Talk:National Lampoon magazine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Comedy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to comedy, comics, comedians, comedy movies, and the like. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
[edit] The "National Lampoon Inc." section is not appropriate as part of this article
The whole section on "National Lampoon Inc" reads like a thinly-veiled advertisement for the company, which has no connection with the original magazine whatsovever except for owning the brand name. I have attempted to compress this section visually but I am considering tagging it with a warning tag as it seems to be piggy-backing onto a legitimate article for the sole purpose of promoting the interests of the company. Invertzoo (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Can we perhaps split the section on "National Lampoon Inc." off into another article? It does not seem reasonable to have it combined with the real National Lampoon, with which it shares virtually nothing except for being humor-related and using the same name. Invertzoo (talk) 18:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I have tagged the "National Lampoon Inc" sections with advertisement tag and one subsection with a news release tag. I feel that the National Lampoon Inc sections probably do not comply with the WP Notability Guidelines. I also feel strongly that the scope of the "National Lampoon" article should end at the death of the old Lampoon, the point when J2 Publications bought it to use solely as a trademark for hire, and that the new "National Lampoon Inc" should be forced to sink or swim as an article in its own right. Invertzoo (talk) 14:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
We could perhaps split this article into one called "National Lampoon (magazine)" and another one called "National Lampoon Inc" which may or may not meet the Notability guidelines.Invertzoo (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I suggested the split on the WikiProject Comedy talk page a month ago, saying I would make the split in a month's time unless there were any objections. There were none, so today I divided the article into National Lampoon magazine and National Lampoon Inc. I plan to add substantially to the National Lampoon magazine article, along with some solid refs. Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Untitled and unsigned post
Sorry, the "Bored of the Rings" section had to be deleted for the simple reason that it wasn't a National Lampoon production, but a Harvard Lampoon one. If you'll notice, the book parody's publication date precedes the first issue of National Lampoon's. The book is mentioned in the "Harvard Lampoon" Wikipedia entry.
[edit] parody Film featuring Kerrigan/Harding?
Wasn't there a film National Lampoon released years ago that featured parodies of news headliners, such as Nancy Kerrigan and Tonya Harding (not starring as themselves obviously)? I can recall seeing it, I just can't remember if it was part of National Lampoon's work or not. 63.233.87.199 11:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Interview with Chris Cerf, questions wanted
Got a question for Chris Cerf? He was a contributing editor at National Lampoon in its earliest years. Post your questions before 25 April 2005. -- Zanimum 18:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
>>No mention of 'The Encyclopedia Of Humor'. Tsk tsk. God bless you Chris Miller.
[edit] The Middleboro issue of National lampoons story and comics
I am from Middleboro and I slightly remember the story and comics on my home town.I am looking it up for people in my Highschool group that want to see it again.Is there anyone out there that can help me with finding it or atleast send me the artical and cartoon comics of Middleboro.Contact me at truklodyte@yahoo.com
link to a review of lemmings http://www.greenmanreview.com/cd/cd_va_nationallampoon_lemmings.html
[edit] Please check the movies
Do all those movies really exist? There's some I've never heard of. I you are familiar, please check. ike9898 18:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- They all exist. Some of them went straight to DVD, were only released into the international market or get released to wherever bad "B" movies get released these days. What calls itself National Lampoon is a bunch of moneymen who licence the name to whoever comes along.
- National Lampoon was purchased in 1990 by a company called J2 Communications which is a bottom-feader media company that does a little bit of everything. After J2 shut down what used to be National Lampoon, they re-named J2 as National Lampoon Inc.
[edit] National Lampoon Network and its distribution
I removed some information from the article including the claim that the TV network is distributed to 600 colleges. The real number is far less. The numbers have been inflated by running the network in dead timeslots in the middle of the night on obscure cable channels in a number of major cities. And if they run on a particular city/regional cable system, they include every college served by that cable system as their audience. For example, they supposedly are distributed to 53 collegs and universities in California. But the actual number is around nine. They are also generous in terms of what is a college or university. Every ITT technical institute in the country is on the list along with a few chiropractic schools. TV is full of similar exaggeration and these people are not unique in what they are doing. 12.96.162.45 20:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Vegas vacation
Hello, WP editor at 86.144.125.223. I'd respectfully disagree with your judgment on the entry for Vegas Vacation on this page.
On Vegas Vacation, the first paragraph notes:
- "Vegas Vacation, released in 1997, is the fourth part of the Vacation film series centering around the fictitious Griswold family, following National Lampoon's Vacation, National Lampoon's European Vacation, and National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation. It is also the first film in the series not licensed with the National Lampoon moniker."
