Talk:Footloose (1984 film)

Plot

Is anyone able to add a plot outline to this? I would love to know what the story (true or false) actually is. So if you have seen the movie please feel free to add to what I know. I am aware that it is about children in some school that had to fight to have a school dance, but if anyone has the time to add some details I would be grateful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.233.81 (talk) 04:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Banned rock music?

I remember that they banned dancing -- that was pretty much the premise of the whole movie -- but I don't remember anything about a ban on rock music. Can anybody cite a line supporting that statement? SnappingTurtle 13:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember the exact worlds but when Revrand haw was talking to withel ethel or ariel he did saw something about Rock and Roll Music confusing and putting bad images in their head!

In His Sermon Reverend Shaw says: "If he wasn't testing us, how you acount for the crimes that plauge the big cities of this country or the popularity of this obscene rock and roll music, with it;s easy sexuality.....

Based on a true story?

Does anyone know if something like this really happened? I've heard of American (US) communities banning dancing before; did any of these still exist in the 1980s, and if so, did they also ban rock music, or perhaps all music, as did the Taliban in Afghanistan (1996-2001)? Shanoman 22:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I just read today: "The movie is based loosely on a real Oklahoma city where dancing was banned until 1978." (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC))

Also, per IMDb:

• "The movie was loosely based on events that took place in the tiny, rural Oklahoma farming community of Elmore City."
• "Based on the 1978 events in a small Oklahoma town where dancing had been banned for nearly 90 years until a group of high school teens challenged it." (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 12:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC))

Remake

The remake section is out of control. Fully 2/3rds of the references in this article are in that section, but the information is contradictory, the sources are mostly Hollywood gossip sites, and there is very little in the way of verifiable information. It's an awful lot of information about a film that might not even be made. That section should be trimmed back to one paragraph with only the most recent, verified information. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Musical?

I've always thought musicals are like Annie or Mary Poppins where characters sing for no real reason. Even some musicals they sing for a reason but in this film no one sings in this. How can this movie be in the same category as Annie or Mary Poppins. This film is only a drama. In fact, I believe this film is a comedy-drama because some parts of this film are humorous. It is just as much humor as there is drama but there is nothing that makes this a musical except for dancing and Kenny Loggins singing but nothing else. ModerateTy (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Being able to make changes

Hello. I saw that discussion post that said more details would be appreciated, and someone on here won't let me make ANY changes. I am not vandalizing the page, I am making it better. I know lots about the movie and all I want to do is expand the plot and add more details. It is not descriptive enough the way it is because someone takes anything I edit and sands it down. Thanks, Burmiester — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burmiester (talk • contribs) (09:53, 29 January 2011)

Plot summaries are not supposed to be detailed descriptions of the film. They are supposed to be brief summaries, that is why your details and description have been repeatedly removed. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Music in infobox

The following names have been listed in the infobox for a long time, but I can find no indication they had anything to do with the movie: Nigel Harrison, Mark Mothersbaugh, and Jamshied Sharifi. Does anyone have any idea why they were listed? ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 04:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. I did note the page was moved without discussion in October 2009. That aside, since usage is split between the two films (and song?), there's no primary topic by usage. Usage may also be determined by long-term significance, but there is not yet indication that the 2011 film does not have long-term significance. It may be interesting to see of there's consensus to add the adaptation/original distinction to the primary topic guidelines. (Also please note that the move from "(1984 film)" to "(film)" is contrary to the film naming conventions -- if there are two films that share a title, and neither is primary for the title, they each get disambiguated with the year.) Once usage for the 2011 film drops off (or if otherwise the difference in long-term significance is indicated), we can execute the move. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

---

• Footloose (1984 film) → Footloose
• Footloose → Footloose (disambiguation)

– The movie/franchise about a town that bans dancing is by far and away the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, this page alone getting ten times the views of the G.I. Joe character. The only thing that stops this from being uncontroversial is that the 2011 film has as many views as this one, which brings me to the second point in PRIMARYTOPIC: that usage and long-term notability both play a part. Unofficially, unless an adaptation is much more popular, we tend to give the undisambiguated title to the original, as it's indicative of long-term notability: see The Hunger Games, Harry Potter, etc... Sceptre ^(talk) 18:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose as there is no demonstrated need for the move. The present setup works well to address multiple needs, including the respective awareness of the films amongst different generations. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose there is no clear primary topic. The song can be argued to be more notable than the film. I would, however, support Footloose (1984 film) moved to Footloose (film), because it is definitively more notable than the remake. JDDJS (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. As Ckatz has said, there is no demonstrated need for the move, nor a clear indication that it is the primary topic. I do, though, support the compromise offered by JDDJS. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 02:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The status quo is correct. (1984 film) and (2011 film) is correct as well. htom (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The present arrangement meets the needs of readers better than any other. In particular, the date will benefit readers who are looking for clarification of a confusing situation. Noetica^Tea? 01:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose clearly not the primary topic. The song can be seen as more popular, and the term itself even more so. 70.24.248.211 (talk) 06:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Support; the original film is clearly the primary topic, just from common sense. We need not be slaves to statistics if it produces silly results. Powers ^T 20:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Footloose (1984 film). 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/20111108091147/http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/polls/forgotten-pleasures-of-the-multiplex-e-to-j.php to http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/polls/forgotten-pleasures-of-the-multiplex-e-to-j.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070922161224/http://www.fast-rewind.com/footlse.htm to http://www.fast-rewind.com/footlse.htm/

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) 01:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Whose Melnick?

In the first paragraph, under the subheading Production, is this reference "and teamed up with Melnick's IndieProd…". I checked the information above this reference and could not determine who Melnick is. I suggest that be clarified or removed. Milhistor8 (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC)