Talk:PCU (film)

Connecticut Low‑importance

	Connecticut portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comedy Low‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: Canadian / American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Canadian cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Cult Film?[edit]

A lot of movies with wiki pages are openly referred to as "cult films"... Rocky Horror, Plan 9 From Outer Space, etc. I always thought this movie was deserving of that title. Whenever people mention cinema of this genre, PCU is never included (Animal House, Porky's, even American Pie and Old School). But the fans of this film (such as myself) feel it's just as great, if not greater, than all the others. If that's not cult status, what is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.223.51 (talk • contribs) 13:24, May 15, 2007

If there's an official list of cult films, it isn't cult anymore. Part of the idea is something that experiences a surge in popularity after initial release, but yet is not generally in the mainstream. If a film enters mainstream status at any time, "cult" doesn't really apply anymore. The Shawshank Redemption is one example; initial release was a flop, but it gained it's largest audience on Cable syndication. No one would describe it as a 'cult' film, however. It's too far into the zeitgeist today. 38.75.61.49 (talk) 02:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Caine-Hackman Theory[edit]

I changed the heading "Caine-Hackman Thesis" to "Caine-Hackman Theory," as it is a theory created by Roger Ebert in his book, Ebert's Little Movie Glossary. This is the term given by Ebert in the book, and the film borrows the concept. Ebert describes the concept exactly as it is used in the movie (although, the A Bridge Too Far reference is only used in the film). The character "Pigman" uses the theory as the basis of his thesis. The concept created by Ebert should be listed by the name he gave it, not solely as a thesis, as it is used in the film. Wavy G 02:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked your chronology? The Ebert book seems to be from May 1999, whereas PCU is from 1994. The article doesn't imply a particular causality, but it's worth noting. That is, unless I've gotten something mixed up myself. --GargoyleMT 20:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just happened to have the book sitting here as I saw your message, and I checked and (at least the addition I have, where I first read the reference in question) it is (c) 1994. That's a tough call, since the movie is from the same year, but the book is actaully a compilation of previous terms featured in Ebert's column in the Sun, created by Ebert/his fans. Although, like you said, it doesn't really matter, but would be nice to note. Wavy G 06:40, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. I just researched and found he had another book called Ebert's Bigger Little Movie Glossary, which was from 1999. The book I have was titled "Ebert's Little Movie Glossary" (1994). Hope this clears things up. Wavy G 06:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, confusing book titles. The fact that the movie and your book are from the same year, and that the book is compilation of preexisting works does indeed indicate that the movie is making a reference to Ebert's work. Maybe the DVD commentary has some mention that can be cited as a source in the article (WP:V and all). --GargoyleMT 16:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Womynist conspiracy?[edit]

I don't think the Womynist's really conspire with Balls and Shaft and Garcia-Thompson against The Pit, as such. Rand nudges them in the right direction to support his plans, but he despises them about as much as he does The Pit. Anyone want to refute the argument before I adjust the article accordingly?--MythicFox 07:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was wrong. I went ahead and adjusted it. Wavy G 22:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nemesis talk went overboard in the Plot. I've removed it; the student groups aren't really against the Pit, they just oppose their views. Rand McPherson is the one true antagonist, everyone else is incidental; if the Pit bought into political correctness, the opposition disappears. 38.75.61.49 (talk) 02:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Port Chester University[edit]

Do the writers have any connection to Port Chester, NY? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.199.193 (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without evidence, who's to say? 38.75.61.49 (talk) 02:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the name was invented to create initials which signify the underlying "secret" title of the film (Politically Correct University).Historian932 (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC) P.S. I went there at the same time as the writers.[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Pcumovieposter.jpg[edit]

Image:Pcumovieposter.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) 18:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:PCUvhs1994.jpg[edit]

Image:PCUvhs1994.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 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) 06:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not in Electic[edit]

I went there at the same time as the writer and knew one of them (Leff), I don't believe either of them was in Eclectic (the movie is not about that fraternity anyway, it's about the college in general, the only fraternity which is highlighted is Balls and Shaft [Psi Upsilon] and the Pit which was Beta or maybe a cross of Beta and Eclectic?) Historian932 (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]