Talk:The Three Caballeros

Discussion
The penguin,at least in the spanish version is named "Polo" (Pole)

Anything about this film being little more than a travel video for Latin America? It basically depicted a Banana republic. Don't get me wrong, I've loved it since childhood, but it rivals Song of the South in its rather patronizing and backwards portrayals of non-white ethnicities. 129.12.228.161 22:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm surprised the article doesn't mention how zany it gets towards the end. The animators had got to have been smoking some serious stuff. Danny Lilithborne 07:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Aaaaaaaaaaayyy Jalisco no te rajeees!!!

Bena película, algo viejita ya, pero me trae buenos recuerdos de mi niñez... (tengo 24 no se confundan).
 * ¿Qué? --Ryanasaurus0077 10:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

December 15, 2008

I wish I still had it on tape, but the version my parents had of this film - which dated to the early 80s, and I believe was taped from television - added numerous sequences not in the "official" film. This was done mostly by editing in theme-appropriate shorts that were nto part of the original film. I assume it was to make the movie - which is rather short at less than 80 minutes - fit within a two hour block of time for television airing. In some cases, these theme-appropriate shorts matched characters appearing in the film. I was stunned when I watched the original on VHS about two years ago, because so much of what I remembered from the film - indeed, my favorite sequences - were missing. For example, I know for a fact the short "Clown of the Jungle" was included, as well as "Pluto and the Armadillo." I'm also 99% certain that "Morris the Midget Moose" was included, although it was re-narrated, I'm pretty sure, to match the film better (the original short is narrated by this little beetle; the way it appeared in my verison of The Three Caballeros, I'm fairly certain the narrator's voice was a reasonable match for the narrator throughout the film - at least it didn't sound like the voice of a weak little bug). I'm also 100% certain there was at least one more short edited in, but I remember so little about it it would be hard to come up with a title. Something about staying out over night in the desert, in a tex-mex western theme.

I wish I still had this Beta tape made from television all those years ago, so I could provide better verification.

Andrew Dixon

Original Songs?
Does anyone know, if the songs in the movie are considered as "original songs" or at least rewritten for this movie? Considering Leonard Martins The Disney Films, the songs are "original" material, but some other sources say, that only "Baia" was written for it, and the other songs (mainly frm Ary Barroso) were already released before the production of this film.

What's true?--80.138.104.83 (talk) 16:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The Three Men/The Three Cowboys
Should we mention that the title means one of those above in English. BTW I'm a pretty sure it's The Three Men. 174.16.80.109 (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Ay Jalisco no te rajes!
It is my understanding that the title song in this film took its melody from an already existing Mexican song called "Ay, Jalisco, no te rajes!", written by Manuel Esperon and Ernesto Cortazar. Manuel Esperon's Wikipedia page says that he wrote the song for a 1960 film called "De tal palo tal astilla", but this can't be true as I'm pretty sure "Ay, Jalisco, no te rajes!" was written before "The Three Caballeros". I found out that Manuel Esperon wrote the music for a 1941 film called "Ay, Jalisco, no te rajes!", so it seems likely that he wrote the song for that film, but I don't know for sure what songs do appear in that film and even if I did know for sure that the song "Ay, Jalisco, no te rajes!" appeared in the film of the same name, that does not necessarily mean that it was written for that film. Does anyone know the history of this song?--Jpcase (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I should have made the following comment a long time ago, but never got around to it. After discussing the matter with the editor who wrote that "Ay, Jalisco, no te rajes!" was written for "De tal palo tal astilla", I have found out that the song was not in fact written originally for that film, though it is featured in the film. I have also found out that "Ay, Jalisco, no te rajes!" is indeed featured in the 1941 film of the same name (here is a link to the clip) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrZZlbtjRfQ&feature=relmfu - I still don't know for a fact that the song was originally written for that film, but it seems highly likely. If anybody could confirm this 100% though, please do!--Jpcase (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

