; in the movie the Hall has been transformed into part of the playing board and has been replaced by the front doors; and the little corridors between the rooms (i.e. between the Billiard Room and the Library in the game) have been eliminated as have many doorways into the rooms. This was probably was done so that the rooms didn't have to stand alone, which seems so unnecessary for the movie.

Eileen Brennan also starred in the film adaptation of Murder by Death (1976), Neil Simon's parody of murder mysteries.

Only two characters are wearing their designated colors - Colonel Mustard wears a mustard-colored suit and Prof. Plum wears a purple vest and bow tie. The others are wearing different colors - Scarlet wears a green dress, White wears a black ensemble (although, with perfect timing, the inside of her coat is revealed to be a brilliant white silk material), Peacock (traditionally a blue pawn in the board game) wears an orangey-gold ensemble (although, she does wear a gold peacock brooch), and Green is wearing blue. Perhaps this is done to foreshadow that they will turn out to not be who they say they are.

Though the characters don't wear their corresponding game piece colors, their cars all do match the game pieces. This is most easily seen in the Mrs. Peacock ending when she is outside in the driveway. There are clearly green, white, blue (peacock), yellow (mustard) and purple (plum) cars parked in front. Wadsworth's car is black, matching his butler uniform.

When walking through the hall to the library, Col. Mustard pauses to look up at the chandelier that, later in the film, almost kills him.

Differences in two weapons in the film include that the revolver in the board game is most commonly a pepperbox revolver (an early 1800s revolver with the six bullet chambers jutting out from the main gun parts). However, it is changed to a regular .38 caliber magnum to possibly keep up with the modern time period the film is set in. The lead pipe in the game was also bent at an angle, to emphasize the fact that it was (possibly) used in Mr. Boddy's murder; the film shows it completely straight.

Clue is the first movie ever made to be based on a board game.

Madeline Kahn ad-libbed the short monologue about her hatred for Yvette the French maid--"I hated her SO much...that, flames, flames, by the side of my face...heaving breaths...".

Hey guys, I'm not sure how to edit the main page or even where I should write this, but I wanted to point out that under the Murder section it said the motorist is killed with the wrench in the consorvotory but he was killed in the lounge while on the phone.--Stetsonblade 03:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Updates and Improvements

I've been away from Wikipedia for a while, and I'm actually somewhat sad at the state this article has taken. It seems like it used to flow much better and had more information, and the current plot summary seems very wordy and far too in-depth. I didn't want to revert to a previous version, however, for fear of removing any good faith edits that had occurred. In the coming weeks, I'd like to take on improving the article to see if I can get it up to B-grade status. Anyone have any thoughts on this?TheBigFish (talk) 05:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Updated Cast List

Hey, I've updated the cast list a little better, giving character descriptions. Please feel free to edit accordingly. Adam106 (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Plot summary is too long

The plot is at least 12k in text, and goes into too much depth in the movie. How all the victims were killed, how the groups explored the house - that's all extraneous. Yes, it's necessary to provide just enough setup to explain the 3(4) endings, but most of the movie is slapstick comedy which doesn't have to be spelled out. --MASEM (t) 19:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Trim down the plot section as you did but leave the headers for the 3 endings. Your prior edit was too difficult to differentiate between the three different conclusions. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Frankly Scarllete

If there is ever a triva box you should add these

in the scarllete and Peacock alter-endings Wadsworth says 2 quote of other popculture scarllete- Frankly scarllete i don't give a damn, from an old tv show Peacock- The Mounties always get there man, i heared it before, it think its from one of those mini segments in the Rocky and Bullwinkle Show with those mountie men- RREDD13 (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." - from the film Gone With the Wind, in reference to Scarlet O'Hara. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police (Mounties) famously have a saying that predates the Dudley Doright cartoons: "We always get our man." If we're going to include trivia like this, let's make sure it's correctly attributed. 68.94.115.120 (talk) 11:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)