MovieChat Forums > Pixels (2015) Discussion > 1982 was too early for madonna and saman...

1982 was too early for madonna and samantha fox ?

posted 8 years ago by nikkivisser
7 replies | jump to latest

1982 olivia newton john and sheena easton make sense but it was to early for madonna 1984 and sam fox 1986

Madonna had her first single in 1982. It's plausible. Don't know about Fox.

It takes place in the summer of 1982. Madonna's first single was released in the fall of 1982 (October 6th). Mentioning "Madonna" in the summer of 1982 would have been a very obscure reference, and nearly everyone would have thought you were making a Catholic reference.

Samantha Fox would have been an even more obscure reference in '82, given that she hadn't even become a "page 3 girl" yet (that started in 1983 at the age of 16). In other words, in 1982 she wasn't even slightly famous yet.

[–] Druff (1469) 4 years ago

I remember when the world first found out who Madonna was and she became a household name. It sure as fuck wasn't 1982. It was '84/'85. Whoever wrote the script doesn't have a clue.

[–] CapnKaos 8 years ago

Madonna was around in 82 having literally just started as was Sam Fox but she wasn't singing yet. She was more famous for being a "Page 3 girl" in the British tabloids. She actually gained quite a bit of popularity being the most popular Page 3 girl of her time and most photographed British woman of the 1980's. In some cases she was listed as having the most famous bust in all Britain.

So while unlikely it's very possible that both of them were around during that time.

[–] MaximRecoil (4113) 6 years ago

>Madonna was around in 82 having literally just started as was Sam Fox but she wasn't singing yet. She was more famous for being a "Page 3 girl" in the British tabloids.

Samantha Fox had no fame whatsoever in any part of 1982; her career started in 1983.

[–] Hans-Wilhelm (1322) 4 years ago

True.

[–] Kowalski (60082) 4 years ago

YEAH!...PIXELS SUCKS BECAUSE THEY SCREWED UP THEIR REFERENCES....