What language is "Os Quindins de Yaya" sung in?
Does anybody know what language the song "Os Quindins de Yaya" is sung in? It is the song sung by Aurora Miranda when Donald and Jose go to Bahia. I would think that it would have been sung in Portugese, as that is the main language of Brasil, but IMDB says here - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0038166/soundtrack - that it is sung in Spanish. I'm pretty sure that IMDB simply made a mistake, but as I cannot understand Spanish or Portugese I would like some confirmation. Could someone please tell me what language the song is in?--Jpcase (talk) 01:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * According to this page - http://latinbaby.wordpress.com/2008/05/13/olanguages/#comments - the song is in Portuguese, so unless anybody who speaks Spanish or Portuguese believes otherwise, that's what I'm going with.(I actually found this page and included info about the song being in Portuguese in this article a while ago, but decided that I should mention it here)--Jpcase (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Naturally, it's portuguese. 2804:14D:5C70:970E:682D:A35C:75C6:5F98 (talk) 23:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for weighing in! Yeah, I realized a long time ago it must be in Portuguese; IMDB clearly made a mistake. Asking this question was among the very first things I ever did on Wikipedia, so it's quite a blast-from-the-past to see someone respond, haha. --Jpcase (talk) 14:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Jesusita en Chihuahua
I have found conflicting information on the authorship of the song "Jesusita en Chihuahau" (Also known as "The Cactus Polka"), which is played towards the end of the film while the cacti are dancing. Some IMDB pages (Including the page for "The Three Caballeros") attribute it to Manuel Esperon and Ernesto Cortazar, however others attribute it to Quirino Mendoza y Cortes. After extensive internet searching on the authorship of the song, I have found that an immense majority of sources state that the song was written by Quirino Mendoza y Cortes, during the Mexican Revolution. These are the only two sources I could find aside from IMDB, that attributed the song to Manuel Esperon:


 * http://forum.bcdb.com/forum/Manuel_Esperon_99_composed_Three_Caballeros_P111748/ (Does not mention Ernesto Cortazar)
 * http://www.afi.com/members/catalog/DetailView.aspx?s=1&Movie=722 (States that the song was written by both Esperon and Cortazar)

In addition to the lack of sources, it seems almost definite that the song was indeed written during the Mexican Revolution which lasted from 1910 to 1920. Manuel Esperon was born in 1911, which means that he could have been no older than 9 years old when the song was written.

I could find two sources attributing the song solely to Ernesto Cortazar (http://music.aol.ca/song/101-strings-orchestra/jesusita-en-chihuahua/808987) (http://music.aol.com/song/101-strings-orchestra/jesusita-en-chihuahua/2594171), one source attributing the song to Ernesto Cortazar and Quirino Mendoza y Cortez (http://music.aol.com/song/silvestre-vargas/jesusita-en-chihuahua/11390026), as well as the source above which attributes it to both Cortazar and Esperon. Cortazar was born in 1897, which means he could have been 23 at the oldest when the song was written, though most sources date the song to 1916, which would have made him only 19. I know that Ernesto Cortazar was a lyricist, though I do not know whether he was exclusively so or if he also wrote the melody of songs. Almost all versions of "Jesusita en Chihuahua" are purely instrumental which means that if Cortazar only wrote lyrics he could not have written the song. It is possible however, that he wrote lyrics to the piece at some point after is initial release. I have only found one version with lyrics though (featured in the film "Love Laughs at Andy Hardy") and I do not believe that Cortazar wrote that version.

I have also found two sources which say that the piece is traditional.


 * http://www.cockmanfamily.com/john/jesse_polka/jesse_polka.pdf
 * http://www.sheetmusicplus.com/title/Jesusita-en-Chihuahua/3776

Though I am not sure, this may simply be due to the fact that all of Quirino Mendoza y Cortez's songs are in the public domain, as there was no copyright law in Mexico when he wrote them.

One further complication is that according to the poster on this site (http://forodeespanol.com/Archive/LetraJesusitaChihuahua/dbrqr/post.htm), some sources state that the song was written by Martin Robles in 1895 under the title "Virginia". I have only been able to find one source saying this, seen here - (http://books.google.com/books?id=nbCZdCO5Y9QC&pg=PA327&lpg=PA327&dq=Jesusita+en+Chihuahua+Martin+Robles&safe=strict&source=bl&ots=3WGmR7J8id&sig=JD-Xdt32j6EjBeO6EJF3Q2U5gCg&hl=en&ei=YbfPTuaWA4n30gHR2oU6&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Jesusita%20en%20Chihuahua%20Martin%20Robles&f=false)

Does anybody have firm proof of who actually wrote this song?--Jpcase (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL additions
An editor, - continues to make additions to the article, ignoring the WP:CRYSTAL guideline. In addition, the additions are unreferenced. Onel5969 (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Birds - Fact and Fiction
Does anyone know which of the birds in the movie are fictional, if any? Not being an ornithologist, they seem to all be capable of being real, or at least based on real birds. I've done a Wikipedia search for them but not being sure of spelling I wasn't able to find anything for certain. If they are real, they should be listed and linked to their Wikipedia articles if those exist. The following is a list of birds from the movie (spelling is a guess):


