Talk:Rachael Leigh Cook

Untitled

Was there a reason for deleting the majority of the filmography section? MK2 01:53, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

That does seem odd. Also, she appears in the category Batman actors, but there is no mention of that here. -- Beardo 05:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Then, reinstate information as necessary. Michael 04:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Help please

I created the This Is Your Brain On Drugs article. I have been unable to confirm which year the version of that ad with RLC was broadcast. Can someone please take the trouble to find this out. The only source I can find on the matter said 1998 - which I put in the article - but I have a strong feeling this is incorrect. Thanks, Aaron Jethro

Absence of Photos

No photos of Rachael Leigh Cook? thats like a crime, agreed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.120.37 (talk • contribs) 06:18, March 3, 2007

Agreed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk • contribs) 01:37, March 18, 2007

Affirmative —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brizimm (talk • contribs) 01:37, March 18, 2007

I've uploaded a photo of her, but I can't seem to get it to display in her infobox, here's the URL:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Image:Rachael_Leigh_Cook.png

Fucking hot. End Of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.125.158 (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

CSI Miami

Rachael has never been on CSI: Miami. The Lab Assistant is played by Boti Bliss. She looks a bit like Rachael. But she is not RLC.62.227.246.214 (talk) 09:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Omega

Jo-Jo Gianelli

why delecting her mother, Jo Ann Gianelli, is italian american?--93.33.0.128 (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

"Ancestry"

This statement is either WP:OR, or a least a little presumptuous: "She has Italian ancestry." <ref>Glamour.com interview used as the ref for this statement</ref>

The wording has been taken out of context, and turned into a claim of ancestry. After searching through various websites, reading interviews, and watching some videos, I can find nothing to support that claim of Italian ancestry after an hours trawling. Indeed, it seems that there are rumours of both Native American ancestry, and Italian (though most "Italian" claims use the same ref from Wikipedia, a similar IMDB unsubstantiated claim, or are quoting Wikipedia).

Moreover, if taken in context, it could equally mean nothing more than her preferred choice of food. So, to the original text from the ref:

Last Supper: "Pizza, eggplant parm and things like that. I’m an Italian girl."

If the reply had been: "Hua juan, dou sha bao and things like that. I'm a Chinese girl", would we be claiming "She is of Chinese ancestry."?

I have hidden this for now, as Biographies need to be accurate. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Sleeper hit

I strongly disagree with the claim that She's All That was a sleeper hit. A film that goes to No. 1 its opening weekend simply does not fit definition of a sleeper hit. If you wanted to described it as an unexpected hit, or a surprise hit that would be fine. Even if some source did repeated the dubious claim that it was a sleeper hit there is no need to repeat that incorrect statement. Also it seems offtopic and unnecessary to even include that detail in this article, and this discussion would be better continued on the talk page for the film: Talk:She's_All_That#Sleeper_Hit? -- 109.79.176.51 (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

IJBall wrote in an edit summary: It's a "sleeper hit" because nobody expected it to be #1 in the first place: it says "...despite having relatively little promotion OR lacking a successful opening."

The film opened at No 1 AND it was heavily promoted to the tune of $18 million (the budget was $7 million).

But again, it doesn't seem like an important detail worth mentioning at all. -- 109.79.176.51 (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm restoring it, on the basis of WP:STATUSQUO. It's both sourceable, and only you have objected to its inclusion. If you want it out, you need to show more consensus for its exclusion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, there are far more questionable claims in the article – for instance, that Josie and the Pussycats is "a cult classic". There's other stuff like that actually is more objectionable or questionable... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

It seems strange thing to want to keep this erroneous claim, and other things also being wrong seems an even stranger reason to keep it. Old and wrong is still wrong. I again point you to the old discussion Talk:She's_All_That#Sleeper_Hit? specifically where the first commenter complained that the term sleeper hit was "Joining the ranks of "cult classic" on Wikipedia" as an overused term. There are probably many reasons why you could remove the claim that Josie is cult classic, but for starters there there is no reliable source included here in this article. The reason I didn't already also remove that is because the article for the Josie film does have a subsection about cult status (although frankly I think the section would be better presented as "Legacy" and I don't like the over use of "cult classic" either).

I think the through-line of the section is trying to outline her career direction. Various early roles get a mention, She's All That was important as her breakout role[1] and that is the detail most relevant to her career. Although not currently included in the article I think Texas Rangers should be mentioned as it was big budget film where she was top-billed that did not succeed. Followed by Josie which was also not a success, shows the next step of her career. So if the purpose of the paragraph is to outlining her career, then maybe it is relevant to mention if a film was successful or not, but there's not need to get into undue details about "sleeper hit" or "cult classic".

