:I don’t exactly remember how it plays out, but perhaps “Joan remains on the board of Pepsi” would work? I’d provide more specifics if I could remember them, but I’m not sure the scene itself even makes her exact disposition clear (my vague memory is that she challenges them and then the scene cuts away). [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 22:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
:I don’t exactly remember how it plays out, but perhaps “Joan remains on the board of Pepsi” would work? I’d provide more specifics if I could remember them, but I’m not sure the scene itself even makes her exact disposition clear (my vague memory is that she challenges them and then the scene cuts away). [[User:Doniago|DonIago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 22:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
== Contradiction and unsupported claims ==
Under “Response from Crawford family”:
:”However, Christina’s issues with the film are in the presentation, not the instances of abuse. In an interview with Larry King, she confirmed that Crawford would fly into rages and beat her with household objects. “Hair brushes, and – the famous hangers, of course. It was very violent.””
vs “Legacy”:
:”Christina Crawford, the writer of the memoir on which the film is based, had no involvement with the making of the film, and denounced the film as “grotesque” and a work of fiction, specifically stating that Joan Crawford never chopped down a tree with an axe, or beat her with a wire hanger as depicted in the film.[42]”
In the video cited for [42] she says that the tree part “didn’t happen that way, that’s too simplistic” in reference to tying the event to her being fired. Her criticism was that “they tried I think to show a direct cause and effect, in other words an events in real life that was followed by some behavior on my mother’s part that was very bizarre.” not that she’s saying the event didn’t happen at all, but the framing of actual events was fictionalized.
Then at 6 minutes is the following:
:Interviewer: …and the wire hangers?
:Christina Crawford: That was true but not like it was portrayed…
[[Special:Contributions/~2025-37934-77|~2025-37934-77]] ([[User talk:~2025-37934-77|talk]]) 20:11, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
 |
|
The lengthy plot summary section of this article doesn’t seem to describe the plot at all. I haven’t seen the film, but could somebody who has seen it please write a summary? —Ddawn23 08:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Should there be a mention of, at least be a link to, the Dan-o-rama megamix version, or would that be irrelevant? 70.140.227.136 04:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Is the bit in Family Guy when Lois goes apeshit over the towels really a reference? My sister’s got the DVDs at the moment, so I can’t check the commentary. It just seems a bit vague (if she’d started beating Peter with a wire hanger, then it’d be different :)) Paul E Nolan 11:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:Mommie Dearest DVD cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:Nowirehangers.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
“… who played the Crawfords’ maid Carol Ann” is incorrect. Carol Ann is Crawford’s assistant. She helps Crawford deal with fan mail.
—173.66.64.90 (talk) 04:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
The “Critical Reception” section cites Rotten Tomatoes, which itself cites fewer than ten original reviews from the time the movie was released in 1981. Is that citation really, then, of any value at all, especially considering the fact that opinions have changed over the years as the film grew in terms of its cult status and broader cultural impact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.206.72 (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Below material was tagged for needing sources long-term. Feel free to reinsert with appropriate references. Doniago (talk) 13:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
|
Home media |
|---|
|
==Home media==
Mommie Dearest was first released on DVD July 17, 2001. It was re-released June 6, 2006 in a special “Hollywood Royalty” edition, with audio commentary by John Waters. Waters spends the bulk of his commentary dissecting the film as a serious bio-film and is quite outspoken in condemning the two sequences in the film (the infamous “wire hanger” rant and the “Tina! Bring me the axe!” scene) that Waters believes are solely responsible for the film’s reputation as a camp film; he also blames the studio for trying to market it as a “camp classic” even during its initial release. |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mommie Dearest (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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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) 21:40, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mommie Dearest (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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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) 05:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
So, besides IMDB, where did the film’s $5 million budget figure come from? I’ve found some published articles that says the budget was $10 million. [Here’s an article from Spy Magazine] and [a New York Times article]. Crboyer (talk) 03:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- The Numbers says $5M.[1]. Maybe we should say $5-10? DonIago (talk) 20:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
What does this even mean ? s.vecchiato (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I don’t exactly remember how it plays out, but perhaps “Joan remains on the board of Pepsi” would work? I’d provide more specifics if I could remember them, but I’m not sure the scene itself even makes her exact disposition clear (my vague memory is that she challenges them and then the scene cuts away). DonIago (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Under “Response from Crawford family”:
- “However, Christina’s issues with the film are in the presentation, not the instances of abuse. In an interview with Larry King, she confirmed that Crawford would fly into rages and beat her with household objects. “Hair brushes, and – the famous hangers, of course. It was very violent.””
vs “Legacy”:
- “Christina Crawford, the writer of the memoir on which the film is based, had no involvement with the making of the film, and denounced the film as “grotesque” and a work of fiction, specifically stating that Joan Crawford never chopped down a tree with an axe, or beat her with a wire hanger as depicted in the film.[42]”
In the video cited for [42] she says that the tree part “didn’t happen that way, that’s too simplistic” in reference to tying the event to her being fired. Her criticism was that “they tried I think to show a direct cause and effect, in other words an events in real life that was followed by some behavior on my mother’s part that was very bizarre.” not that she’s saying the event didn’t happen at all, but the framing of actual events was fictionalized.
Then at 6 minutes is the following:
- Interviewer: …and the wire hangers?
- Christina Crawford: That was true but not like it was portrayed…
