Talk:Pink Flamingos

	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.

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.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Maryland Low‑importance

	Maryland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland 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.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Library of Congress Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress 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.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Vago, Mike (April 19, 2020). "Avert your eyes from this list of banned films". The A.V. Club.

Untitled

The picture and caption should be removed, it's a total spoiler. I've not seen the movie and just came here to check it out before getting it. 89.124.111.173 19:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see this article here, but it really needs to be NPOVed.

Yes, it really reads more like a review than an encyclopedia article. -- Mattworld 23:34, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Okay, why is Divine being refered to in the feminine sense? Seeing as Divine is a man, shouldn't it be him and he, not her and she?

Because in the film, he doesn't play a cross dresser but rather an actual woman.Dominic 03:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, many Drag Queens (Harold Glen Milstead/Divine included) view their personas as characters themselves. So it's just curtios, a bit odd for some, but curtious to do it.

did this guy really eat actual dog shit?

Yes, he did...quite a sick and twisted film, huh? Jackp 06:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

a musical scene with a fully exposed gesticulating anus

I think that needs clarification because I have no idea what that means. I plan to watch the movie soon and improve it. are you talking about rarg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.118.184 (talk) 10:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

"Divine and the other partygoers beat the four policemen to death and eat them alive" makes no sense 65.95.57.183 (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot edits

Fixed a bunch of minor errors and streamlined it a littleMjpresson (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC) need to make internal links still does anyone read this article??Mjpresson (talk) 19:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really a 'punk' film? There's a lot of issues I have with labeling any film with that genre, but I can understand the arguement with some- Jubilee, Repo Man, Sid and Nancy, Times Square- but Pink Flamingo's preceded punk and there's not a single punk band on the soundtrack. Before anyone says anything, yeah maybe the looks inspired a lot of punks, but that alone doesn't make it punk; you would have to label all Kenneth Anger, Jack Smith, and Andy Warhol films as punk too by that logic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.63.207.69 (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Poor" or "Bad" Taste?

The opening paragraph states that the tagline is: "An exercise in bad taste." However, the billboard picture on the page clearly states that the tagline is: "An exercise in POOR taste." So which is it? Thanks.13:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.225.142.123 (talk)

Banned

Well I don't know about "It was eventually released on VHS in Australia in the late 1980s with a X rating" because this film, along with all the John Waters films, showed regularly at cinemas like the Valhalla cinema in Glebe all through the 1980s. I saw it in about 1983 there along with the other Waters films (Female Trouble, Desperate Living, Polyester). 60.242.240.63 (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flamingos Forever: The Proposed Sequel

I happen to have a copy of the book Trash Trio, which includes the script to the formerly proposed sequel "Flamingos Forever," a title displayed proudly on the cover. Therefore all the CN tags should be removed. ----DanTD 16:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069089/trivia. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rite of Spring

For what it's worth, all works published before 1923 (as Rite of Spring was, in the U.K.) are in the public domain in the U.S., but not in the U.K. (author's life + 70 years). As evidence that the U.K. copyright does not protect the work in the United States, Dover Publications published in 2005 a piano four hands version (see http://worldcat.org), and Dover publishes public domain things, rarely paying royalties. deisenbe (talk) 04:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Warmly received by critics"?

This sentence near end of lede paragraph almost made me drop my bong and wonder, "What were THEY smoking"?

I seem to remember several mainstream film critics like Rex Reed savaging this film. In fact, phrases from bad reviews were used ironically on posters as marketing slogans, e.g.: "Like a septic tank explosion, it has to be seen to be believed."

Not disputing film is warmly embraced by SOME members of LGBT community -- including me, a fan of transgressive queer art -- but I've known a few gay squares like cops, bankers and public relations people (ugh) who hate Pink Flamingos (and any film with queer themes that doesn't adhere to after-school special tropes).

I hate doing research, so hoping other editors can gather a range of critical opinions and synthesize them into a general consensus about film (or else something like "Pink Flamingos received generally poor reviews from mainstream film critics, but was favored by a few critics writing for alternative publications" (e.g., Village Voice, Rolling Stone -- which both were more underground/fringe/alternative publications in 1975, year film was released).

Muchas gracias, fellow film fanatics and multiple maniacs! Kinkyturnip (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't Waters have been quite disappointed if it got good reviews from mainstream critics? deisenbe (talk) 20:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! That was my point above where I mention excerpts from bad reviews used on posters to sell tickets. Hey, I see you've won several Eddy awards. (Waters says Dawn Davenport's last words in Female Trouble are like an Academy Award in her criminally insane mind.) Anyway, I like how you post links to Wiki guidelines. I wish I had read more of those before my last edit; I should have refrained from SHOUTING! (Sorry, mea culpa.) Do you know if banners are available to post above complicated plot summaries (like most Waters' films)? I remember seeing notices like "The plot summary of this film is too long. Here's how you can help shorten it." Like Taffy Davenport, I'm a retarded brat who's tech-challenged. Any help greatly appreciated. Congrats again on your Eddies! Cheers. Kinkyturnip (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:All_plot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Example_farm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Verbosity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Technical

deisenbe (talk) 00:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright issues

I clicked on citation for Kiddie Flamingos and realized most of Wikipedia section repeats source nearly verbatim. This same issue also occurs in first sentence of first and second paragraphs of Plot summary. Imitation may indeed be the sincerest form of flattery, but copying someone else's material is a violation of copyright laws. Please help rewrite these sections to avoid copyright violations. I may do this eventually, but right now I'm tapped out after dozens of edits to this article (and somewhat hobbled by editing on my phone). Thanks, filth fans! Kinkyturnip (talk) 03:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fi Kinkyturnip (talk) 01:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation page?

Shouldn't there it be a disambiguation page for "Ping Flamingos". People may get confused when looking for pink flamingos (the animals). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrincodi (talk • contribs) 15:41, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguation page for flamingo already exists. Also, if you click on link in first paragraph of Plot summary, you are directed to article on the classic plastic lawn ornament. Kinkyturnip (talk) 19:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a hatnote. I think it's possible someone looking for Flamingo or Plastic flamingo could type in "Pink Flamingos". The other items on the dab page are less likely. No one is going to come here looking for Flamingo International Airport. GA-RT-22 (talk) 04:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

cast

The film has one unusual feature that's a little less controversial than its many other unusual features: the credits for cast and crew are exceptionally long - particularly for a small, independent film with no special effects - because nearly every individual appearing on screen is specifically identified. With one exception -- last I read, the gentleman who plays the contortionist at Babs's birthday party has never been identified -- with John Waters commenting "for obvious reasons." I will see if I can find citations for any of this information and -- if the material seems noteworthy -- add it to the article. PurpleChez (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]