In the page's trivia section, it notes:
- "Early working titles include National Lampoon's Las Vegas Vacation and National Lampoon's Vegas Vacation"
So although they don't put the words "National Lampoon" into the title, it is definitely a NL film, fourth in the series of NL "Vacation" films, with the same actors playing the same characters as the previous three in the series, and should be included in a comprehensive listing of NL films.
Thanks, - Clicketyclack 10:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] National Lampoon 'True Facts' books
I have several books that purport to be connected to the National Lampoon, such as "National Lampoon Presents More True Facts", 1992. (I can't find the first in the series, which I used to have). I guess they're compilations of the 'True Facts' column in the magazine. Should these books be included on this page? Rob Cranfill 22:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] National Lampoon's X vs. the standard name
Some of their films have dual names - a brand name and a standard name. Should the brand name redirect to the standard name or should it be vice versa? -Lwc4life (talk) 11:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The 4th March 2008 revert on this article
Hello anonymous new user 76.175.162.123. I have left a couple of messages on your talk page. I see from your IP address that you are in the Los Angeles area. Here, in case it is helpful, is a WP link that explains in some detail about how careful one should be before reverting someone else's work: [1]. If I don't hear from you in a day or two I will revert the piece back to its form before your edit. I should explain that in addition to separating the historical National Lampoon Magazine 'per se' from the modern company National Lampoon Inc, I had done numerous other improvements to the piece, all of which disappeared when you reverted it. As you can see, the article on the historical magazine now has a disambiguation message explaining that it is >only< about the old magazine, and pointing people towards the modern company if that is what they are seeking. The material which you seem to want back in the piece is fully represented in the article about the modern company. It is redundant in this historical context. Please write to me on my talk page or post here if you want to discuss this. Thank you. Invertzoo (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Reversing the revert
Today I heard on my talk page from the new user 76.175.162.123 who did the March 4th revert, and who has now apologized. I have put the piece back to the form it was in before the revert, adding on the more recent disambiguation message directing people to the new page when necessary. As a piece about the historical magazine this now fits well into the pre-existing categories "Defunct magazine" and "American magazine". I should point out to any new WP editors reading this, that it is not at all unusual for a piece about a popular topic to end up being split into two separate articles. This is by no means a negative thing: it allows both articles more opportunity for growth and expansion of the topics they cover. Invertzoo (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Discussing the content of the historical National Lampoon magazine article
This discussion is in answer to some questions that were raised by an anonymous user with the Los Angeles IP address 76.175.162.123, on my talk page [2], about whether or not it was a good idea to separate this article from the other more recent content, which is now at National Lampoon Inc. Firstly, this article is now about the defunct print magazine as it was historically, and those projects that were, at that time, directly part of the magazine's efforts, and which were staffed by its creative staff. The fact that the brand name survives to the present day as a franchise or whatever, is not really relevant to this article. That would be more relevant to the National Lampoon Inc article. Another point is that Matty Simmons was strictly the >business force< behind National Lampoon magazine in those days. He had been in the publishing business for quite a while when he started with National Lampoon. For more information, see his book. Not to minimize his importance as a business person, but back then he was not part of the creative staff of the magazine, or its other historical ventures. As for what he has done more recently, such as what you mention he did in 2006, that is not relevant to this article. As for the general history of the business side of things, as that started to change, as far as I can tell, it is reasonably well outlined in the article, in section "1975 to 1998". The company J2 Communications was certainly in control for a couple of years. As for the line about what happened in 2002 as to how accurate that is, it is important to remember that a lot of the research for this article and the actual writing of it, was carried out by huge numbers of editors before me. I am just one of many. I cannot personally defend the accuracy of every statement in the article. if you have access to an already published reputable source that says otherwise, then that is a different matter. Perhaps you can provide appropriate references, and edit in what you believe is the more accurate modern information. If it is modern it should go into the National Lampoon Inc. article. Invertzoo (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "Need expert help" tag
On March 14th, the "need expert help" tag was put in the article by another new anonymous user (with IP address 216.70.132.98). That was done with no edit summary, and with no note on here to explain why it was felt to be appropriate. I wrote to the new user welcoming them and and explaining that without any information, an expert might come over here but will not know what is supposed to be the problem they need to address. I will leave the tag up for a while and then if no explanation is forthcoming, I will delete it. Please write to me if you have any input on this or related ideas. Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