 * Anabepreto: real or fictional? (said to be a bird of Colombia and Venezuela with "bagpipes" which I take to mean a large lung capacity)
 * Arapapa: real or fictional? (said to be a bird of Paraguay with a large "pompidour"-like crest)
 * La Tierita (the Scissors Bird): real or fictional? (shown to be a bird like a swallow with a very long tail)
 * Arapasu: real or fictional? (shown to be a bird with a large, thin curved beak)
 * Toucan: obviously real
 * Aracuan: real or fictional? (said to an "eccentric" bird with a very unusual call, a bit like a Disney version of Woody Woodpecker)
 * Marequito: real or fictional? (said to a small bird that builds a haphazard looking nest but which is actually very structurally sound)
 * Flamingo: obviously real
 * Ornero: real or fictional? (from The Gauchito, said to be a bird that builds a nest shaped like an oven (orno))

70.31.48.55 (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Issues with "The Gauchito"
There are a few issues I have, primarily geographic, with the setting of The Gauchito. I understand that the Spanish version sets the story in Argentina while the English version places it in Uruguay. More correctly, the gaucho/narrator is said by the primary narrator to be "an old gaucho from Uruguay." It's a bit ambiguous whether the gaucho is most recently from Uruguay but grew up somewhere else or whether the story takes place in Uruguay itself, though I think the latter is the stronger implication. Here are some of the geographic issues with the story:


 * The gaucho says that he went out hunting for "condor birds", which I assume he means the Andean condor. This bird only inhabits the Andean mountains far to the west of Uruguay.
 * Even if accepted that the Andean condor may have had a range capable of reaching Uruguay, or perhaps a stray condor made its way there, the gaucho says he went "high up in the mountains. Uruguay is virtually flat and basically is all Pampas plain or rolling hills.  The highest peak is the Cerro Catedral at 513-4m (1 683-6') AMSL and according to the "Geography of Uruguay" Wikipedia article, "...hilly areas are remarkably featureless, however, and elevations seldom exceed 200 meters [656']."  There simply aren't any mountains high enough in Uruguay as described by the gaucho and shown in the film.
 * Confusingly, the gaucho said he was off to hunt ostriches which are not native to South America, but Africa.

It seems that Disney was either confused when they did this story or they figured Americans probably wouldn't know or care about these things. 70.31.48.55 (talk) 19:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:39, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The Three Caballeros.jpg

