Talk:Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit

Buffs
Wallace and Gromit buffs should scrutinize the Wikipedia entry on The Wrong Trousers for an insight into the potential profundity of Nick Park's master creation. Or has Wallace and Gromit just become mainstream with age, or since they sold out to Hollywood? Watch this space and the discussion page on The Wrong Trousers! 18:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)PaulRichmond

Is the "how to prepare" section encyclopedic?
I appreciate the enthusiasm and intentions of the "how to prepare" section, but is it really encyclopedic? A discussion of whether "The Wrong Trousers" is a political satire a) probably doesn't belong on the "Curse of the Were-Rabbit" page, and b) seems to me to veer awfully close to original research. Not that the discussion doesn't have merit: I'm just not sure it belongs here. Josiah Rowe 13:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, I'm going to be bold and remove the section. Here it is, if anyone wants to defend it:


 * ==How to prepare yourself for Wallace and Gromit's new adventure==
 * It's not long now before we all have a chance to see how Wallace and Gromit will fare in their first feature-length film outing. You would do well to review Wikipedia's entry on The Wrong Trousers before you view their new escapade. A lot of things have come to light recently, and within the The Wrong Trousers may be lurking a brilliant allegory and political satire - the new Animal Farm?
 * Do Nick Park and his team have some hidden meanings up their sleaves? Don't rely on them to announce any - they haven't publicly acknowledged that The Wrong Trousers may have a deeper meaning.
 * You should wonder why.

(moved by 13:27, 4 September 2005 (UTC))Josiah Rowe

Reply to Josiah Rowe from PaulRichmond
I contend that you have been a tad too bold: The Curse of the Wererabbit is shortly to be released, and devoted Wallace and Gromit fans will stream in to see it. The monied interests behind the film will ensure creating enough hype to whet their appetites and attract new devotees. The Curse of the Wererabbit is thus "endorsed" by the Wallace and Gromit "brand", so to speak. Your boldness is preventing the public from scrutinising that brand. The Wrong Trousers more than any other work established the Wallace and Gromit brand, and many parents will only too happily take their kids to see Wallace's and Gromit's new adventure, firmly believing in the innocence of this dynamic duo. But would they have been quite so happy at letting their kids see The Wrong Trousers if they had known that it was not just an Oscar- endorsed animation but also a political satire that contained racial puns and stereotypes? I'm not saying that The Wrong Trousers is racist. In fact, I think that the hidden messages in The Wrong Trousers are extremely complex and deserve serious academic and public scrutiny. I also think that The Wrong Trousers deserves viewing anew, viewers having been forwarned that it might actually be a be an allegory and a political satire, thus allowing them to "interconnect" the myriard of symbols, allusions, puns etc and establish, perhaps a new meaning or interpretation - and quite probably a quite unexpected renewed affection for this work. The viewing public needs to be warned that there may be more in the Wallace and Gromit brand than meets the eye. They need to be given the choice. They can then make up their respective minds themselves. I am therefore putting my "warning" back to where it was, so that the public has a better possibilty of making an informed choice. Of course, The Curse of the Wererabbit may be perfectly innocent, but until it goes on general release, we have only the word of those who are seeking to make money from it about what it may contain. The public are unlikely to go here, to the discussion page, and so the information needs to be on the article page.PaulRichmond 15:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Your points are well taken as topics for discussion. However, I'm still not convinced that that discussion belongs on the article page, unless the questions have already been raised in some other outlet.  Your stated purpose above is "to warn the public", "to give the viewing public the choice" and to promote "serious academic and public scrutiny."  I don't think that Wikipedia is meant to be the venue for any of those purposes, laudable as they may be.  The purpose of Wikipedia isn't to promote individual viewpoints or opinions: see here, here and here.  Specifically, I'm thinking of the following from No original research:


 * The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation".


 * I think that discussion of Wallace and Gromit as a political or social satire qualifies as a "new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis" (unless, of course, these themes have been raised elsewhere, in a reputable publication).


