Talk:Meet the Robinsons

Advert
Sorry to hog the top post, but if The Number 23 page is an advertisement, then this definitely is. Half of the article is about tie-ins like the soundtrack and video games. Which isn't to say that they can't be relevant, but this just feels like an ad. I won't flag it yet, because I don't want to see it deleted, but it'll take some work. Akbeancounter 21:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree. I looked at The Number 23 and it doesn't look like an ad.

William Joyce
William Joyce, the author of 'A Day with Wilbur Robinson' is NOT the same William Joyce ("fascist politician and Nazi propaganda broadcaster")linked in the article.

TMBG Soundtrack
They Might Be Giants has said they're contributing a track.

"We just did this amazingly huge remake of a song from the 1964 World Fair called "Great Big Beautiful Tomorrow" that is going to be in an animated feature based on the book "A Day for Wilbur Robinson." It's totally orchestral with a soprano singing this Theremin-like line behind my vocal. It's really a nutty piece of arrangement." --John Flansburgh

Here's a link to that quote:

Doris's revenge?
What did Lewis do to Doris that makes her want to extract her revenge on him?

Wait for the movie and see. :P Little Leota 22:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

that would be a spoiler!but this point is not so important in the plot of the film

Lewis or Louis?
Which is it?! >_> Little Leota 22:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It's Lewis.

I thought his name was Lucas. Misteroonova 21:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

No, that's the hero of The Ant Bully.Erudil 17:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

When LEWIS is adopted they name him Cornelius, which at an older age has the voice of Tom Selleck. Something that is not easily caught in the movie. We are speaking of the yellow haired kid, right? Suzybear63 (talk) 02:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

John Lasseter
Is John Lasseter contributing to this film? --211.26.63.66 02:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I think so, Because I recently heard that he is the president of Walt Disney Pictures.--Joshua H-Star-R 23:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, he's the chief creative officer of Pixar and Disney.--Christianster45 9:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Over-zealous deletion?
The masive release of this film in digital 3D is historically pivotal. Making this a footnote to the film is as not unlike failing to mention in a 1938 article that "Snow White" was being widely released in Technicolor. There was no comment even to justify the massive edit. The approach might overlook that "The Jazz Singer", 1927 would be in sound.3dnatureguy 21:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

What about "The Nightmare Before Christmas?" It was all ready released in 3D by Disney last October, every new 3D movie is not something that is historically pivotal.

Note- Yo, whoever posted about Nightmare- Note the word WIDE release. NMBC was a limited release, FYI. BabySinclair 16:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I can personally say that Nightmare was not released in 3D anywhere in North Dakota. I looked.--209.243.31.233 02:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Poor Taste
Have there been any critical comments from Canadian citizens about the lines:


 * Wilbur: Lewis is an exchange student.
 * Mrs. Robinson: Oh really? Where are you from Lewis?
 * Lewis: I'm from Canada
 * Mrs. Robinson: Don't you mean North Montana? They stopped calling it Canada ages ago.

That joke seemed to me to be in extremely poor taste, although I understand that nobody can predict the future. Crisco 1492 10:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Americans tend to take offense to these types of jokes more than other nationalities do. For example my mother laughed at that joke and she is Canadian. Another point to be made is that other nation make fun of America in their media. An example of this is when i whent to England my family and I went to see the musical verison of "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang". In a scene in which the two Vulgarian characters, who are supposed to be stealing the car, are debating over being vular they have a dialog somthing like: Vulaganian 1-"Why can we speak English and be vular?" Vulgarian 2- "Because that would be American." The fact of the matter is that nations make fun of one another. It isn't nice but they do. I any person has a problem with theses sort of jokes in entertainment they can either 1)Not view that sort of entertainment 2)Go into the entertaiment bussiness and pervent thoses sort of joke from being put in scripts 3)Convince the government to create a law forbiding these types of jokes. In my own oppinion I believe the "North Montana" joke stems from the fact that Canada has taken better care of its resources and America is jealous. ;p


 * Jokes about changing political areas are quite common. Lots of media set in the future makes references to countries or states no longer existing. It's part of a larger theme of things being so different in that time period. It's rarely taken offensively.--Viridistalk 07:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Rarely does not mean never. Should a Canadian movie which is also released in the US suggest that Michigan, Alaska, and all of the remainder of the Northern United States be amalgamated into Canada, people would cry "National Chauvinism" or something along those lines. The shoe can pinch when worn on the other foot. Crisco 1492 0:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Who cares,Canada sucks, this is a US movie, stop whining and just don't watch it then.

