This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hey, according to imdb.com, this movie is now known as Invention of Lying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.180.104.100 ( talk) 08:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
This is all completely wrong! You seem to have confused two of Ricky Gervais' films This Side Of The Truth, co-written with Matt Robinson is in post-production, due for release in september. Cemetery junction is Ricky's next project, completely separate from TSOTT, written with Stephen Merchant. It is in pre-production, filming hasn't started yet! Jersanuk ( talk) 00:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm writing this in the incorrect format, but this side of the truth is different to "the man from the pru", or "cemetary junction" as it is now apparently known. Filming for This Side of the Truth started almost a year ago, and involves an "alternate Earth" whereby noone has ever lied, and Gervais plays the first man to lie. Pilkington also has a cameo as a caveman in the film, and the filming of his cameo was featured in a segment on BBC2's "The Culture Show" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.188.250 ( talk) 07:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how to make tags on pages but would it not make sense to merge this page with 'This Side of the Truth'? Mcbill88 ( talk) 23:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Four million dollars? Impossible. Where did this number come from? For comparison, Ghost Town was TWENTY million dollars and didn't star Jennifer Garner. Her pay alone is at least four million, never mind the rest of the cast and expenses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.38.30 ( talk) 21:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Really? They get 4 mill just for starring in one movie? Million? I mean, being a millionaire's most people's dream, and they get four mill? And that's just for one gig? What a job.-- 203.45.146.36 ( talk) 01:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Reading this article, one would presume that people have really only taken issue with (the supposed) atheistic message of the film. Maybe this is accurate, but I find it unlikely. The film was abysmal in a number of areas, and I don't think it's fair to only list religious objections. Maybe I'm wrong and no-one laughed at Gervais' crying or thought his love for shallow Garner was absurd, but I do suspect this page isn't being fair to the critics.-- 203.45.146.36 ( talk) 06:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
But I don't really read reviews myself, so I'm hoping someone else can do the work for me.-- 203.45.146.36 ( talk) 06:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the reply, but I don't think I was being clear. I certainly consider myself an atheist, and found the religious stuff to be some of the funnier aspects of the film. Now I don't want to put any 'original research' into the article, but I just imagine that I wasn't alone in my thoughts on the film. Perhaps I'm wrong -- the article seems to suggest this. But I couldn't help watching, say, Ricky's abysmal crying scene, and not thinking: "That's it: the reviews are gonna hammer him for this." There is some mention in the article of how formulaic the love storyline is, which is good, but it's a little bit buried beneath the religous stuff. And it's not just that the romantic story was formulaic: it was outright absurd. Garner's character was portrayed as ridiculously shallow, and out of nowhere Ricky (or Millman or whatever his name was in this thing) just starts spouting all this crap about how caring and decent she is. If the negative reviews didn't rip into the film for these things (et al), then they didn't and I have no problem with the article. I'm just stunned if they didn't, that's all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.146.36 ( talk) 01:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC) -- 203.45.146.36 ( talk) 01:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know what this is supposed to mean?
I think 'cameo' might be more appropriate. I'll edit this if I remember and there are no sensible objections here. -- 78.101.144.210 ( talk) 21:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it wasn't that other people couldn't lie, but rather that nobody had the idea until he did. Should I change this? flarn2006 [ u t c] time: 10:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
No. Leave it. Ghetto Spongebob Squarepants ( talk) 06:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Change it. There is a scene that makes it clear while they are sitting in the bar. If the movie was called The Evolution of Lying, 1/2 of America would not watch it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.49.159 ( talk) 17:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
"The Invention of Lying is a 2009 American speculative romantic comedy film ..."
No, it isn't. It's a satire on theistic religions.
Of course, a satire has to have a plot line, and the romantic interest is part of that, but it's incidental to the core of the film.