 * If the points you raise have been published somewhere else, it would be appropriate to mention it — on the Wrong Trousers and Wallace and Gromit pages, with the relevant citation. For a good example of Wikipedia treatment of the serious or academic aspects of a pop-culture creation, you might want to have a look at the main Buffy the Vampire Slayer page and the well-cited Buffy the Vampire Slayer and social issues. &mdash;Josiah Rowe 16:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Not wanting to flame or anything, but I think the political interpretations of 'The Wrong Trousers' need to be taken with a pinch of salt. Having read them, they sound more like the interpretations of people with too much time on their hand rather than them being the intention of the film maker. You can often read too much into things, you know! Philmein 15:22 GMT, 17th January 2006.

His hair claims?
I haven't seen the film yet (it hasn't opened here), so I've got to ask: "his hair claims to be a wig"? Really? Does the hairpiece speak, or have a tag on it saying "I AM A WIG" or something? I'd not put it past Nick Park to do something like this...&mdash;Josiah Rowe 04:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It does fall off at one point, leading to the line: Wallace: What do you want? Victor: Toupee! Wallace: Well, we take cash or cheques...  smurray  in  chester (User), (Talk) 11:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Title
According to [http:www.wandg.com the official website], the name of the film is Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit. I tried to move the page to that name, but the wiki software wouldn't let me, since that page has a (small) history. Should I put it on the requested moves page, or is there a kind admin who can do it without the formal procedure? —Josiah Rowe 20:35, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * According to the IMDb, it's Wallace & Gromit in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit, but then they're a bit over-literal sometimes. That is exactly as it appears on screen (with a page flip in the middle), but I'd settle for a colon instead of in. --KJBracey 14:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Some Other Gags
When I saw the film a few weeks ago I observed a few other gags. The first one is the name of the policeman, PC Mackintosh, which is a take on PC's and Apple Macintoshes. When Victor goes to the Vicar to find out about the Were-Rabbit the Vicar says "Look at the book on it" (or something to that effect), Victor then looks down at the table to see a magazine called "Nun-wrestling" before the Victor hastily turns round and moves it. While the ending credits roll you see many rabbits fly around the screen. At the very end you see the clichéd phrase "No animals were harmed in the production of this film" and just after that comes up on the screen one of the flying bunny rabbits knocks its head on the phrase!

Spoiler removed
Forgive me for being so bold, but I've removed a spoiler from Philip's character section. Placing the Characters sections after the Plot section is, in my honest opinion, a poor idea- people wanting to get a small idea of the movie without having seen it may want to know the characters that are in it without actually knowing their involvement in the final 20 minutes of the film. Without wanting to sound arrogant, surely spoilers need to be marked, particularly when the Plot section doesn't actually mention the scene in question. Actually, I think the Plot section of all 4 W&G films' wikis need some serious revision. I'd be willing to do just that if nobody else fancies giving it a shot. --L T Dangerous 20:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Requested move
This is the film's true name, according to its posters and website. Requires admin assistance, because Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit has an edit history.


 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~ 


 * Support per nomination —Josiah Rowe 23:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support KJBracey 17:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments

I don't know whether we really need to go through the formal moving procedure, since this move should be uncontroversial, but here it is just in case. —Josiah Rowe 09:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that the IMDb has it as Wallace & Gromit in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit, but they go from the opening titles of the movie, not the posters. I don't mind either way. sjorford #£@%&$?!  15:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You'll also find that they've just renamed all the shorts in a similar vein ("A Grand Day Out with Wallace and Gromit"; "Wallace & Gromit in The Wrong Trousers"), partly at my prompting. But they're a film database, and very, very literal about onscreen titles. Even last week they were still trying to decide between "Kill Bill: Vol. 2" and just "Vol. 2". (Now locked at the former - only "Vol. 2" appears on screen, but the Bride says "Kill Bill" in voiceover just before it. And a spoken title counts.)