To whoever has posted the "Canada sucks" comment, I regret to inform you that anyone who is imbecilic enough to use the word "sucks" in any sort of forum has no credability. I wish to offer my sincerest condolences on the loss of any scrap of credability you had before posting such a distastful excusse for an adjective.

Well oh anonymous American editor, it's interesting how clear statements of fact can receive heated arguments about their truth or not. Should we try and create an experiment about it? As for the movie, I didn't say it was a bad movie. I just said that I felt that line was in bad taste because Meet the Robinsons was targeted for a younger audience. Would you want your children watching Chris Rock's Bigger and Blacker when you knew that they may take that kind of humour as acceptable for everyone? No. Children are a lot more impressionable than adults, and as such may think that an insult on a nation's sovereignity is completely acceptable, such as your enlightened statement above. "Canada sucks." Interesting. Viridius' statement was a perfect response to my comment, non-inflammatory and factual, as well as persuasive. My response to it may not have been in the best of taste either, but there is a problem I have been noticing while in Indonesia. I watched a news broadcast about a Raptors vs. Bulls game a couple of months ago, and the location at the bottom was "Toronto, AS" (Toronto, Amerika Serikat, or United States of America). It is not very proffesional to get heated up about it, but one thing which we should be teaching our children is respect for our difference. Thus my apology for my inflammatory comment and explanation for my position. Sorry Viridius, but I just feel in the context of the movie and considering who the target audience is, it was not in the best of taste, thus my comments. Crisco 1492 1:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I hope no one takes this the wrong way, but it was a joke nothing more nothing less. I think most of you know that there are worst forms of comedy out there. This move happens to be about the future and movies about the future or in some rare cases the past are notorious for have some territory different. It isn't common in day to day and I don't think it was meant to harm any one, but as I assume most of you know it is impossible to do anything with out making someone mad (event if that particular joke had not been there someone else would have said something about the move that hurt them)Oh and to whom ever wrote Canada sucks that was very rude of you. Although it may have been rude but what was said after Canada sucks was important and corect you don't have to watch it if you don't like what is said Disney won't make you. I also would like to point out that the movie has a good message "Keep Moving Forward". ^_~


 * Or as they say in Night at the Museum: Ok, moving on. Once again sorry, but I think there is a difference in what kind of humour should be used in adult films and what should be used in children's films. Peace. Crisco 1492 03:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

hey! dont be mean to canada! 65.35.180.133 (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Offensive and hostile language should be avoided in Wikipedia, and everywhere. Erudil 17:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible spoiler in article
The line "uncover the amazing secret of Lewis' future family" borders on a spoiler. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.93.160.190 (talk) 14:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

Plot
The section really needs to be broken into paragraphs.--Viridistalk 07:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, SimplyAwesomeAJ--Viridistalk 03:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone needs to edit the word loosing to losing. "He tells Lewis of his terrible childhood after loosing a crucial baseball" I would but this page isnt editable 208.137.139.5 21:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

They forgot to mention that it was Doris and the Bowler Hat Guy who broke Lewis's memory scanner, therefore he actually did sucseed. I would change it myself but the page isn't editable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reader529 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Characters
I was going to add a section in about them, but I don't know many of the characters names (e.g. the guy with the puppet!). If anyone could help, I'd appreciate that! --SunStar Net talk 18:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The dinosaur's name is Tiny the T-Rex, and he is voiced by Kelly Ripa, Bianca Burke and Joe Mateo. Uncle Art is a ringmaster. The bowler hat's name is Doris. Misteroonova 21:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, when you see the name plate on where the bowler is placed, it's a pun. It's "spelled" Dor-15, pronounced Doris. BabySinclair 16:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I would be willing to help you with a characters page if you are still interested, but since it is now October, maybe I should do one myself. I just have to figure out how to do it..Fairywings1781 23:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Bias
The article seems quite biased towards disney and how good the movie is. For example, there are only good reviews in the critical response... Someone needs to add negative ones to even it up.