Category:Films about chickens
I'm having a hard time understanding why you're against having the "Films about chickens" category added to The Three Caballeros. Last I checked, anthropomorphic chickens are still chickens, so yes, Panchito Pistoles is "literally" a chicken (a cartoon chicken, but still). --Jpcase (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It is WP:NOTDEFINING as the film is not about parrots, ducks or chickens. It has three Disneyfied anthropomorphic cartoon characters as the main characters but that is not the focus of the stories, it is a link that ties the individual story segments together. It is already categorized as category:Films about birds and Category:Films featuring anthropomorphic characters. That is sufficient. The fact that the main characters are cartoon Disney chickens, ducks, and parrots is somewhat irrelevant, as the stories are not focused on that, that is just part of their character descriptions much as it is not about singers (Category:Films about singers) just because a singer is also in the story. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding so fast! I'm afraid that I'm not following though. The Three Caballeros is absolutely about a parrot, a duck, and a chicken. I understand that the plot doesn't have anything inherent to do with those particular species, but neither does the plot have anything inherent to do with birds - so why shouldn't the "Films about birds" category be removed as well? --Jpcase (talk) 03:39, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The story is about Donald Duck, José Carioca and Panchito Pistoles, not about animated ducks, parrots and chickens in general, just as the story is not about animated Americans, Brazilians and Mexicans in general, another attribute of the characters. That is just part of the description of the characters about as important as what they do and the clothes they wear. They are cartoon characters with rich descriptions and backstories in this particular story setting. Unless a story focusses on some attribute of a character, the story isn't really about that attribute. When you say "I understand that the plot doesn't have anything inherent to do with those particular species", that is basically what WP:NOTDEFINING says don't use as a category. I think the mention in the lead about the documentary about birds that kicked off the story somewhat justifies the about birds category, though I think it is weak, and it seems to be a common link for some of the segments. Probably should be removed. Geraldo Perez (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess I just don't see what the harm is in allowing for a broader scope of categories. And I'm not sure that I agree with your interpretation of WP:NOTDEFINING. When you say that The Three Caballeros isn't about chickens in general, well, sure - it's not about the daily life of chickens, in the way that something like Chicken Run is. But it is about a chicken. By the same measure, Chicken Little (2005 film) isn't about the daily life of chickens, but it is about a chicken, and aside from the fact that Chicken Little has the word "chicken" in its title, I don't see why Chicken Little should be considered to be anymore "about chickens" than The Three Caballeros is "about chickens".
 * I would also say that The Three Caballeros actually is about Americans, Brazilians, and Mexicans in general. But it would be redundant to create "Films about Brazilians" and "Films about Mexicans" categories, because the article is already included in the "Films set in Brazil" and "Films set in Mexico" categories; it would also be pointless to create those categories, since having an American, or Brazilian, or Mexican character isn't a particularly distinguishing characteristic of a film. On the other hand, it's rare for a central character in a film to be a chicken - so the fact that Panchito Pistoles is a chicken seems like a defining characteristic of The Three Caballeros, if you ask me. --Jpcase (talk) 05:35, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The harm is WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION in general and having this film in that category when that is just a minor attribute of how Disney chose to animate the characters appearance and what they call him. The character looks a bit like a chicken, is called a rooster, but the character doesn't act like a real chicken, and the film is not about chickens, so it is misleading to categorize it as if it were. A general problems with some editors adding categories to articles, particularly fiction, is trying to use every theme, setting, descriptive adjective as the base of a category when it not the crux of what the fiction is about. I wasn't planning on going through existing articles to prune categories that are not defining but it is a general problem. I just try to keep the ones I watch from getting non-defining categories. WP:OSE is noted but it doesn't set a precedent to continue doing it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As a bit of an aside. American, Brazilian and Mexican are attributes of the three main characters much as their animated appearance is which is why I used those examples. Setting location is an attribute of where the story is based and doesn't imply anything about the main characters so the setting attributes of the story would not be redundant with the nationality attributes of the characters in the story. Geraldo Perez (talk) 06:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * My point about redundancy is that if a story takes place in Brazil and Mexico, then saying that the film also has Brazilian and Mexican characters adds no new information. I realize that setting and nationality are attributes of separate things, but creating separate categories for each attribute would serve no practical purpose. If you ask me, categories on Wikipedia should, above all, be useful. I'm not arguing that we should create a category for "every theme, setting, and descriptive adjective" in a given film, because doing so wouldn't be useful. But I believe that adding the "Films about chickens" category to the Three Caballeros article could be useful, and I disagree that it would be an example of overcategorization - although I'm aware that overcategorization is something to avoid (and I appreciate your vigilance in reverting unconstructive edits to the Caballeros article over the years).
 * If someone were to create an article along the lines of "Films about sombreros" or "Films about cigars" and then add The Three Caballeros to those categories, because Panchito Pistoles wears a sombrero and José Carioca smokes a cigar, then that wouldn't be useful, because, for starters, it wouldn't even be an accurate description of the film - The Three Caballeros isn't about sombreros or cigars, it simply features sombreros and cigars. But if someone created categories along the lines of "Films featuring sombreros" or "Films featuring cigars", then that still wouldn't be useful (and I would consider it a blatant form of overcategorization), because both of those attributes of the characters are incidental. Creating categories for the types of clothes that characters wear or the types of every day activities that characters engage in serves no practical purpose. But creating categories for the types of animals that are central characters in a film does seem to serve a practical purpose. The difference is that wearing a sombrero and smoking a cigar are both minor attributes of the characters, but the fact that Panchito Pistoles is a chicken is a major attribute of his character, regardless of whether or not he acts like a chicken. --Jpcase (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And I see that as a minor attribute of this cartoon character about the same level of how he is dressed. It is a comment on his physical appearance, nothing more, and is basically irrelevant to the story being told. At this point in the discussion we look to have reached in impasse. I'll move this discussion to Talk:The Three Caballeros to get input from others. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I moved this from my talk page for additions discussion in context. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Foreign language dub actors
I removed information about the dub actors for the foreign language versions of this film here and again here as information about dub actors belongs in the articles about this film in those language wikis and it is basically irrelevant trivia for this article what happens in the foreign dubs. A section of the article about the foreign language dub process may be appropriate if sourced but transient details without context add no value to this article. I disagree with the edit summary statement that undid my original edit of "Voice actors from foreign versions are usually non notable in the English wiki, but this is clearly an exception since it is important to point out how Nash, Oliveira and Garay voiced their characters in multiple languages" as I don't see any clear exception to the general statement that "Voice actors from foreign versions are usually non notable in the English wiki" that justifies adding that information. That three of the actors also dubbed some foreign versions is information about the actors themselves, not information about this film. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is interesting information that is relevant to the film; it's not just relevant to the actors. It should be included in the article, but I agree that it should only be included in the "Production" section (or possibly in a "Distribution" section) with references. It doesn't need to be added to the "Cast" section. I'd be very surprised if there aren't several sources out there that discuss this film's dubbing process. I'm not going to take this on myself, but if anyone wants to do so, adding sourced information about the principle actors dubbing their roles for foreign releases of the film would make for a good improvement to this article. --Jpcase (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Babalú
In this 2017 edit, an anonymous IP account edited this article to say that the song "Babalú" is used in The Three Caballeros. Does anyone know for sure whether or not this is accurate? I built the Soundtrack section of this article myself, about a decade ago, and never came across any information about "Babalú" being used in the film. It's certainly possible that I may have missed a track or two while I was compiling the soundtrack information. But it would be good to confirm whether or not "Babalú" is actually used in the film.