 * But for our purposes, an encyclopædia, even if online, is effectively a print medium, and should use the normal print title, rather than any on-screen shenanigans. --KJBracey 17:38, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * At a guess, I'd chance that the reason for only "Vol. 2" in Kill Bill is for ease of special-edition-uber-extra-long-conjoined-DVD-version assembly. But we're straying ...  Current title seems sensible. Chris talk back 22:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Is that an Oppose vote? (I've just added my vote, 'cause I just realized that it might not be clear that I was the nominator. I was once told that "you can't vote for your own move request", but I don't know if that's really a rule or not. —Josiah Rowe 23:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Eh? I thought it had already been done?  Am I missing something in the title somewhere? Chris talk back 01:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)  To answer my own question, it appears I misread the whole vote, and missed the lack of The'' in the current title.  Make that a Support. 01:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Page moved. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

"Notes" section
I've removed the "Notes" section added by an anon user. Most of the entries were unremarkable plot points, and several were already covered in the article. I don't think the section was really very encyclopedic, but I've retained it here, in case anyone disagrees.

reference question
is there any rabbit movie they didn't refrence, besides "night of the lepus"?

Necessity of "References, in-jokes, goofs, and mistakes" Section?
This section (or anyway, much of the material therein) seems a bit extraneous. It's as if we're trying to document every single joke in the movie and explain why they are funny. I was hoping to get some discussion started on whether or not we should at least do some trimming on that section, or perhaps remove it altogether. Any thoughts? Boxclocke "!"  22:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I suppose I've grudgingly come around to the conclusion that it should be left, after finding a similar list on the page for the equally gag-laden film Airplane!. It still seems strangely extraneous. Boxclocke  - "! " 08:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

One of them is wrong anyway. The one about "Run Rabbit Run" being a "clear reference to Dark Side of the Moon" seems a little odd, considering "Run Rabbit Run" is originally from a childrens nursery rhyme. I removed it.

There isn't anyone who can get all the jokes so a list of them should be availible for reading after you've seen the film. Although it should be moved to another article in my opinion.

Leave it. If we can have articles on movies with Historical Innaccuracies (see Pearl Harbor (film) for a noteable example) and even trivia on other films, it's worth saving. Besides, it's a movie where kids can get entertained, and adults can giggle at some of the in-jokes.

One joke that I didn't see mentioned in the article: The planes that Gromit and Philip "fly" are replicas of the Sopwith Camel and the Red Baron's Fokker triplane, possibly in reference to Snoopy's fantasies as a WWI flying ace. Willbyr 01:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The jokes and popular culture references should be left, but it would be good if they could be integrated into the summary of the movie or into a new article, rather than being left as an indiscriminate collection of information. --Gray Porpoise 00:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Mackintosh reference
Quit editing the section to reference the computer. If it was meant to be an injoke to the computer, the spelling would reflect this. The spelling and the character reflects the Mackintosh raincoat.
 * Another reference has been added to the article. Willbyr 04:17, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Doesn't the first name PC make it pretty obvious it is a reference to the Macintosh computer and Windows PCs? 17 March 2006

It could also stand for Police Constable and the the raincoat identified above. Since it's not completely clear it's referencing either or, that piece of trivia should not be entered unless verifiable proof can be produced to substantiate either claim, as it's already adding space to an already huge article. Same goes for other ones with questionable references.--293.xx.xxx.xx 07:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Please also read Citing_sources for further info. --293.xx.xxx.xx 07:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Changes
I've made a few changes to the main page, namely removing the 'end of spoiler' warning as there are some major spoilers detailed below it; altering the fact about Hutch (he says 'mmm.... Monterary Jack, which is not in any of the other films) and adjusting the fact about Totty. It's a slang word but it's not rude! Philmein 15:24 GMT, 17th January 2006

The Vicar wasn't attacked
My problem is with this part of the 'References, in-jokes, goofs, and mistakes' section: "The vicar, in one scene, is attacked by the Were-rabbit, yet he himself never transforms at the full moon, which is what is believed to happen if an individual survives an attack of any were-animal." The were-rabbit doesn't lay a finger on him. He eats the veggies on the alter and the 'cross' the Vicar holds up, but doesn't touch the Vicar himself. Therefore there wouldn't be any reason to expect the Vicar to transform as well. 4.153.235.201 21:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The Invisible Man ref?
Does anyone else think that P.C. Mackintosh looks like he's a read ringer for E.E. Clive as P.C. Jaffers in 1933's The Invisible Man?

