Talk:The Rescuers/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Upcoming articles

I've added a valuable piece of trivia about Penny, please don't remove it or alter the Trivia section just yet. I'm working on another character article similar to that of Madame Medusa, I want to make one for Miss Bianca and one for Penny, after that, Rufus and Bernard will make interesting articles because there's so much background on them. All trivia related to Penny will be able to be used in the newer article later, but leave it here for now. All information for Madame Medusa can go on the newer article for her. --Lyzoth 02:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Any information regarding Mr. Snoops: is now welcome in his section under Madame Medusa's page. Since his article information is still little, I figured it'd be better to have him in Medusa's page, at least for now. The same will go to Brutus and Nero later on. Someone who is good at giving pages their ratings, I'd appreciate it if they'd like to go and look at Madame Medusa's rather complete page (except for the Brutus and Nero section) and give it a rating.--Lyzoth 19:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Information of Penny, also now welcomed at her page here: Penny. I'm thinking about adding Rufus and Morningside Orphanage as sections of this page. What do you think? --Lyzoth 19:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Penny

Who plays Penny's voice? (I recently look at it... don't ask. Michelle Stacy?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonel Marksman (talk • contribs) 22:30, April 17, 2006

Controversial Characters

Is it just me or does Snoops seem like a stereotypical jew? He has the hair, facial features, and voice of a jew. This would explain why he didn't want to use Penny for the mission. He obviously had some sort of complex financial plan that showed they could still be profitable by hiring a little person. Is there a reason why the only Jewish character in the movie is a second- rate villain. I'm personally suprised this aspect of the film has not caused much of a public stir.

Also, one of my favorite characters, Luke, is depicted as an alcoholic. For comedic purposes he is shown breathing fire after having a swig of whatever tonic he was holding. However alcoholism is nothing to take lightly, especially in a children's movie. The film seems to show the viewer that alcohol solves problems instead of creating them. Twice alcohol helps the characters. It serves as a fuel source for Medusa's boat and an energy drink for Evinnrude. I know alcohol can be harmful but the young children watching this film do not. I seriously hope Disney edits this scene in future editions of the movie.

--Nightengale989 20:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I seriously hope Disney isn't stupid enough to do any alternations to a 30 year old children's classic the way they did to Fantasia or Make Mine Music. Honestly, people should stop over-analyzing and getting offended over little things in films, books or whatever, children will not pay attention to that. And just because Luke got drunk once, doesn't mean he is an alcoholic, same thing with Uncle Waldo in The Aristocats. About Mr. Snoops, so what if he was modeled after a jew? I seriously doubt Disney was trying to offend anyone and I don't get why people so often thing stereotyping is a bad thing, it doesn't have to be, estereotypes are a part of culture, it's like saying that the French love bread, nothing wrong with that even if it isn't true for every Frenchman, a bad stereotype would be "all Middle-Easterns are terrorists", now that's something to be offended about. 67.174.4.138 21:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

There's an awful lot of trivia on this page compared to the other Disney movies of the era...could we get some sources? Many of these claims are not well-known facts, and I suggest we remove some if no sources are provided/can be found.--Marysunshine 03:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted some of the less-notable and relevant claims. --Marysunshine 04:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

A lot of new sections have been added as well as separate character pages that helped home some of this scattered Trivia. 67.174.4.138 18:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone else see the amazing resemblense between miss bianca and duchess of the aristocats? although i didn t originally watch them in english it somehow doesn t seem odd they have the same voice..also they both quite remind me of marion of robin hood..FC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.207.91.62 (talk • contribs) 11:12, November 2, 2006

Semiprotection?

Should this page be semi-protected? I mean, it's constantly a victim of vandalism and it's getting to be very irrating. T.W. 17:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The rate of vandalism on this page is very typical of what we get. There isn't anything extreme that requires protection of any sort. Harryboyles 07:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

GA comment

The images need fair use rationales and the theories about the topless woman need to to be cited. Look to passed GA/FAs for examples of fair use rationales for movie posters and screenshots. --Nehrams2020 03:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Very well, I'll work on this today in the evening. Thanks! T.W. 11:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of May 17, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Overall, the article is well-written. However, the lead section does not adequately summarize the article. For example, it should briefly mention how the movie did at the box office, and maybe briefly touch on the controversy. The punctuation needs to be fixed in the following passage: "and rescue Penny, . Evinrude" also here: "concealing it in Penny, 's teddy bear." This sentence is confusing "The locals run in a body to the riverboat." and so is this: "soon after part on Orville," (maybe say on the back of Orville?). Also add {{spoiler-end}} to the end of the synopsis section. The cast and characters section should be merged since there is so much overlap in the information. The Trivia section is a HUGE problem, and the number one failure issue. Trivia sections are severely frowned upon in GA and FA articles. Additionally, much of the "trivia" is unreferenced or pointless (for example, "Penny's teddy bear bears a superficial resemblance to Winnie the Pooh.") All of the trivia should be merged into the article or deleted. The trivia section should be done away with. Since some of the trivia shares a theme (comparisons with other Disney films) you might consider renaming the section along those lines. But most of it should still be integrated in the article or deleted. The Directing animators section should be under a "Cast and crew" section, with a subsection for cast, and a subsection for crew. The Significance section should be converted to prose.