If the information about "Babalú" appearing in The Three Caballeros is accurate, can someone identify which scene of the film contains the song? Thanks! --Jpcase (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Cultural sterotyping etc.
Alright, so an an editor added some material, and another editor removed it.

The material was added by User:Shaun3099, with an edit summary of "We added to critical reception to show how the film is read as problematic", and it is lot of material -- about 15 paragraphs. There are some refs.

The material was removed by User:69.122.161.52. His edit summary was "The removal of irrelevant analysis copy and pasted from another source without attribution". Maybe, but I didn't find this exact material anywhere on the web (I did only a cursory test). So if User:69.122.161.52 could tell us where she found the material it was copied from, that'd help. Also it doesn't seem like it'd be entirely irrelevant to the subject. It may too long, or poorly ref'd, or POV, or just not up to our standards, or whatever. But those are different problems to have.

Anyway, the addition of the material by User:Shaun3099 was her second edit ever, and the removal by User:69.122.161.52 was her third edit ever. So that's odd, and what's going on here. I haven't perused the material or checked the refs, but maybe someone familiar with this page can see if some of this material can be salvaged, or what. I mean, it is an awful lot of material, but maybe a couple paragraphs could be refined from it? Herostratus (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Here's the material that was added and then removed:

Herostratus (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As it is now, it definitely places WP:UNDUE weight on these critiques, but the sources look scholarly, and maybe some of it is salvageable.  I am reading over it/considering it.--MattMauler (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is clearly a college essay. The sources are all about literary/film theory — post-colonialism, race and ethnicity perspectives — but they're not about The Three Caballeros specifically. The essay uses The Three Cs as an example to demonstrate the student's mastery of the theory they're learning in class. The points that they're making are definitely valid, and there is an important colonialism critique of The Three Caballeros, but putting it in the article in this form is original research. What we'd want to see is a published source where a writer takes this kind of theory and applies it to The Three Caballeros, and then we would use that secondary source as the reference, and summarize their points in this article. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Mnmh. If it is a college essay, we can't use it, because we can't assume that it is User:Shaun3099's -- altho it probably is. "Probably" is not good enough for copyvio purposes. We can't know if its a college essay, but it's OK to use our wit to say "This really reads like a college essay, so it probably is, so we can't use it".


 * However, we could use the sources to write a much shorter section -- "Some people have claimed such-and-such..." using the sources given. But only the ones we can access -- we can't take User:Shaun3099's word for what they say. (I've contacted User:Shaun3099.( Herostratus (talk) 22:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * American jazz representing White man's culture? Why does the essay keep contrasting the White man with Latin Americans? The former colonies of the Spanish Empire and the Portuguese Empire in Latin America already have plenty of white people and a partly European cultural heritage. Dimadick (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, it doesn't matter what we think, it matters what people say who have sufficient expertise and notability such that it's worthwhile for us to report what they say, provided it's not nonsense. It's not nonsense. It could be wrong I suppose, but its not nonsense. Herostratus (talk) 02:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * There is one source that's relevant above — ref #9: Diversity in Disney Films : Critical Essays on Race, Ethnicity, Gender, Sexuality and Disability (McFarland & Co, 2013), which has a chapter by Karen S. Goldman: "Saludos Amigos and The Three Caballeros: The Representation of Latin America in Disney's "Good Neighbor" Films". It's definitely worthwhile adding a Criticism section that summarizes the main points of that chapter. The text that's posted above doesn't do a very good job of that — it only has two half-sentences from that chapter, and they're not very interesting. I'd suggest scrapping the above text, reading that book, and then adding to the article based on that. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)