Making this it's own section. Try the + button if you didn't use it.--Viridistalk 03:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Mealy-Mouthed Statements
The last trivia comment is crawling with them, or at least boring writing. Not a member, so can someone edit for me?--68.173.19.198 02:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Paradox
 Has any one else notice the extreme paradox situation that this movie has going? First of all the whole context on the movie is that doris the robotic bowler hat is using Goob (pardon spelling)aka Bowler Hat Guy to get revenge on the future version of Lewis, who disabled her because she was ,well, evil. The paradox is that if Doris had succeeded in destroying Lewis' hopes and mass produced herself Lewis would never have grown up to be an inventor and would therefore have never invented Doris. If Lewis never invented Doris then she couldn't go back to the past and shatter Lewis' dreams and he would then grow up to be an inventor and invent Doris who would make it so he never invented her ect, ect, the paradox continues. Now if this robotic hat is the brains of the opperation and I know for a fact Goob wasn't then why didn't she notice this painfully obvious paradox and devise a slightly less involved plan to destroy Lewis? P.S. Yes I do like to analyze childrens movies for fun in excruciating detail. Tune in to TMNT and I'll analyze the old live action movies. :)

Man, you need to be a script writer at Disney or a brain surgeon or something! (And I'm not saying that script writing is like brain surgery.) :) 71.253.196.131 22:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

There's one other paradox, too, even if they find a way to get around the one already mentioned. If Doris is never invented, then Goob will never be smart enough to do anything but egg and TP the factory: the time machine won't be stolen. If the time machine isn't stolen, then Wilbur will never take the other one to meet/help/protect? Louis. If Wilbur doesn't take Louis into the future, Louis doesn't know not to invent Doris. If Louis invents Doris, everything goes bad again. Unless Louis/Cornelius can somehow magically remember something that doesn't actually happen in the better world that they (he?) made. Isn't time travel complicated?

In the words of another Disney character, Ron Stoppable: "Time travel. It's a cornucopia of disturbing concepts." I noticed these too, but you have to take into account that it's artistic license. Never let the facts get in the way of a good story. That, I think, applies here. BabySinclair 13:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course, if we bring in more fun things, like the creation of alternate realities for every side of a choice, some of these could actually be possible, or maybe not. Correct me if I am wrong. Daedalus969 23:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I can explain this paradox away. Doris's plan was to have Goob have her created by Inventco. The moment this is done she would cease to exist. That's correct. However, that would be the end of the Lewis created Doris. Not the inventco created one. So like wilbur the original Doris would fade. But the time tainted Inventco created Doris would move forward (pun intended) with her plan. This is the Doris timeline were all of mankind is enslaved by hats.

This is why Lewis couldn't simply uncreate Doris in the future. Lewis had to uncreate Doris before a new one he didn't make was created. Once she cease to exist her timeline or alternate reality faded. However the events leading to this moment are still intact. Pixarian 00:23, 01 January 2008 (UTC)

GUYS, there is another paradox in the show: when louis' past mother left him at the door step, she did not knock in order to get his adoptive parents to come to the door. louis did! If louis had not gone back in time and knocked on the door, he would have frozen or got eaten by buzzards or something like that by the time they found him, and since he'd be dead, he could not have gone back in time. in other words, he could not have gotten there if he had not already been there, an example of what's called the bootstrap paradox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.38.41.108 (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Trivia Section
I removed the following thing from the Trivia Section

The lead frog Frankie was more than likely named after Frank Sinatra.

The baseball team is actually named after Dinoco Gas Station which is the same gas station from Toy Story and Cars.

