Talk:Cheaper by the Dozen (2003 film)

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cheaper by the Dozen (2003 film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Cheaper by the Dozen (2003 film) was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 14, 2007	Good article nominee	Not listed

Comedy

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Film: 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 American cinema task force.

20th Century Studios Mid‑importance

	20th Century Studios portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject 20th Century Studios, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 20th Century Studios and its affiliated companies 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.20th Century StudiosWikipedia:WikiProject 20th Century StudiosTemplate:WikiProject 20th Century Studios20th Century Studios articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trivia

Below information should be re-integrated into the article in other sections.

Liliana Mumy (Jessica Baker) and Morgan York (Kim Baker) in real life are a year apart but are fraternal twins in the movie.

Brent and Shane Kinsman (Nigel and Kyle Baker) are identical twins.

In the scene where Charlie Baker (Tom Welling) finally stands up to the bullies, Jared Padalecki, had to stand on a cardboard box to be shown taller than Charlie Baker since Tom Welling is 6'3"

For a brief moment, Kate Baker's book can be seen. Her full name is revealed to be 'Kate Gilbreth Baker'. The Gilbreths were the family featured in the book Cheaper by the Dozen

Steve Martin who is a self-confessed, huge Whovian, accepted the lead role as Tom Baker because it was as close as he could get to fulfilling the goal of so many Whovians and play The Doctor

Kevin Schmidt and Ashton Kutcher both later co-starred in The Butterfly Effect, but were not seen in any scenes together, since Kevin played the younger Lenny.

--Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 22:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

should it also be noted that in real life Alyson Stoner (Sarah Baker) is Older then Liliana Mumy (Jessica baker), although in the movie she is a year younger then her? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.60.251 (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know the story behind Ashton Kutcher being uncredited. 4.225.195.194 (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Fan[reply]

Synopsis

I've never seen or heard of this movie, but it needs a PLOT SYNOPSIS. Please? Pretty please? Goldfritter 18:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major expansion

Hello, I noticed that article needed some work so I've added a plot synopsis, added character biographies, added references, fixed the categories, added a few goofs and more info on the production/writers etc. I'll add some similarities from the book shortly and then I think it'll be done! Any thoughts and or comments? Happy editing! The Sunshine Man 16:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For GAC, the trivia section should be removed and the information integrated into the rest of the article. The poster also didn't have a fair use rationale, but I added one. --Nehrams2020 21:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review – GA Failed

I'm failing this film article because it lacks two important sections of any film article: Production and Reception. I would suggest taking a look at WikiProject Films' style guidelines as well as WikiProject Films' Featured and Good articles found here. Below are some minor suggestions to continue improving the article:

Remove subsection titles from the Plot and try to re-sort the sentences into 3-4 paragraphs. Also, common words (like dog and fight) should not be wiki-linked.
The Characters and Cast sections should be merged together. It can be formatted as shown below:

Steve Martin as Tom Baker: The father of twelve children and husband of Kate Baker... (the rest follows)

The Production crew section repeats what is already in the Infobox Film template. The same goes for the Producers and Screenplay sections. More encyclopedic content about the film's production would include detail about the adaptation of the book to the film, how they found their cast, where it was filmed, and anything unique in the process such as delays in filming.
The Awards section seems underdeveloped and does not say which actor was nominated for which award.
Like Nehrams said above, the information from the Trivia section should be merged into the rest of the article. The Goofs section is as trivial and could be merged, but it seems best to remove it.

I think that if you want to improve this article, you should find information about Production and Reception first. These, besides the Plot, are staple sections for any film articles, and most other content can be added around it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beat me to the review. Adding on to what Erik said, the film's title in the lead needs to be in italics as well as bold. Gran² 14:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Padalecki vs. Welling

Anyone think it's funny that Jared and Tom are both in this movie. Both are from top sci-fi shows on the CW (god awful network). (JoeLoeb (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Production

If a production section were to be created, the numerous shots including a boom mic should be mentioned. I saw an interview sometime just before the movie was released that mentioned the difficulty of shooting scenes with so many child actors. This might explain why the poor camera/crew work was allowed to remain. 68.153.29.23 (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ages

Where did the kids ages come from? I'm pretty sure in the movie they say the order is Nora, Charlie, Lorraine, Henry, Sarah, Jake, Mark, Jessica & Kim, Mark, Mike, Nigel & Kyle. 67.173.40.208 (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Descriptions of cast

I think these are overly excessive and it should go back to the way it was before.63.226.236.94 (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cheaper by the Dozen (2003 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/20140316064317/http://www.razzies.com/forum/2003-razzie-nominees-winners_topic353.html to http://www.razzies.com/forum/2003-razzie-nominees-winners_topic353.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://foxhome.com/cheaperbythedozen/

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) 01:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Just thought I'd edit the plot 2600:6C42:6400:5EF7:9534:11CC:938F:7D0 (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. — IVORK _Talk 06:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]