2. Factually accurate?: For an article of this length it is a little light on references, but I that is sometimes typical of movies, since much of the article is a recap of the movie. But I would try to reference a little more, paying special attention to dates, figures and very specific details. Also, remove the reference "The Little Mermaid trivia. The Internet Movie Database" since the IMDB trivia sections are not reliable (user contributed and unverified). I don't think this is particularly noteworthy "and when she saw the completed picture in the cinema, she cried for her lost grandfather." The controversy section is not well refernced enough either, and the tone is occasionally scandoulous (like the sentence "However, like many had predicted, few people accepted the exchange, since the first issue had automatically become a collector's item." Also, reports about the 2007 masterpiece release needs to be referenced.

3. Broad in coverage?: The Animals Features section should be integrated into the cast listing and then eliminated. It is an example of listcruft. The article is lacking a Background or Production section. According to WP:FILM it should include:

a history of the film's background and development, such as how many studios, actors, directors and writers were involved with the project at one point or another. Continuing onto the production of the film, facts such as filming dates, budget figures, any noteworthy tidbits (such as delays, re-shoots etc.) should be transformed into prose. Comments from the cast and crew are also welcomed.

Innovations and Abandoned concepts should probably be merged and included in this new section. This section should follow the Synopsis section.

4. Neutral point of view?: Overall good here. No clear bias promoting the film. But the "songs" section has some issues. The description of the songs contain too much added plot description, and occasionally sounds like opinion statements have crept in (for example ""Tomorrow is Another Day" is a cheerful song" or ""Someone's Waiting for You" is the touching lullaby "). The song descriptions should mostly stick to who sang the song and how the song was made. Secondly, most articles have a "Soundtrack" section. But if music is in the movie that isn't on the soundtrack, or vice versa, you might want to have a music section with some combination of the two. For an excellent example, see The Lion King.

5. Article stability? Great here. No edit wars, and most changes seem to be improvements by dedicated editors.

6. Images?: Great!

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. — Esprit15d (talk ¤ contribs) 16:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks! I didn't think the plot over-view had so many things that needed work, since that was one of the parts I didn't write myself, I didn't pay much attention to it and assumed it was well done. I'll work on references, though most have proved unbelievable hard to find, but I'll keep trying. The songs section will live with minor changes, so I'll take care of those as well and everything else that needs improvement. Thanks again! T.W. 18:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, true, the trivia section has already been discussed and I've also had to "shrink" it in the past, so doing so again should be no problem. I'll recycle the most important claims and I'll get rid of the rest. About the teddy and Winnie the Pooh similarities, well, this film has many connections to other films, so I had been planning on a new section to list out all of these. I'll work on improving the main plot overview so that its easier to understand and flows smooth when read. I'll add all of these things to the to-do list here so others can help out if they'll like to, though I believe I can manage. T.W. 19:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions

There is some discussion below (on this talk page) about Brutus and Nero being alligators and not crocodiles. Perhaps they should also be identified as such in the "Plot" section of the main article.
Reduce length of "Synopsis" section per WP:MOSFILM#Plot

Done, changed name to 'Plot' per WP:MOSFILM#Plot specifications. Cactusjump (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge "Cast" and "Characters" section; trim cast members who have minor roles

Trimmed cast list and descriptions. Cactusjump (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Convert "Songs" section into "Musical score" section; trim extraneous mentions of when songs appear in the film and focus more on their real-world context

Done, suggest that individual song pages be merged in to this section. Cactusjump (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

"Supervising animators" section may be too indiscriminate; perhaps combine with the "Cast"/"Characters" section (table format?)
"Significance" section should be converted into prose

Done. Cactusjump (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"Abandoned concepts" section should be worked into a "Production" section, currently nonexistent

Section now exists, carries previously titled 'Significance' facts as well as part of the intro. Cactusjump (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

"Merchandising" and "Promotional tie-ins" sections should be cited and woven together in a "Marketing" section

Changed name to 'Marketing', researching sources (if any exist). Cactusjump (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

"Trivia" section should be integrated with the rest of the article
"Walt Disney Classics Collection" section should be merged with "Marketing"
"See also" section should be discouraged; characters with singular appearances should not have their own articles

Suggestions on improving the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

One other suggestion -- move "Innovations" section to "Significance" Cactusjump (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I moved 'Innovations' to the 'Significance' section, since no one seemed to object. Cactusjump (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Songs

I have put a "Unreferenced section" template on the section "Songs", primarily due to the claims that inanimate objects are singing the songs. When I watched the movie last night, I didn't feel as though during the song "The Journey" that the bottle was singing, but that it was part of the narrative, such as in Tarzan and the opening song of The Lion King. I also feel that the references to Shelby Flint "singing offscreen" is incorrect, for this same reason, as she is not a character in the film. I'll leave this up for a while, and if no one objects will correct these references. Any objections are welcome. Thanks. Cactusjump (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

With no objections, went ahead and edited this section, changing it to Musical Score per above task list. Removed all analysis of song's meanings, as they are disputable. Cactusjump (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The song "The Journey" is not the actual bottle singing, but it is sung from its perspective. For this reason Shelby Flint's sometimes been credited as the voice of "The Bottle." T.W. (talk) 19:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that supports this, feel free to add. Cactusjump (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Update

Glad to see the changes made to the article! I'm glad my suggestions did not go to waste. Feel free to continue editing the article since judging from page revision statistics, there is no real primary contributor here. If there is interest in feedback, here are a few more suggestions: -Move the screenshot in the "Plot" section to elsewhere in the article per WP:FILMNFI; the screenshot would exist better among real-world context than in-universe detail.