Not sure if this is a good enough source but apparently she deliberately chose to take her career in the direction of smaller edgier films, so maybe even the financial failure of Josie isn't relevant, it depends on what subtext or implications we are trying to include or avoid. -- 109.79.176.51 (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

It's not "erroneous" – you think it's "erroneous". There's difference. But there are clearly others that think it qualifies as a "sleeper hit" (I'm pretty much in this camp...). If other editors want it out, then, fine. But it shouldn't be removed after 5+ years (and now sourced), just because one editor thinks it's "erroneous". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I made follow up comments at Talk:She's_All_That#Sleeper_Hit?. -- 109.76.154.143 (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I was trying to keep the discussion in only one place but I received no reply to my comments on the She's All That article, and no attempt has been made to restore the sleeper hit claim to that article too, which I thought IJBall would do if he still believe the claim was correct. But just to be absolutely clear and before I ask for WP:3RD I repost/rephrase my comments from that other talk page here:

I eventually tracked down the edit where the claim sleeper hit was added to this article in 2012, by an anonymous IP. The same editor made various edits to the article for Rachael Leigh Cook including adding the sleeper hit claim there too. -- 109.76.154.143 (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Having found the anon edit that added sleeper hit to both articles I now have no doubts whatsoever that it was incorrect (and I already thought it was irrelevant) and resulted in the Circular reporting when the 15th anniversary of the film came around. If you still think it appropriate or even think it should be restored to the article then we will need to go to WP:3RD and request other opinions. -- 109.76.133.62 (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.79.184.64 (talk)

The bottom line is that it goes against the very Wikipedia definition of the term "sleeper hit" which defines it as a piece of work that is initially unsuccessful and goes on to have success later on. The follow up is just explaining WHY it may not have been successful. (Lack of promotion, lack of successful launch, etc.) Which, by the way, STILL doesn't apply to She's All That. It was promoted pretty damn heavily in 1999. Probably more than any of the many teen romcoms. And did very well in its opening weekend. Recouping its productions costs, and then some. All in 3 days. So a very successful launch. So there is literally no part of the definition of "sleeper hit" that this fits. So now you have one Wikipedia article DIRECTLY refuting another Wikipedia article. And unless you are talking about the bible, having parts directly refute other parts generally takes away your credibility, even among your enthusiasts. Whoever first put that in was simply stupidly confusing the term "sleeper hit" with "unexpected hit" and for some reason, it is holding up even though it HAS been removed from the She's All That page. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/68.194.44.253

Please be careful and please keep it polite. I appreciate the comment in agreement and I still don't understand why IJBall insisted on keeping the "sleeper hit" claim even after I pointed out the two original diffs [2] [3] that were the source of the problem, and all the circular references thereafter.

One way to resolve the matter might be to involve a neutral WP:3RD party, but I was still hoping that IJBall would remove or modify the wording. Even changing it from sleeper hit to unexpected hit or surprise hit would be enough. -- 109.79.161.25 (talk) 04:13, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

See above for the diff where I tracked down the unexplained anon-IP editor from 2012 that added the sleeper hit claim. I've always thought this claim was dubious (it was long since [Talk:She%27s_All_That#Sleeper_Hit?|excised from the She's All That article]). I tagged the claim here as dubious in July 2024 and since there have been no new comments or discussion. This is a biographical article so it is important to note that it was her breakout role, but even if true the claim that it was a sleeper hit would still be incidental at best or at worst entirely irrelevant. I will remove the dubious claim, and if anyone still disputes it we can reopen this discussion. -- 109.78.196.173 (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Love, Guaranteed

IJBall removed a red link to Love, Guaranteed. No article for that film exists yet, I expect an article will be created for it, and I think it is fair and in keeping with WP:REDLINK to add a link for it.

There's no need to make rude personal remarks "Reverting IP who doesn't know what they're doing."[4] Please use edit the summary to explain your changes. What's the harm in having a redlink? -- 109.76.215.76 (talk) 13:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Also I filled a Citation needed request that no one had bothered to fix for months, but IJBall changed the reference without explaining that either. -- 109.76.215.76 (talk) 13:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I see now there is already a page at Love Guaranteed (no comma, some tv show). You could pointed out that small mistake the first time instead of making rude personal comments.

It seems there is already a page for Love, Guaranteed (including comma) which I now notice is the correct name of the film.[5] -- 109.76.215.76 (talk) 13:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I replaced your reference because I was adding it myself and it got caught in an edit conflict, and my ref, unlike yours, was properly formatted for the article, as per WP:CITEVAR. And my edit summary was correct – you were adding a link that was going to the wrong article and was not a "red link". I'm glad you figured it out, but you should have listened to what I was saying. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Your rude, unnecessary and unhelpful edit summary did not make that clear. It was only from your later blunt edit summary that I was able to figure out what had happened. You didn't catch the missing comma mistake either and disambiguate to the right page, so there's no reason to act all superior about it.

There was no way I could possibly know that you would decide to fill a citation that hadn't been filled in months right at the same time as I filled it. I'm not certain what trivial reference formatting you think I got wrong but that is no reason to be rude either. It would have been easier for everyone if you'd taken the edit on good faith, and corrected any mistakes without needing to be rude about it. -- 109.76.215.76 (talk) 13:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Ben Cook

The article mentions her production company "Ben's Sister Productions" and has since at least 2013 described Ben as "an aspiring filmmaker". That text might be a little outdated.

I'm fairly sure her brother Ben Cook, and Ben Cook the producer of the television series The Expanse [6] are the same person.[7] but I haven't yet found good enough reliable enough source that would allow me to add that to the article, but maybe someone else could find a better source and update the article accordingly (i.e. change x "aspiring filmmaker" to y "television producer"). Pictures of Rachael and Ben[8] and Ben and Rachael at Rogue One[9] is good enough for me to confirm it is the right Ben but I don't think I've necessarily found a good enough source for an encyclopedia yet. -- 109.76.200.104 (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)