More than likely doens't mean its completely true. Unless proven otherwise I believe it should be left out of the article. Julie 04:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Boat Builders
Before the showing of Meet the Robinsons I was at, a non 3-D showing, they showed Walt Disney's short, Boat Builders. I assume this was done at most showings of Meet the Robinsons that weren't in 3-D. May someone please mention that in the trivia section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.100.42.239 (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2007 (UTC).
 * I believe so, as I saw that same one as I watched the movie. Captain Drake Van Hellsing 08:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Another Paradox
I was wondering will Frankie and everyone remember what happened in the past (or future past) because if they do then that will be very weird plus since this is time travel wouldn't that mean that the future Luis will go through the same thing and thus creating a never ending redo of the same thing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.128.95.109 (talk) 02:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Like in Back to the future, lewis is from another reality, since he changed the future, he will only remeber it, since goob did catch the ball in the baseball game, the past lewis will not go to the future, but lewis is from the other reality in which he did go to the future

to put it simple, only lewis will remember what happened, they will be no redo's because the bolier hat guy(goob) would never have a reason to hate lewis, so in short lewis made another reality were goob never got him into the future mess —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.211.156.93 (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

More Trivia
In the scene where Lewis is timing the race between Aunt Billie and Gaston, the stop watch used is shaped like the famous Mickey Mouse ears.

When Wilbur is trying to convince Lewis he's from the future, Lewis replies "Oh yeah, Captain Time Travel?" Captain Time Travel is the name of the super hero pictured on the lunch box Lewis uses as a keypad for his Memory Scanner invention. Wilbur also wears Captain Time Travel's logo on his t-shirt, and Lewis wears a Captain Time Travel cap later in the movie.

In the Memory Scanner montage sequence, the boy sitting at the end of Lewis' row at Midtown University (the lecture hall scene) is possible Frannie's older brother Art.

When Wilbur first appears, the science project he's standing in front of is about "Movie Magic" and "3-D fad favorites." Meet the Robinsons was the first movie made in Disney Digital 3-D.

In the final scenes, while Lewis is working in his room, two prototypes for the robot Carl can be seen.

Yanocchi 20:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Reception
I really don't see the idea of using movies such as Treasure Planet, Home on the Range and The Black Cauldron and so on, as references to movies that didn't make as much money as this one. After all, these were all flops and economical failures. What if a TV-serie was compared to another TV-serie that was such a flop that it was cancelled even before the first season was over? "This is the TV-series that in no time has become more popular than "Meet the Coach Potatoes"". You probably get my point. This part of the article has very little relevance. 193.217.194.173 12:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. I was trying to edit as much as I could. I moved one statement to trivia, but I really didn't like how this section was written. Fairywings1781 23:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Typo
In the plot summary, Cousin Laszlo is described as "rozket-booted" instead of "rocket-booted."

Did Andre 3000 really drop out of this film?
I heard rumors that André 3000, who was going to voice Frankie the Frog, dropped out of this film to create Class of 3000. Everyeditcounts 16:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Another Paradox
At the end of the movie, when Lewis wakes up Goob, this ensures Goob will have a better future, but then that would mean that he would have never teamed up with Doris and went into the past to screw up Lewis's project, thus meaning that Wilbur wouldnt go to the past to bring Lewis into the future, making it that the whole going into the future thing would have never happened, so if it never happened, Goob wouldnt have been woken up, so he would want to get revenge on Lewis, thus ruin his project, so Wilbur would come and take Lewis to the future.

Goob waking up implies that he won't hold a grudge against his roommate in the future, so there won't be any villain like Bowler Hat Guy in the future Lewis recreated at the end of the film. Plus, I REALLY hope Lewis doesn't forget his promise never to invent Doris! 0o0 In short, none of the conflicts in the plot will happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.157.71 (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Wilbur and Lewis will create a solution (Goob Clones, Parallel Universes, etc, etc,etc,) once Disney is forced to repeal it's ban on Direct-to-video sequels. I mean, Disney can be swayed by petitions, after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.76.252.75 (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC) I think him waking up Goob got rid of the other alternate reality?65.35.180.133 (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