Personally, I think the entire section has gone way outta hand. Excluding obvious ones, and the ones I noted from the artbook, many of them seem either silly, or needs a stretch of the imagination to figure out. I think it needs to be sheared. --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but the Mackintosh-Jaffers resemblance seems to be fairly obvious in my opinion. One look at a picture of E.E. Clive as Jaffers and I didn't need to even employ my imagination. Now, what would be a stretch is saying Reverend Clement Hedges looks similar to Dr. Septimus Pretorius in The Bride of Frankenstein. In Mackintosh's case the resemblance makes perfect sense, so I ask that it remain, if only as a speculative "By the way" kind of thing. - Kooshmeister

It's not exactly your contribution, it's some of the other ones. I already deleted a trivia entry that sparked a minor edit war a month or so ago due to the contributors either not meeting halfway, or more of a "I'm right, your wrong!!" type of mentality to see who has the bigger e-penis. Another trivia entry cites 3 possible sources for it's reference. And some of them really are a stretch of the imagination if you think about it. I'm just ready to start pruning since it's pretty much comprising close to 40% of the article layout.--293.xx.xxx.xx 09:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

All right, that makes sense. I agree that quite a lot of that stuff needs to go, and I'd personally limit it to just stuff revealed in the book (which I admit I have not read) or on the extra features on the DVD. Prune away, although I should just mention that I recently watched the "Cracking Commentary" on the DVD, and during the town meeting at the church they mention "the skeptical policeman" in The Invisible Man. They never actually come right out and say they mean Jaffers, or that Mackintosh was inspired by him, though. Still, I figured I'd mention this anyway. - Kooshmeister

I'm in the process of reviewing the movie, and taking notes. So far, at least 5 of them will be pruned.--293.xx.xxx.xx 08:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Lord Of The Rings Reference
"This will be a night to remember" is a line in the movie The Fellowship Of The Ring at Bilbo's party. Blue Leopard 18:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * A night to remember was the title of the story of Titanic - and the name of the film of the book; I'm not convinced they were referencing the film. Apepper 21:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ben Hur reference?
Did anyone else think the dog race at the end was a parody of the Ben Hur chariot race? Cribananda 03:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Trivia and cultural references
I have just restored these after another editor deleted them. The cultural references are highly relevant and the trivia should be incorporated into the article rather than just deleted. Man with two legs 08:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The issue is Verifiability. Sure your statement might be true, but do you have the appropiate references to back it up? The Offical Guide for the movie is whats called a good reference, because another editor can go to the book and say "Oh, I found the reference and it is true, like they listed here on the page." In addition, alot of it is just cruft, which may or maynot have any bearing on the movie experence. Essentially original research. Plus, the page had a fact check from December 2006 according to one tag to find appropiate references to a section; it's now May 2007. How much more time do you really need to verify the statements in the two sections? 6 Months is a bloody heck of enough time to grab some books and magazines, note them, and put them on. Plus the two lists were dangerously violating Avoid trivia sections in articles. --293.xx.xxx.xx 11:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:W&G- the curse of the were-rabbit dvd cover.jpg
Image:W&G- the curse of the were-rabbit dvd cover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal
Hutch (fictional character) is just a short stub and should be merged into this article.--George100 (talk) 04:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. 74.33.174.133 (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Propose to cut In-Jokes section
It's nicely referenced and all, but they aren't inside jokes. Gouda is gouda, you don't need to be associated with the film to know that. And I don't see the purpose of having a list of jokes in the movie, which is essentially what this is. Ethan Mitchell (talk) 03:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The purpose, I'd say, is to make clear the references that people haven't picked up. Many of those jokes require knowledge that many people don't have. So it explains somehthing people might not know. And that's what an encyclopedia is for isn't it? See for example the next post, which deals with just such an uncertainty. DirkvdM (talk) 19:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. This is madness.  For instance, we have a line explaining that "At the end of the movie, after Wallace has reverted back to his naked human form, he preserves his modesty with a box labeled 'May Contain Nuts'."  Why is this an in joke?  If we are concerned that readers won't get the double meaning of the word 'nuts,' why don't we bother to explain it?  It seems like the section is written primarily to applaud the humor of CotWR, but that is more appropriate for a blog.  Ethan Mitchell (talk) 03:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ethan Mitchell. The section shouldn't be called "in jokes", and it probably shouldn't exist at all. The most notable entries should be dispersed throughout the article where relevant, and the rest should be deleted. Zargulon (talk) 12:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Run rabbit run
I added to the in-jokes section that the line 'run, rabbit, run' is from Pink Floyd's Dark side of the moon. Someone else then changed that to saying that it's a reference to a nursery rhyme gong "Run rabbit, Run rabbit, run, run, run/ Best keep away from the farmers gun". But that is not quite the same as the line "Run rabbit run", which is exactly the first line of Pink Floyd's 'On the run'. Without a reliable reference (if any can be found) this can't be resolved, really, so maybe both should be mentioned. But I now wonder, might the Pink Floyd line be a reference to the nursery rhyme? DirkvdM (talk) 19:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Almost certainly, since the 1939 song (only later a nursery rhyme) Run Rabbit Run, was a major 'hit' for Flanagan and Allen durimg WW2 and well-known in the Britain in which the Pink Floyd lyricist Roger Waters (born 1943) grew up: as you will see from the above link, the older song's article states that the Floyd song references it. Given the deliberately old-fashioned British milieu portrayed in "The Curse . . .", a reference to the earlier song seems far more in keeping. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

