Talk:Inside Out (2015 film)

Sections need to be reworded

Hello! So as I was reading through the article, I noticed some things that weren't exactly all that clear. I didn't want to put a maintenance tag on the article as it's currently rated as a Good Article and I don't think some minor things such as odd wording choices should have to bring it down from GA. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I definitely agree - reading through is a disaster. I would recommend flagging. Sentences are not clear and some are entirely nonsensical throughout.

If the senteces differ from this version, I would recommend to restore them instead. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 04:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Most of this article reads like it was originally written in another language and (poorly) translated into English. Faludi-fallout (talk) 02:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

This. Very much this. It could be a great article, errors and infelicitious word choice greatly interfere. I think with a little work you can understand most of it, and some of it's just fine, but parts of it are unintelligible and almost all of it needs tweaking or correcting. --Cromwellt|talk|contribs 00:27:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

This article is pretty much unreadable, easily the worst that I have seen on such a popular subject. I see that it is mostly because of one user who has been obsessively making thousands of edits for a year or so... could it just be reverted to before they started contributing? EgyptianSushi (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Just want to add yet another opinion that this article is really disappointing, for both a Good Article and a great film. To pick just one example of writing that could use improvement: "Fear was inspired by Don Knotts. According to Lozano, Knotts had wide eyes. Docter said, "[He] was the kind of guy who could bring sophistication and then flip on a dime".[30] Bill Hader was cast as Fear[43] after he and the filmmakers visited the set of SNL in New York City for a week,[13] and also assisted at the story room. His casting was assumed until his stay ended, but he asked to contact fellow SNL veteran Poehler[45] that it was secret. Hader later reaffirmed his involvement in Inside Out. In preparation for his role, he worked out to "[exercise] almost every emotion" and practiced his screaming voice across all recording sessions.[46][47]" Orser67 (talk) 04:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Per comment above, as well as the comments of others in this section, I'm adding Template:Copy edit to the article. Orser67 (talk) 04:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposed structural changes

I agree that the article as a whole is in dire need of a copy edit, what with all the non-sequiturs, superfluous details, and strange turns of phrase (my favourite sentence so far is "Docter came to find that storyline nonfunctional, and was reluctant to be fired." Perhaps I'm simply being stupid, but I have absolutely no idea what that's even supposed to mean). I think Faludi-fallout hit the nail on the head when they said it reads like it was poorly translated into English, and I mean to go through and clean up the prose when I have the time. The clunky wording also means some parts (see: "DreamWorks Animation's competition with Pixar was disappointingly lacking") sound too opinionated to me, and need to be reworded to sound more neutral.

I'd also like to draw attention to the issues I hold with the article's current structure. Most prominently, I think the #Post-release section is unnecessary and that its subsections should be relocated to other places in the article: I'd move "Home media" and "Lawsuits" to #Release, "Other media" to #Legacy, and "Thematic analaysis" to #Reception (I'm as yet undecided on whether it deserves its own section).

Additionally, the subsection "Context" feels strange, even disregarding the nonsensical prose. IMO it's far more focused on the zeitgeist in the film industry than the film itself, and it's only tangentially related as a result. I don't see what the prevalence of sequels of other IPs has to to with Inside Out, for example. At the very least, I'd recommend condensing it to a sentence or two about how the film was expected to earn over $200 million, and move that into "Box office". Those are the major issues I have, though I'm sure more will pop up. GulfOfPerdition (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, I think lawsuits should be under #Reception. GulfOfPerdition (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Ronnie del Carmen as co-director?

In its current state, this article claims that Pete Docter was the only director of Inside Out, with Ronnie del Carmen helping develop the story. I believe this is incorrect, and I think del Carmen should be identified as co-director as well.

Many, if not most, of the references in this article describe Ronnie del Carmen as co-director (or if you're the New York Times, 'secondary director'): for example, Lifestyle Inquirer, Rappler, and the Hollywood Reporter. IMDb (and thus Box Office Mojo) and Metacritic both list del Carmen as co-director. So do the British Film Institute and the American Film Institute.

I decided to look for information straight from the horse's mouth and found this page on Pixar's official website, which names del Carmen as a co-director; so does the caption of this photo on Pixar's Instagram account. I couldn't find anything on Disney's website and I couldn't bring myself to search through their entire Instagram account. I checked the credits of the film as well, which read "Director | Pete Docter" and then "Co-director | Ronnie del Carmen". (Additionally, on Ronnie del Carmen's Twitter (X?), which I'm 99.999% sure is legitimate, he describes himself as co-director.)

I wonder if del Carmen was initially left out because Rotten Tomatoes and ScreenRant – and probably some other miscellaneous articles – state that Docter alone was the director, but at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter why. For the reasons stated above, I think del Carmen should be explicitly named as co-director, if only for the sake of consistency within Wikipedia itself (as his page states he "co-directed and was one of the story writers for the 2015 Pixar film Inside Out").

Edit

I also just noticed that the list of accolades for the film says Docter was the only director. The list of Pixar films says Docter was director and del Carmen was co-director. I then had a look at the Wikipedia pages for other Pixar films which are stated to have had a co-director on this list of Pixar films – excluding Ratatouille, since that was a change of director. Three of them (Cars, Monsters, Inc., and Finding Dory) only mention the co-directors later in the article; the rest (A Bug's Life, Toy Story 2, Finding Nemo, Up, Cars 2, Brave, Coco, and Soul) name the co-directors immediately after the "main" directors. Of those in the latter category, Brave was the only one to list multiple directors in the sidebar/panel. Since most of them list co-directors early on, I'm inclined to do the same in this article; I'm still not sure about the sidebar, though.

GulfOfPerdition (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Confusing wording

In the Animation section, there was a confusing bit of wording that said "turned real light from a geometry". I added a "clarification needed" tag there and User:Chompy Ace changed it to "created a "geometry light" appliance". This is a bit better but it is still confusing. I think we should discuss what this phrase is referring to and change it to something more readable. Signed, TypoEater (talk) 18:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I have changed it to "developed geometrical optics". Chompy Ace 00:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, that really helps clear it up. TypoEater (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Guffgcuyfcuyrdutrdutrdutdutfdfd 2A00:23CC:B743:6A01:B47B:EC54:6B99:54E2 (talk) 07:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Please don't put nonsense in talk page discussions. TypoEater (talk) 13:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)