its like BTTF, lewis changed the future, thereforth he only notice the change, because he knows what he did, so only lewis will have knowelegde of the 2nd timline wilbur invented!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.211.156.93 (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Adoption Issues raised in the movie
Reference: http://eunmi38.wordpress.com/2007/04/14/things-that-piss-off-adoption-agencies/ I think this should be added... controversy is always interesting to add to an article. On a personal note, I was disappointed with this film's treatment of adoptees' identities, being one myself. Especially since the person who made this movie wasn't adopted. --;; But there are problems with all three participant groups in the movie's treatment... --Hitsuji Kinno 18:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually the person that spear headed this operation was adopted, and went through the same things as Lewis, asked the same questions. (Refernce: Meet the Robinsons DVD Bonus Features, Backstage Disney, Creating the Robinsons.) Fairywings1781 02:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Correct. He stated that being an adoptee himself was the preliminary reason why he wanted to make this film himself. It's a question of whether or not he translated his message in the film in the right way, and since many people seem to question it, it looks like he didn't quite do it.

When you say "many people", you surely aren't referring to the above link. The link is about an email that one person sent to various agencies criticizing the film. The person that posted the letter (who was adopted), disagrees with the letter completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.102.229.130 (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Found more reliable sources: http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/media/20070409_press_disney.php http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-04-11-robinsons-adoption_N.htm and a partial counter statement: http://www.dove.org/news.asp?ArticleID=111 If we can get another counter statement, then it can work in the reception section. Better coverage is better than not overing it at all.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Plot Summary part
The movie contains some important educational messages, such as not being afraid of failures since you can learn a lot from them, always "keep moving forward", and solving problems in an enlightened way instead of through revenge.

This is the first paragraph of the Plot Summary, I think its not right to be there, since its like an unsure comment using the word "some". And basically its NOT really Plot Summary material.

I'm not that confident into making article edits myself so I had to say it here.

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Plot summary "too long"
The plot is very complicated and this is a popular film. I found the plot summary very helpful, in fact I came to this article looking for it. Can I suggest that, rather than putting a "too long" tag on and disappearing, editors do the job of reducing the plot summary if they can? (I've already done what I can, but the tag came back). Remember, [Wiki is not paper]. "Too much information" isn't a very convincing objection at Wikipedia (and the directs from the "too long" tag don't really justify it). But it's a free wiki, so let those who can do it better, shorter, go right ahead! Cheers. Chelseaboy (talk) 20:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Time travel is always hard to get people to understand, so when writing plot summaries, more points need to be mentioned, making it longer than most other plots. I also edited the plot further and made more things clearer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.157.71 (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a plot summary
WP:NOT says
 * Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should cover their real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot.
 * I think this article goes into excessive detail that can be compacted. --William Graham talk 01:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Easier said than done! Please go ahead and do it.  That would be better than a disfiguring template, eh?  Cheers.  Chelseaboy (talk) 19:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Error
Carolyn Lawrence does the voice of Talluhah, not Steve Anderson! HE'S A GUY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.141.36 (talk) 22:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Two voices?
In the credits, Lewis is listed as having two voice actors. Did I miss something? It's not like he had any singing scenes. What gives here? Master Deusoma (talk) 03:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, Lewis was voiced by two boys because Daniel Hansen first recorded his lines at first. Then, Disney changed the whole story and Lewis's lines are to recorded again. However, Disney thought Hansen was too old to voice a 12-year-old bvoy so they brought in Jordan Fry. Still, he was voiced by two boys. talk} 9:23, 15 July 2008