expansion on jokes section
I have tagged this part of the article for expansion since all of the sources are coming from the pages of a book (The Art of Wallace And Gromit) that is not viewable online. Additionally, none of the sources for this section are verified (since there is no exact description given what it says in the book, unlike what we have done on sources from books on other pages). Not all of these references are even listed on the trivia on IMDB (such as the Feathers McGraw appearence which, in this article, is also written in precise language) although there are certainly a lot there (such as the Run Rabbit Run reference and the barbershop Close Shave reference). Feel free to add more to this section, otherwise certain parts will be incorporated into the article and the rest will be deleted. trainfan01 19:40, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * It definitely doesn't need expanding, if anything the opposite - W&G films are full of references to other media, but it doesn't mean we need to list every one. Also, books are good as a reference, and should be encouraged. Rather than spend lots of time on this section, perhaps try expanding the "reception" or "production" sections with real world information (making of the models, music, etc) Bob talk 10:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually what I figured is that these book references will need the accurate descriptions given from what it says in the books. That has been done on other pages (such as reference no. 1 on Sesame Street Theme (reference came from a book). Oh and making of the models and music does not need to be expanded on this article either. It can be done on the main page. trainfan01 6:23, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

Jokes Section Removed (Keep it that way!)
I have completely removed the Jokes Section for obvious reasons. But I will elaborate for those misguided few who thought it was appropriate in the first place. Firstly no other comedy film Wikipedia page, animated or otherwise, commercially successful or not, has an exhaustive list of all its jokes and cultural references so there is no precedent for such a section here. Secondly, and most importantly, long lists of trivia sand miscellaneous information are discouraged by Wiki guidelines; what is relevant from the lists should be easily integrated into the main page and what isn't relevant shouldn't be included. Sections like this are suitable for a Fan Wiki but not for Wikipedia. 92.28.250.254 (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Where's the video game?
I came here looking for some (any) info on the video game. The article mentions the name, so I searched for it and got this page with #Video_Game, which doesn't exist (any more). Where is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.223.217.219 (talk) 09:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is the article about the game: Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit (video game). Where did you see that link with #Video_Game, because it needs to be updated.--Carniolus (talk) 09:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Van picture
I've removed the picture of the W&G van (twice) as it's clearly from the wrong film. It's from A Matter of Loaf and Death rather than Curse of the Were-Rabbit. W&G were bakers in Loaf & Death which makes sense with the van in the picture ("Top Bun - Wallace & Gromit's Traditional Bakery"), but in Were-Rabbit the van had an "Anti-Pesto" livery as they were pest controllers. Kev (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Notes template
I switched the template for the notes section from ref to refn to help with readability. The footnote marker was a 1 and could be confused with a reference marker. With the refn template, the marker shows up as [note 1] which makes it clear the marker is a footnote rather than a reference.  Bait30  Talk? 22:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Allan Quartermain
Apparently, Victor is a reference to Allan Quatermain. Assuming that this is correct, and that a reliable source can be found, it might be worth adding --Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)