Why can't the intro call the film what it really is? Longitude2 ( talk) 20:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hey, according to imdb.com, this movie is now known as Invention of Lying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.180.104.100 ( talk) 08:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
This is all completely wrong! You seem to have confused two of Ricky Gervais' films This Side Of The Truth, co-written with Matt Robinson is in post-production, due for release in september. Cemetery junction is Ricky's next project, completely separate from TSOTT, written with Stephen Merchant. It is in pre-production, filming hasn't started yet! Jersanuk ( talk) 00:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm writing this in the incorrect format, but this side of the truth is different to "the man from the pru", or "cemetary junction" as it is now apparently known. Filming for This Side of the Truth started almost a year ago, and involves an "alternate Earth" whereby noone has ever lied, and Gervais plays the first man to lie. Pilkington also has a cameo as a caveman in the film, and the filming of his cameo was featured in a segment on BBC2's "The Culture Show" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.188.250 ( talk) 07:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know how to make tags on pages but would it not make sense to merge this page with 'This Side of the Truth'? Mcbill88 ( talk) 23:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Four million dollars? Impossible. Where did this number come from? For comparison, Ghost Town was TWENTY million dollars and didn't star Jennifer Garner. Her pay alone is at least four million, never mind the rest of the cast and expenses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.38.30 ( talk) 21:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Really? They get 4 mill just for starring in one movie? Million? I mean, being a millionaire's most people's dream, and they get four mill? And that's just for one gig? What a job.-- 203.45.146.36 ( talk) 01:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Reading this article, one would presume that people have really only taken issue with (the supposed) atheistic message of the film. Maybe this is accurate, but I find it unlikely. The film was abysmal in a number of areas, and I don't think it's fair to only list religious objections. Maybe I'm wrong and no-one laughed at Gervais' crying or thought his love for shallow Garner was absurd, but I do suspect this page isn't being fair to the critics.-- 203.45.146.36 ( talk) 06:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
But I don't really read reviews myself, so I'm hoping someone else can do the work for me.-- 203.45.146.36 ( talk) 06:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the reply, but I don't think I was being clear. I certainly consider myself an atheist, and found the religious stuff to be some of the funnier aspects of the film. Now I don't want to put any 'original research' into the article, but I just imagine that I wasn't alone in my thoughts on the film. Perhaps I'm wrong -- the article seems to suggest this. But I couldn't help watching, say, Ricky's abysmal crying scene, and not thinking: "That's it: the reviews are gonna hammer him for this." There is some mention in the article of how formulaic the love storyline is, which is good, but it's a little bit buried beneath the religous stuff. And it's not just that the romantic story was formulaic: it was outright absurd. Garner's character was portrayed as ridiculously shallow, and out of nowhere Ricky (or Millman or whatever his name was in this thing) just starts spouting all this crap about how caring and decent she is. If the negative reviews didn't rip into the film for these things (et al), then they didn't and I have no problem with the article. I'm just stunned if they didn't, that's all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.146.36 ( talk) 01:23, 22 March 2010 (UTC) -- 203.45.146.36 ( talk) 01:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone know what this is supposed to mean?
I think 'cameo' might be more appropriate. I'll edit this if I remember and there are no sensible objections here. -- 78.101.144.210 ( talk) 21:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it wasn't that other people couldn't lie, but rather that nobody had the idea until he did. Should I change this? flarn2006 [ u t c] time: 10:08, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
No. Leave it. Ghetto Spongebob Squarepants ( talk) 06:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes. Change it. There is a scene that makes it clear while they are sitting in the bar. If the movie was called The Evolution of Lying, 1/2 of America would not watch it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.49.159 ( talk) 17:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
"The Invention of Lying is a 2009 American speculative romantic comedy film ..."
No, it isn't. It's a satire on theistic religions.
Of course, a satire has to have a plot line, and the romantic interest is part of that, but it's incidental to the core of the film.
Why can't the intro call the film what it really is? Longitude2 ( talk) 20:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)