Actually, Daniel Hansen recorded a lot of the early draft lines, for screenings and pitching the film. However, at the end of production, his voice had changed too much. The sound-alike for the final draft lines, Jordan Fry, actually sounded close enough the final dialogue is a mix- the director states in commentary there are actually parts where part of a sentence is Daniel Hansen and the end is Jordan Fry. 76.31.43.210 (talk) 15:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect voice actor for Wilbur
It is listed as Azch Tyler Eisen, but in the credits and IMDB, it is listed as Wesley Singerman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.37.252 (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Drew Carey?
Why is Drew Carey listed in the voice cast? He is not listed in the cast on imdb and when I did Google search for "Meet The Robinsons" "Drew Carey," the only other site I found (metajam.mobi) was just a duplicate of the first three paragraphs of this article. All of the other search results seem to be coincidental juxtapositions. Also, nowhere did I find which character he is supposed to have voiced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.80.2 (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 September 2012
In the track listing for the soundtrack recording it says that all songs not otherwise noted were written by Danny Elfman. Track #6 (Give Me The Simple Life) was written by Rube Bloom and Harry Ruby in 1945 and should be noted. The authorship of the tune was confirmed by allmusic.com and the date confirmed by the "1945 in music" page on Wikipedia.

Sorry if I'm doing this wrong, but this is my first encounter with a semi-protected page and I have no experience with edit requests.

title6         = Give Me the Simple Life note6          = written by Rube Bloom & Harry Ruby length6        = 2:04 extra6         = Jamie Cullum

Barzt (talk) 08:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Can you please include the link to the source you mentioned. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Adoption Themes criticism
I'm going to compile the section since there is enough positive negative and neutral POVs to make it happen.

Positive: http://transracial.adoptionblogs.com/weblogs/movie-review-meet-the-robinsons

Neutral: http://community.thenest.com/cs/ks/blogs/txag93/archive/2007/04/05/meet-the-robinsons-an-adoption-story.aspx

Negative: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-04-11-robinsons-adoption_N.htm http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/media/20070409_press_disney.php

Additional: http://www.dove.org/news.asp?ArticleID=111

Any objections to the sources listed?

--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Removal of a fragment?
The beginning of the article contains a fragment: "...and the United Kingdom in standard and Disney Digital 3-D versions in the United States. Its standard version in the UK on March 30, 2007." Either delete the sentence completely, or complete whatever was trying to be said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.73.100 (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2014
edit semi-protected}}

Cynel1 (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- El Hef  ( Meep? ) 22:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2014
A link should be included for Jordan Fry's page on Wikipedia in the cast listing.

120.146.186.233 (talk) 03:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Sam Sailor Sing 05:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2014
Add 3d Blu ray to the page

Cynel1 (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Stickee (talk) 01:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2015
I am requesting that I would love to do some editing on the "Meet the Robinsons" page (it's my favorite movie). I want to do some, as you might say "tidying-up" so that it would be easier to read for other people. Plus, I want to erase the lies and mistakes that you may have put onto the page. Please.

Dk12345678 (talk) 06:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

❌ This is not the right page to request additional user rights. If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request. - Arjayay (talk) 07:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Meet the Robinsons. 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:
 * Added tag to http://www.realmovienews.com/reviews/3065
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140416184219/http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/meet_the_robinsons/comments/?reviewid=1610136 to http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/meet_the_robinsons/comments/?reviewid=1610136

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Fill in what's left of the plot summary
It's been 12 years, I'm certain we'll be fine writing out the message of that into-the-past visit to see his mother. Somehow the big plot-twist of the movie sits pretty in a giant paragraph as opposed to the most provoking moment of the movie. It'd take just one or two more sentences. Echonioni (talk) 10:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2020
173.3.27.140 (talk) 05:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC) May 18 2007
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  JTP (talk • contribs) 06:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2021
the article should mention that it's also a sci-fi film, so the first sentence should state that the movie is a sci-fi comedy, with the link leading to comic science fiction 2600:6C51:7C7E:F5D3:F985:775B:8D57:9421 (talk) 22:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 01:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

In the second paragraph, the actor's name "Stephen Anderson" is missing his first name for some reason.

 * What I think should be changed:
 * Why it should be changed:
 * References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

130.44.133.220 (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's because he's mentioned in the same sentence once already. I moved his name to the front to make that clearer. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (talk) 07:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2022
203.211.77.92 (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2023
Links from the song title "Kids Of The Future" is incorrect and leads to the article for a different song, "Kids in America", and should be removed. 2601:1C0:7000:D960:A82B:F33:E3A5:ACE7 (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Lightoil (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)