Talk:The Rescuers/Archive 2

Edit request from 68.17.110.122, 17 January 2011
In the intro, it claims the film was released in IMAX format. I highly doubt this. I found nothing on Google to support this and it seems there were films in IMAX before the year 1977. Furthurmore, placing after The Rescuers Down Under makes it sound like Down Under was the one released in IMAX. Also, in "Marketing", "on 2005" should be "in 2005" (grammar), and the last sentence, "750 copies of this sculpture will be produced and priced at a retail price of $399.00" seems to be inconsistent with the past tense used in the rest of that paragraph.

68.17.110.122 (talk) 02:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done. Couldn't find a source for the IMAX release, and since Wikipedia is not a catalog, the pricing information you mentioned could also be removed. -- McDoob  AU  93  02:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 64.134.54.15, 1 May 2011
In "Plot", it links to a deleted YouTube video. This is in violation of WP:EL.

64.134.54.15 (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done. Link has been removed. Thanks for catching it! -- McDoob  AU  93  01:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

A clear typo in the infobox: is transcluded; it should be. 64.134.159.159 (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done by User:KDS4444. — Bility (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Article name
I just found out that there is a 2011 movie with the same title as this movie, so this article here should be called The Rescuers (1977 film), but that in the article for the 2011 film should have information saying that it has no relation to this Disney film. --FrancineFan3883 23:01, June 3rd, 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmmm ... IMDB only shows two films with the words "The Rescuers" in them. The first is the 1977 Disney film, and the second is its 1990 sequel, The Rescuers Down Under. Can you provide a source indicating there is an upcoming film this year with the name "The Rescuers"? -- McDoob  AU  93  04:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If they can't, I can: The Rescuers (2011). In either case, the film does not have an article written on it, so the article name for this one can meanwhile stay the same. T.W. (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Taran ... I used IMDB's search and it only pulled up the two Disney films, not this third one. But I do agree, since this 2011 release doesn't have an article (and the lead for this one makes it clear what it is), there's no need to change it until such time as The Rescuers (2011 film) is created. -- McDoob  AU  93  16:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Plot length
It's down to about 1,000 words but much better written than the original synopsis. Please keep! --unsigned comment made 14 February 2012‎ by User:216.59.109.170


 * Unfortunately, while I agree that some tweaks can be made, the intent of a plot summary is to do just that ... summarize the plot. We do not need to include every single detail that occurs in the movie. Comparing your most recent modification to that which was there before, within the first three paragraphs the original summary carries us 3/4 through the movie, while your summary hasn't even reached the second act yet. That is far too much detail than is necessary. I suggest that you read the section on plot summary that I linked above, to be more familiar with what the project intended with film articles.


 * At the same time, in the interest of fairness, I would welcome you to present what you feel are the key plot points of the film and why those plot points should be included in the article's plot summary. When you do, please be sure to add it here and to sign your post with four tildes ( ~ ). Thanks!


 * -- McDoob AU  93  19:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I condensed the text, though not to 700 words. At this point, removing any more detail would cut logic out of the story, so please keep as is. Aharmon1973 17:49 EST 14 February 2012


 * But the 931-word plot summary would exceed the WP:FILMPLOT guidelines. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * At the same time, you should show respect for other editors and the reasons why they do what they do. Nobody has ignored you or suggested that you couldn't improve the plot summary. The only request/guideline is that said summary be kept to less than 700 words. -- McDoob  AU  93  03:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I see your point and apologize. Everything's been rolled back, so there's no point in continuing this discussion. Aharmon1973 03:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

the introduction of xerography
"The film marked the end of the studio's so-called sketchy animation period of the 1960s and 70s. The new xerographic process restored a softer outline that previously was not possible with the technology, which so far only had been able to produce black outlines. This allowed the use of a medium-gray tone and even a purple tone for outlines, such as that used for Miss Bianca."

This is thoroughly confusing. When Disney introduced xerographic transfer in 101 Dalmatians, the result was a more-or-less accurate rendition of the animation drawings' rough and uneven pencil line. The solid, even line of the traditional inked cel was lost. Also lost was the ability to "self-ink" -- to paint the outline in a color similar to the area the outline enclosed.

The author needs to get the facts straight and re-write this. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request, 23 November 2013
Cann someone please fix the link to Jim Jordan (actor) in the infobox?

12.175.45.163 (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done. --Stfg (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2014
How can this have been shot in New Orleans if it's an animated film? Please take off Category:Films shot in New Orleans, Louisiana.

99.56.74.218 (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done. The edit that introduced this category also introduced Category:1999 controversies, so I think it was vandalism. Face-smile.svg Thank you for pointing this out. --User:Anon126 (talk - contribs) 05:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Cumulative box office
It's very difficult to find accurate information about the box office totals for this film, since so many data websites seem to lack full information. However, I just ran across a premiere VHS video for the 1992 release which clearly states that the film grossed aprox. $115,000,000 when adjusted for inflation, and this was in 1992. In 2012, this amount would be equivalent to $185,372,951.50 in 2012. You can see the video here: T.W. (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2014
"The Rescuers was one of two animated features in development at Disney in the early 70." does not make grammatical sense. "early 70" should be changed to "early 70s" or "early 1970s."

99.9.105.18 (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Stickee (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)